On Israel, the New York Times is perniciously one-sided

At Adbusters, Matthew A. Taylor writes:

Although the spin is hard to detect for the average reader, New York Times reportage of Middle East affairs is perniciously biased. In their seminal book, Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East, Princeton professor Richard Falk and media critic Howard Friel argue that “the Times regularly ignores or under-reports a multitude of critical legal issues pertaining to Israel’s policies, including Israel’s expropriation and settlement of Palestinian land, the two-tier system of laws based on national origin evocative of South Africa’s apartheid regime, the demolition of Palestinian homes, and use of deadly force against Palestinians.” In other words, what is not said by the New York Times may be even more important than what is said.

In June of 2010, a year and a half after the Israeli military launched what a United Nations investigation described as “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population,” the New York Times sent a photographer into Gaza to capture a slice of daily life. Ethan Bronner, the Times Jerusalem bureau chief, wrote the narrative for the photo essay entitled “Gaza, Through Fresh Eyes,” in which he gushes about “jazzy cellphone stores and pricey restaurants … endless beaches with children whooping it up … the staggering quality of the very ordinary.” Seemingly lifted from an apolitical travel magazine, Bronner’s article merely alludes to families who have been “traumatized,” and omits any mention of the UN allegations of recently committed Israeli war crimes and human rights violations. Other than an oblique reference to “destroyed buildings” and “rubble,” Bronner’s travelogue also elides the vast civilian infrastructure Israel destroyed during the onslaught, including chicken farms, a flour mill, a sewage treatment plant, a UN school, vast tracts of civilian housing, government buildings, a prison, police stations, TV stations, newspapers … and between 600 and 700 factories, workshops and businesses. The impression left by Bronner? Gaza is an OK place; nothing remarkable to see there, least of all evidence of Israeli war crimes; move along, move along.

(H/t Mondoweiss)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 thoughts on “On Israel, the New York Times is perniciously one-sided

  1. Norman

    So, we should expect otherwise from the NYT? The new editor or perhaps I should say the censorship end of it, has amply shown a biases against anyone who questions their point of print. It shouldn’t take 24 hours to post a reply from someone who takes an opposing view or not posting the comment at all. The NYT is no longer one that prints all the news that’s fit to print for quite some time now. Besides, they have shown more often than not to be the unofficial organ of the government. Of course, they are in the heart of those who believe is all things Israeli.

  2. Morgan-LynnGrigs Lamberth

    This policy blasphemes morality! The NYE should practice fairness and -truth!
    As one for J Street’s fair two-state policy, this betrays that. This actually counters the true needs of Israelis.
    We Americans should ever be fair!
    Both the Palestinans and the Israelis deserve better than this!
    Wouldn’t this NYT policy support Judeophobia?

  3. krissy

    I used to believe in the integrity of the Times. Now it reads like the New York Post. When it comes to foreign policy, the economy and science it really seems as if their writers are uninformed. Its no longer reputable.

Comments are closed.