I have pointed out your same contention when I argue with friends about the NY Times' coverage of Israel, the Middle East generally, campus protests and antisemitism. That is: that It is not that the Times gets generally its fact wrong -- although it certainly does at times (see., e.g., the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital). Rather, it is that the paper ignores history and context, cites biased (and unqualified "experts"), gives the last word/quote of the article to the side (the Palestinians) to which it clearly sympathizes and omits facts that runs counter to its preconceived narrative of the conflict.
Rather than try to get a letter published in the paper, which I have found impossible if it contains criticism of the Times' coverage, I have instead email many of the writers directly. You can do this by clicking on the writer's name at the front of the story and then clicking on "Contact." I have done this with numerous writers, particularly the Jerusalem Bureau Chief Patrick Kingsley and the writer covering the conflict on a daily basis, Aaron Boxerman. I have also contacted, among others, Stephanie Saul, Michael Crowley, Ephrat Livini, Liam Stack, Adam Rasgon, Hiba Yazbek, Julian Barnes, Farnaz Fassihi, Eric Schmidt, Isabel Kershner (whose coverage I have found to be fairer than others), John Koon, Alyce McFadden, Sarah Nir, Alex Marshall, Wesley Parnell and Yan Zhuang. Most simply do not respond. Aaron Boxerman, to his credit, did respond a few times but he has not done so in a while. Stephanie Saul, who has covered issues relating to the universities and antisemitism, has responded, to her credit. At the very least, I want the reporters to know that there are people who are reading what they produce critically and not simply swallowing as gospel whatever the Times publishes. I encourage others to do the same.
Richard Landes writes that this false (or biased) reporting is a result of fear of stating the truth. I consider it a (journalistic) lost moral compass of holding on to their jobs in environment of bias and prejudice against the Jews.
When I watch or listen to the news, I am amazed how the information is presented – when it is about Israel, it stated these are “unverified sources,” when anything is stated about any other country or actions, this particular statement is never added.
And while the author does not regurgitate the facts that you offer (facts that have been told many times before in the NYT), he does offer new perspectives and points of view on all sides of this issue. This is a well-argued 2,500-word news analysis that includes history, context and new reporting. To attack it as a half-truth is unfair.
Gary: i'm surprised. the story is clearly labeled a "New Analysis." Do i have to remind you that this is the reporter's take and not the full story? I frankly think Michael Shear gets to an important truth here about the costs involved in Israel's decision to defend itself so vigorously. It doesn't care about world opinion; it cares about Israel's security. For you to "blame the press" for Israel's poor image is simply unfair.
In answer to your question, I would certainly advise Israel not to fight Hamas with complete disregard for the civilians who are being killed. Pick whatever number you would like as to the number of militants Israel has killed (20,000/25,000), the number of civilians killed is still too high. And of course, neither you nor I have any basis for knowing whether a targeted person is really a Hamas militant other than that the IDF stated that it so. And assuming the person targeted by the IDF is a legitimate target, what level of collateral damage is acceptable. Hamas is indisputably a terrorist organization and shamelessly uses civilians as shield, but Israel can not take this as carte blanche to turn Gaza into a free fire zone and has a moral/legal obligation to use appropriate tactics, which should include reducing the number of children killed as close to zero as possible,
Over Pesach we heard, during public talks, from Ariella Noveck who runs the organization Bottom Line Media - a nonprofit “Empowering Journalism, Reclaiming the Truth” as to Israel. She said that she also is in touch with journalists after reading their “half-true” columns, and finds them to be open to her input. She also arranges trips for them, if they have not previously been, to Israel to get a more balanced view. It was interesting to learn about an organization of which we knew nothing.
Thanks for your comment, Andy, and for your practical advice about reading Times reporters directly. Much appreciated.
I hope you sent this piece to the New York Times editor.
I have pointed out your same contention when I argue with friends about the NY Times' coverage of Israel, the Middle East generally, campus protests and antisemitism. That is: that It is not that the Times gets generally its fact wrong -- although it certainly does at times (see., e.g., the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital). Rather, it is that the paper ignores history and context, cites biased (and unqualified "experts"), gives the last word/quote of the article to the side (the Palestinians) to which it clearly sympathizes and omits facts that runs counter to its preconceived narrative of the conflict.
Rather than try to get a letter published in the paper, which I have found impossible if it contains criticism of the Times' coverage, I have instead email many of the writers directly. You can do this by clicking on the writer's name at the front of the story and then clicking on "Contact." I have done this with numerous writers, particularly the Jerusalem Bureau Chief Patrick Kingsley and the writer covering the conflict on a daily basis, Aaron Boxerman. I have also contacted, among others, Stephanie Saul, Michael Crowley, Ephrat Livini, Liam Stack, Adam Rasgon, Hiba Yazbek, Julian Barnes, Farnaz Fassihi, Eric Schmidt, Isabel Kershner (whose coverage I have found to be fairer than others), John Koon, Alyce McFadden, Sarah Nir, Alex Marshall, Wesley Parnell and Yan Zhuang. Most simply do not respond. Aaron Boxerman, to his credit, did respond a few times but he has not done so in a while. Stephanie Saul, who has covered issues relating to the universities and antisemitism, has responded, to her credit. At the very least, I want the reporters to know that there are people who are reading what they produce critically and not simply swallowing as gospel whatever the Times publishes. I encourage others to do the same.
Yes to every point you made! Marilynn is right -- and if the NYT does not publish, then the WSJ might -- and should.
Richard Landes writes that this false (or biased) reporting is a result of fear of stating the truth. I consider it a (journalistic) lost moral compass of holding on to their jobs in environment of bias and prejudice against the Jews.
When I watch or listen to the news, I am amazed how the information is presented – when it is about Israel, it stated these are “unverified sources,” when anything is stated about any other country or actions, this particular statement is never added.
Another nice article. Thank you for that!
Wishing you Long Life on your father’s yarzeit.
And while the author does not regurgitate the facts that you offer (facts that have been told many times before in the NYT), he does offer new perspectives and points of view on all sides of this issue. This is a well-argued 2,500-word news analysis that includes history, context and new reporting. To attack it as a half-truth is unfair.
Gary: i'm surprised. the story is clearly labeled a "New Analysis." Do i have to remind you that this is the reporter's take and not the full story? I frankly think Michael Shear gets to an important truth here about the costs involved in Israel's decision to defend itself so vigorously. It doesn't care about world opinion; it cares about Israel's security. For you to "blame the press" for Israel's poor image is simply unfair.
In answer to your question, I would certainly advise Israel not to fight Hamas with complete disregard for the civilians who are being killed. Pick whatever number you would like as to the number of militants Israel has killed (20,000/25,000), the number of civilians killed is still too high. And of course, neither you nor I have any basis for knowing whether a targeted person is really a Hamas militant other than that the IDF stated that it so. And assuming the person targeted by the IDF is a legitimate target, what level of collateral damage is acceptable. Hamas is indisputably a terrorist organization and shamelessly uses civilians as shield, but Israel can not take this as carte blanche to turn Gaza into a free fire zone and has a moral/legal obligation to use appropriate tactics, which should include reducing the number of children killed as close to zero as possible,
Over Pesach we heard, during public talks, from Ariella Noveck who runs the organization Bottom Line Media - a nonprofit “Empowering Journalism, Reclaiming the Truth” as to Israel. She said that she also is in touch with journalists after reading their “half-true” columns, and finds them to be open to her input. She also arranges trips for them, if they have not previously been, to Israel to get a more balanced view. It was interesting to learn about an organization of which we knew nothing.