Hi Gary, thanks for writing this response. As a fellow Times reader and Jew, I have also, at times, been dismayed with the coverage. The diagnosis is deep rooted, and there's a lot of thinkers who have been saying for a while that the Times has "lost its way," and cow toed to a dogma of the "oppressed." It's hard to argue otherwise, except that there has also been a lot of great coverage in the paper that weighs the war on balance. When it comes to something like a 30+ page photographic spread, that's an editorial decision that does seem like it's being made on a more comprehensive level, and it's unfortunate that there isn't more balance in that coverage, but as awful and horrific as the Oct 7 attacks were, I don't see anyway that those attacks could be foregrounded (on a magazine cover) given what we've seen go down in Gaza over these last few months. All of your points are absolutely true, particularly the way Hamas uses its own citizens as human shields, but even that doesn't excuse what has been perpetrated by the Israeli gov't. This all out attack on life in Gaza has been extremely depressing, and I hate to say it, but there's no way it could not be "the story" at this point. I'm not excusing some of the Times' stilted coverage, I just feel like this war shit has gone way overboard, and it's understandable why a paper would cover it this way.
I've been a Times reader since I was 10 — so 60+ years! I’ve long recognized their clear anti-Israel bias, yet I defended their overall effort, making excuses and refraining from long-term cancellations.
In fact, I gave two talks at my Brooklyn Heights shul several years ago arguing that we should continue to read the Times!
But when I went through last Saturday’s paper, that was it.
I started composing a cancellation letter in my head (it being Shabbos, the writing was deferred). The Gaza photo, on top of weeks and weeks of anti-Israel propaganda (the Gaza mayor’s op-ed just one example; Thomas Friedman nonsense topping multiple editorial pages and filling Sunday spreads, just one more of many) … all too much now that real lives — all our lives both here and in Israel — are seemingly immediately at stake.
Gary’s last graf poses a question that merits asking again and again—
“Finally, why would the editors of the New York Times publish a piece of uncontested propaganda when their mandate is to seek and publish the truth?”
Although the recent photo essay of the Israeli-Gaza war is unbalanced, as Gary has written, I believe that it really doesn’t matter to American public opinion and to the actions of global leaders. By this time, most individuals have chosen their sides and internalized their perspectives on the conflict. Israeli leadership is determined to extirpate Hamas - a futile effort that will only deepen the contempt for Israel that is felt throughout much of the Middle East. The Israeli military strategy and goals appear to be “Unwinable” according to many analysts who cite the organic nature of Hamas’s leadership, which is supported by 42% of Gaza’s in a recent poll. Moreover, Hamas, which has units throughout the Middle East, is built to sustain heavy damage and to survive the decapitation of its leadership in Gaza. Unfortunately, the current leadership of Israel is hell bent on retaliation and revenge, which is never a successful motive.
Please consider the following report from the NYT: Skepticism Grows Over Israel’s Ability to Dismantle Hamas (12-27-2023).
“Israel has vowed time and again to eliminate the group responsible for the brutal Oct. 7 attack, but critics increasingly see that goal as unrealistic or even impossible.”
Naturally, the first reaction is to dismiss these “critics” as Palestinian partisans. Yet, further consideration of their credentials indicates that many of the critics are thoughtful analysts with a deep understanding of the capabilities of Hamas and of the impossible task ahead for Israel in seeking to eliminate a multi-headed organization such as Hamas, which is threaded throughout the culture, economy and politics of the Palestinian peoples.
Bernie and I are having the exact same reactions to the Times’ coverage. Have you any contacts at the Times you can send this to? I think those of us who are still subscribers need to start writing them about our concerns.
I gave up my Times subscription years ago when their coverage of the most attended Israel Day parade in New York in history was simply a picture of Palestinian protestors. No supporter of Israel should ever give a dime to the Times for a subscription and the only reason for a Jewish person to read it is to see how the enemy thinks and get depressed. You are late to the game
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comment, Burt.
You should write this in a letter to the editor of the Times.
Hi Gary, thanks for writing this response. As a fellow Times reader and Jew, I have also, at times, been dismayed with the coverage. The diagnosis is deep rooted, and there's a lot of thinkers who have been saying for a while that the Times has "lost its way," and cow toed to a dogma of the "oppressed." It's hard to argue otherwise, except that there has also been a lot of great coverage in the paper that weighs the war on balance. When it comes to something like a 30+ page photographic spread, that's an editorial decision that does seem like it's being made on a more comprehensive level, and it's unfortunate that there isn't more balance in that coverage, but as awful and horrific as the Oct 7 attacks were, I don't see anyway that those attacks could be foregrounded (on a magazine cover) given what we've seen go down in Gaza over these last few months. All of your points are absolutely true, particularly the way Hamas uses its own citizens as human shields, but even that doesn't excuse what has been perpetrated by the Israeli gov't. This all out attack on life in Gaza has been extremely depressing, and I hate to say it, but there's no way it could not be "the story" at this point. I'm not excusing some of the Times' stilted coverage, I just feel like this war shit has gone way overboard, and it's understandable why a paper would cover it this way.
On target; exactly my thoughts as well.
I've been a Times reader since I was 10 — so 60+ years! I’ve long recognized their clear anti-Israel bias, yet I defended their overall effort, making excuses and refraining from long-term cancellations.
In fact, I gave two talks at my Brooklyn Heights shul several years ago arguing that we should continue to read the Times!
But when I went through last Saturday’s paper, that was it.
I started composing a cancellation letter in my head (it being Shabbos, the writing was deferred). The Gaza photo, on top of weeks and weeks of anti-Israel propaganda (the Gaza mayor’s op-ed just one example; Thomas Friedman nonsense topping multiple editorial pages and filling Sunday spreads, just one more of many) … all too much now that real lives — all our lives both here and in Israel — are seemingly immediately at stake.
Gary’s last graf poses a question that merits asking again and again—
“Finally, why would the editors of the New York Times publish a piece of uncontested propaganda when their mandate is to seek and publish the truth?”
Janus Perspective
Although the recent photo essay of the Israeli-Gaza war is unbalanced, as Gary has written, I believe that it really doesn’t matter to American public opinion and to the actions of global leaders. By this time, most individuals have chosen their sides and internalized their perspectives on the conflict. Israeli leadership is determined to extirpate Hamas - a futile effort that will only deepen the contempt for Israel that is felt throughout much of the Middle East. The Israeli military strategy and goals appear to be “Unwinable” according to many analysts who cite the organic nature of Hamas’s leadership, which is supported by 42% of Gaza’s in a recent poll. Moreover, Hamas, which has units throughout the Middle East, is built to sustain heavy damage and to survive the decapitation of its leadership in Gaza. Unfortunately, the current leadership of Israel is hell bent on retaliation and revenge, which is never a successful motive.
Please consider the following report from the NYT: Skepticism Grows Over Israel’s Ability to Dismantle Hamas (12-27-2023).
“Israel has vowed time and again to eliminate the group responsible for the brutal Oct. 7 attack, but critics increasingly see that goal as unrealistic or even impossible.”
Naturally, the first reaction is to dismiss these “critics” as Palestinian partisans. Yet, further consideration of their credentials indicates that many of the critics are thoughtful analysts with a deep understanding of the capabilities of Hamas and of the impossible task ahead for Israel in seeking to eliminate a multi-headed organization such as Hamas, which is threaded throughout the culture, economy and politics of the Palestinian peoples.
Bernie and I are having the exact same reactions to the Times’ coverage. Have you any contacts at the Times you can send this to? I think those of us who are still subscribers need to start writing them about our concerns.
And so many other newspapers and other media have similar coverage. The Washington post is one example.
I gave up my Times subscription years ago when their coverage of the most attended Israel Day parade in New York in history was simply a picture of Palestinian protestors. No supporter of Israel should ever give a dime to the Times for a subscription and the only reason for a Jewish person to read it is to see how the enemy thinks and get depressed. You are late to the game