Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The New York Times: A conduit for Israeli propaganda

by shergald Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 08:32:43 AM EST

The Jerusalem Post, among other news sources, published this story back in February, 2010: "NYT editor defends reporter's Israel posting." Then Tovah Lazaroff wrote,

Questions raised following report that Ethan Bronner's son is in the IDF: Can a foreign correspondent cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if his son is an IDF soldier? The New York Times, in an opinion column on Saturday, answered "Yes" to that question when its executive editor Bill Keller defended the paper's Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner, whose son is in the Israeli army.

Ethan Bronner not only has a son in the IDF, but he is married to an Israeli.

Is this Ethan Bronner's son?

Photobucket

Who knows, but there is certainly the possibility that he is serving somewhere in the Palestinian territories in a similar role.

A few days ago, David Morris from US Media And Israel (.com), accused the New York Times of a cover-up that undoubtedly implicated Ethan Bronner, and put the Times on notice that its claim to unbiased reporting is bullshit beyond redemption.

Flotilla Cover-up: The New York Times Accused

June 28, 2010

For the past month, the alternative media have sought concrete evidence that the mainstream U.S. media, including the New York Times, willfully aided Israel's cover-up of information about their Gaza flotilla attack. Prima facie evidence of their complicity is abundant.

The Times' role in the cover-up ranged from suppression of facts and failure to follow leads that might (and did) contradict Israel's version of the massacre, to serving as a shameless conduit for Israeli propaganda. The Times persisted in publishing and republishing the official line of Israel and became a virtual bulletin board for crackpot opinions and commentary. A prime example is Michael Oren's "An Assault on Israel, Cloaked in Peace," arguing delusionally that this humanitarian effort was an "act of aggression" that threatened the very nation of Israel.

The news we Americans received on the massacre seemed written by an Israeli propaganda minister -- in fact, some of it was. The Israeli army  generously provided our media with a carefully edited video of their attack, which major news outlets dutifully broadcast. Long-distance images of civilians defending themselves against commando killers (including a woman brandishing a deck chair) were presented as evidence of armed resistance.  The imprisonment in Gaza of an Israeli soldier four years ago was cited as justification for executing nine peace activists, two shot in the back of the head at point-blank range.

Morris goes on to note alternative media journalists like Philip Weiss (Mondoweiss) and Glenn Greenwald (Salon) who have provided examples of the Times' stonewalling and disinformation, like its failure to interview a single flotilla member. The May 31 Times repeated the Israeli line, that "Israeli officials said that international law allows for the capture of naval vessels in international waters, " giving Israel the apparent legal high ground, yet failed to consult experts in international law (one even  wonders if it quoted Allen Dershowitz). At no point in its reporting did the Times lament the murder of nine peace activists or remark on the immense suffering caused by the illegal siege of Gaza. It rather featured. a front page story on the public relations catastrophe the attack caused Israel.

The Times went even further in covering Israel's ass. Isabel Kershner (quoting Morris again) wrote, "Israel says it allows enough basic supplies through crossings to prevent an acute humanitarian crisis." Again, the paper reported this "cruel lie" citing only Israeli propaganda as their source ("Israel says...").

No editor  of the New York Times would allow such biased journalism unless directed to do so by top management. Who within the New York Times organization would order the dumping of journalistic integrity in order to conform itself to Israeli propaganda? The publisher/owner? When America's most prestigious newspaper allows itself to spread Israeli propaganda and spin, it has broken ranks with responsible journalism.

"The Times must be truly embarrassed, even shamed of their employer's willful deception of American readers (Morris)."

Display:
The New York Times: A conduit for Israeli propaganda | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: MYT: A conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 1)
Now after posting this diary, which I believe has merit in its accusation of bias on the part of the NYT, I found this Op-Ed, in the NYT.

The Two Sides of a Barbed-Wire Fence
NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
June 30, 2010

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is widely acknowledged to be unsustainable and costly to the country's image. But one more blunt truth must be acknowledged: the occupation is morally repugnant.

On one side of a barbed-wire fence here in the southern Hebron hills is the Bedouin village of Umm al-Kheir, where Palestinians live in ramshackle tents and huts. They aren't allowed to connect to the electrical grid, and Israel won't permit them to build homes, barns for their animals or even toilets. When the villagers build permanent structures, the Israeli authorities come and demolish them, according to villagers and Israeli human rights organizations.

On the other side of the barbed wire is the Jewish settlement of Karmel, a lovely green oasis that looks like an American suburb. It has lush gardens, kids riding bikes and air-conditioned homes. It also has a gleaming, electrified poultry barn that it runs as a business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/opinion/01kristof.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

Strange, indeed.

by shergald on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 08:53:54 PM EST
Re: MYT: A conduit for Israeli propaganda (4.00 / 3)
although so desperate is he to show that somebody is worse than Israel that he cites this

It's fair to acknowledge that there are double standards in the Middle East, with particular scrutiny on Israeli abuses. After all, the biggest theft of Arab land in the Middle East has nothing to do with Palestinians: It is Morocco's robbery of the resource-rich Western Sahara from the people who live there.

Last I heard, Morocco is in Western Africa which makes it an African country. The language is Arabic, the religion is Arabic rooted but they are still African, just as the USA speaks English and is Christian (from Palestine, ie nearly Arab) but isn't european. In fact the majority of the people in Morocco have African heritage and their culture is recognisably African.

He might have been less inaccurate claiming that it's a muslim thing, but then he'd really have been in a heap of it. Still, at least he recognised that the occupation is bad which is more than most NYT journos manage..

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:45:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: MYT: A conduit for Israeli propaganda (4.00 / 3)
Good catch - apparently the Western Sahara is in the Middle East, now...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The NY Times: A conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 1)
Nice One Shergald.

Hope you don't mind if it is cross-posted.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 06:40:19 AM EST
Re: The NY Times: A conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 0)
No problem, even thanks for the gesture.

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:06:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 1)
European Tribune - The New York Times: A conduit for Israeli propaganda
The imprisonment in Gaza of an Israeli soldier four years ago
Is that Gilad Shalit?

Imprisonment!!??

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:39:52 AM EST
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 0)
I thought Shalit was taken prisoner by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the last invasion of that country was apparently a "rescue" mission.

So how was he smuggled down to Gaza when they can't even get dried thyme in ?

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:47:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 1)
Helen:
Shalit was taken prisoner by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the last invasion of that country was apparently a "rescue"
hahahahah

Gilad Shalit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early on Sunday morning, 25 June 2006, Shalit was abducted by Palestinian militants who infiltrated an Israeli army post on the Israeli side of the southern Gaza Strip border after crossing through an underground tunnel near the Kerem Shalom border.[25] During the attack, two Palestinian militants[26] and two IDF soldiers were killed and three others wounded, aside from Shalit, who reportedly suffered a broken left hand and a light shoulder wound after his tank was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG).[27]


By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:53:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 1)
2006 Lebanon War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[26] The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two additional soldiers, believed to have been killed outright or mortally wounded, were snatched by Hezbollah to Lebanon.[27][28][26]

...

On Wednesday 16 July 2008, in accordance with the mandates of Resolution 1701, Hezbollah transferred the coffins of captured Israeli soldiers,[351] Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, in exchange for incarcerated Palestine Liberation Front militant Samir Kuntar, four Hezbollah militants captured by Israel during the war, and bodies of about 200 other Lebanese and Palestinian militants held by Israel.[352] Until that time, Hezbollah had refused to provide information on Goldwasser and Regev.



By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 0)
Ah, yes. I was confusing the issues

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 10:28:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 1)
Helen:
how was he smuggled down to Gaza when they can't even get dried thyme in ?
He was taken in mid-2006, when the Hamas government was being boycotted by the Quartet, but before the 2007 Battle of Gaza between hamas and Fatah. The Israeli blockade dates from 2007, too...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 10:55:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (4.00 / 2)
European Tribune - The New York Times: A conduit for Israeli propaganda
No editor  of the New York Times would allow such biased journalism unless directed to do so by top management.
Why? Assuming that the editors themselves are biased on the issue is a much simpler, nonconspiratorial explanation.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:42:32 AM EST
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 0)
You have a right to ask that question, but the editors of a prestigious newspaper like the NYT would not likely savor criticism that it is biased in its reporting.

Still, Ethan Bronner's boss defended his objectivity, even though, if only as a matter of perception, the Times would have faired better in the public's eyes if it had done what it did in the past, and assigned a nonJewish bureau chief. That practice was engaged in precisely for the purpose of avoiding charges of bias. Now it seems that the Times went 180 degrees in the opposite direction by assigning a Jewish bureau chief, Bronner, who is married to an Israeli and has a son in the IDF. The result turned out to be flagrant bias as indicated by Morris, which was documented by him in the NYT coverage of the Flottila incident.


by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 10:23:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 1)
But you are claiming not only that the Editors knwe their correspondent was biased, but that they allowed it because of pressure from the management/owners, and moreover that the Editors would find that less offensive than just they themselves being blind to their own biases.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 10:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: NYT a conduit for Israeli propaganda (none / 0)
That was actually Morris' belief because the owner/publishers of the NYT obviously have a great deal of influence on its content. Whether a paper is liberal or conservative in its output, for example, is a publisher's decision. Take Murdoch as an example or the Washington Post when it went after Nixon and brought him down. It had the owner/publisher's concordance, at least according to the WaPo editor.

I already mentioned the dramatic change in the nature of the Times Jerusalem bureau, and there seems little question that it came from the top. Editors are always under the thumb of their employers.

So while we lack evidence about what went on behind the scenes at the Times, one has to strongly suspect that it was a publisher's choice to support Israel in whatever way possible including the posting of Ethan Bronner in the position of bureau chief, even after it was exposed that he was married to an Israeli and that his won entered the IDF.

But you can argue the point, although it would be nice to read a reasonable argument for a change.

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 01:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The New York Times: A conduit for Israeli propaganda | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]