Jokes and Fantasies in the Times

Jokes and Fantasies in the Times

Today's joke comes from Neil MacFarquhar of the New York Times, in a story today:

Although Mr. Sharon was the architect of Israel's settlement policy, it was he who decided to dismantle some 25 of the settlements, including all of the small but ideologically fervent outposts in the Gaza Strip that retarded peace prospects during Israel's occupation of the strip.
Yes, no missiles or Hamas or nuthin and hey, did you notice how peaceful the place has been since the Israelis withdrew. Right! Yuk yuk yuk. Come on, can't you take a joke? This guy is funny.

On the editorial page, meanwhile, all is serious and solemn, as the beloved Sulzberger template was hard at work:

... Likud Party, now headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, represents the same old Likud way: inflaming Palestinian tensions through war and continuing settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank.
This, remember, is not a joke. The Times has decided, by editorial fiat, that the entire West Bank is "Palestinian," and that's that.

Similarly, the Times is perfectly serious when it contends that "Palestinian tensions" would simply subside if the "right wing" Likud would stop with this "war" stuff. Stop making war, Likud, damn it! Then all will be peaceful, as we see lately in Gaza.

What we have here is a "Pinch" Sulzberger fantasy. Don't forget: Pinch (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.), as publisher, runs the editorial page, and these views are his. Pinch's editorialist continues:

The vision pushed forward by Mr. Sharon for the past year has been built around the central tenet of separation: the idea that the Israelis can't live with the Palestinians, so they will separate from the Palestinians and build a wall to make the separation visible and permanent.

Again, it is possible, though not likely, that Pinch & Co. seriously believe that preventing suicide bombers was not the reason for the security fence.

It is possible, though not likely, that Pinch & Co. seriously believe that preventing suicide bombers was not the reason for the security fence. That's what's known as a "lie." Ditto for their statement that the fence is a "wall," because for most of its length it's a fence and not a wall.

But hey, we're talking about the grandson of the publisher (Arthur Hayes Sulzberger) who ignored Auschwitz. What's a couple of fantasies and a lie or two when you have that kind of legacy to carry on?

UPDATE: A reader points out that Steve Erlanger's front page wrapup piece devotes all of one sentence at the very end to the continued violence in Gaza -- and leaves out an important fact. The Pals on Thursday released the kidnappers of a British family after a rampage by terrorists. Not fit to print. Why?
------------------

To read the most recent items in the Mediacrity blog, to which this item was cross-posted, click here!

Posted by Mediacrity at January 6, 2006 09:22 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11944


Comments

1. avi said:

IT MUST BE STATED AGAIN AND AGAIN- THE NYT SYSTEMATICALLY COVERED UP THE HOLOCAUST!

EVEN IF ONLY ONE LIFE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED BY INTENSIVE REPORTING IT WOULD BE WORTH IT.

HOWEVER DADDY SULZBERGER WAS TOO BUSY WITH HIS SHIKSA AND WANTINGTOO BE ACCEPTED BY WASP SOCIETY THAT HE COVERED IT UP.

TOO BAD THE ENTIRE FAMILY COULD NOT BE TRADED FOR GOOD JEWS WHO PERISHED.

IF WE COULD PUT THEM IN A TIME MACHINE AND TRADE THEM FOR GOOD JEWS IN TREBLINKA I WOULD GLADLY VOLUTEER TO BE THE KAPO TO SHOVE PINCH AND PUNCH INTO THE SHOWER.

Posted by: avi on January 6, 2006 10:50 AM

2. Poitiers-Lepanto said:

OK, I was going to post a joke but Avi is right, we are talking about decades and decades of horrors: the subversives in here are as guilty as the subversives who worldwide have made of the XX Century the century of mass-murder.
And their help to the terrorists today is in line with this ignoble tradition.

Posted by: Poitiers-Lepanto on January 6, 2006 11:14 AM

3. Meryl Yourish said:

Hey, did the Times just call Gazans retarded?

Posted by: Meryl Yourish on January 6, 2006 11:33 AM

4. Yaron said:

If they did, it must have been projection.

Posted by: Yaron on January 6, 2006 12:45 PM

5. Mediacrity said:

Note my update -- the Times's coverage today was worse than I initially described.

Posted by: Mediacrity on January 6, 2006 03:06 PM

6. Paul Greif said:

#1. Actually, if I recall correctly, according to the historian David S. Wyman in his two classic works on American Refugee Policy, "Paper Walls" and "The Abandonment Of The Jews", the New York Times during the war years actually printed MORE Holocaust-related stories than most major U.S. papers. This is not stated in support of the Times, but simply to point out that disinterest or lack of information in print on the subject of the plight of refugees and the mass murder of European Jews was a nation-wide phenomena.

Posted by: Paul Greif on January 6, 2006 04:41 PM

7. kuhnkat said:

The elitist NYT and other papers try to create the attitude of the people. Right now the RED states appear to be in the majority and the NYT and other papers are losing subscriptions...

Could it have been the same then?? What the elite media was pushing did not match the popular opinion??

Posted by: kuhnkat on January 7, 2006 10:13 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)