When Will The #NewYorkTimes Stop Whitewashing Palestinian Terrorism? | #NYTIMES

March 19, 2013
(Keep In Mind)

 the long history of Arabs throwing rocks at Jews. In Jews and Arabs: Their Contacts Through the Ages, S. D. Goitein wrote in 1955:

Media_http4bpblogspot_gfdwoIn former times–and in remote places even today–it was common for Muslim schoolboys to stone Jews. When the Turks conquered Yemen in 1872, an envoy was sent from the Chief Rabbi of Istanbul to inquire what grievance the Yemenite Jews had against their neighbors. It is indicative that the first thing of which they complained was this molestation by the schoolboys. But when the Turkish Governor asked an assembly of notables to stop this nuisance,there arose an old doctor of Muslim law and explained that this stone-throwing at Jews was an age-old custom (in Arabic ‘Ada) and therefore it was unlawful to forbid it. [p. 76]


NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof retweets message comparing pro-Israel group to pigs

January 16, 2013

columnist (Nicholas Kristof )is facing criticism after retweeting a controversial message that referred to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the National Rifle Association as “the 2 most pig like lobbies” in America.

Longtime Israel critic M.J. Rosenberg, who was dumped by the liberal Media Matters for America for his use of borderline anti-Semitic language, authored the controversial tweet Wednesday afternoon. It called to mind recently unearthed statements by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi that referred to Jews as “pigs.”
“OBAMA told the 2 most pig like lobbies, AIPAC & NRA, to drop dead in same month. Next: Chamber of Commerce,” Rosenberg wrote.
The missive was then retweeted by Kristof and a slew of others.

this apparently went on the same day that the New York Times attacked Morsi in an editorial criticizing the Egyptian leader for comparing Jews to Apes and Pigs


Mainstream media watchdogs are toothless covering Obama and Libya scandal

October 29, 2012

(EYE)(Fox News) When Mitt Romney chose not to directly engage President Obama on Libya in last Monday’s third presidential debate, the mainstream media wrote it off as over-caution on the Republican challenger’s part.That might be true. Certainly a lot of Republicans think so. But what is the mainstream media’s excuse for cautiously engaging the president on Libya? Aren’t we supposed to be watchdogs? The ongoing story is story focused on whether the Obama administration provided, or refused to provide, adequate protection for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it faced the threat of attack on Sept. 11. The attack left the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead. Subsequent conflicting accounts coming from the administration on how the White House responded, or didn’t respond, are tailor-made for a full-blown media feeding frenzy.
Yet, the so-called media watchdogs so far have been mostly toothless.
Case in point: On Friday, FoxNews.com reported that it “learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command… — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.”
That’s a very chilling story. And if correct, it could be very damaging to the President Obama’s re-election chances. But looking at the websites Friday of other major news outlets, the story is mostly ignored.
It was not picked up or reported by The New York Times. The Washington Post didn’t cover it either. Same for USA Today. Neither did NBC, CBS, CNN or ABC.
CNN had a link on its Website front page to a story that says “doubts surface” on whether claims of responsibility for the Benghazi attacks was the work of terrorists. The story mostly supports administration accounts and refutes Republican critics such as Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.)
NBC’s only Friday story on Libya said in its headline. “Libya Disappears from Romney Stump Speeches.”
CBS’s latest story on Libya had House Speaker John Boehner asking Obama for “answers” about the attacks.
On Thursday, the major media were loaded with stories and videos in which Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the administration saying that the US military did not respond to the attack because in did not have adequate “real-time information” to put American forces at risk. Not much follow-up on that.
Also on Thursday, NBC’s Brian Williams interviewed Obama on “Rock Center” asking him what can only be described as a “softball” question on Libya: “Have you been happy with the intelligence, especially in our post 9/11 world? The assessment of your intelligence community, as we stand here, is that it still was a spontaneous terrorist attack and were you happy with what you were able to learn as this unfolded?”
A tougher question might have been, “Why have the administration’s explanations of what really happened, and how you responded, been all over the map?”
So what’s going on here? Are the media just protecting Obama at a critical time in this election campaign, or are they just not following the latest CIA story because they would have to give credit to Fox News?
Whatever the reason, it is not good watchdog journalism.


Is this the blue print in Israel that the progressive Left in America wants for the #NYTimes? A media bailout.

September 27, 2012

When the media loses readers because it lies to the people about two state delusions…. why a bailout for the MEDIA… of course! (jpost) MK Shama-Hacohen says law must safeguard workers against wage defaults: “not 1 shekel can remain owed to even 1 worker.”

Photo: ben hartman

The government is obliged to prevent scenarios such as the current one in which Ma’ariv workers have not received payments owed to them by law, Knesset Economics Committee Chairman Carmel Shama-Hacohen (Likud) said Thursday.
“Should such scenarios occur, justice must be found so that not one shekel is owed to even one worker, and if somebody knowingly acted against them, they must be brought before the law,” Shama-Hacohen said at a special hearing on the fate of Ma’ariv employees.

Shama-Hacohen argued that the government must examine whether there is a public interest in supporting the media, saying that otherwise “the trend is obvious.” He added that on top of the imminent entry into the job market of around 2,000 Ma’ariv employees, the fact that all Israeli media outlets are at risk of closing “does not strengthen democracy.”
Last Thursday, Ma’ariv Holdings filed for a stay of proceedings at the Tel Aviv District Court, reporting a debt of NIS 408 million – of which almost one-quarter is owed to employees. The company filed the application after completing the sale of Hebrew daily Ma’ariv and associated publications to businessman Shlomo Ben-Tzvi for up to NIS 74m.
Court-appointed trustee Shlomo Ness told the committee that “there are all sorts of complicated allegations,” and promised that he and co-trustee Yaron Arbel are trying to examine all of them. He elaborated that Judge Varda Alshech has frozen the Ben-Tzvi deal, and that the trustees are looking at “other options.”
Tal Raz, CEO of Ma’ariv Holdings, said that he too has more work to do, given that he has only been at the newspaper for eight months, and that parent company IDB Holding Corp only took control of the newspaper one year and three months ago.
IDB has made all allocations and deductions in an orderly manner since taking control, Raz said, adding that he is certain this was also the case under the newspaper’s previous owners. He stated the problem was not what was deducted from workers’ salaries, but that in the past they were not paid retrospective supplementary income.
Veteran Ma’ariv Knesset reporter Arik Bender was the first speaker at the Economics Committee meeting, saying that after 27 years of covering committee meetings, this was the first time he has participated, and that he hoped this would be the last.
“We need to save the print media,” Bender said, his voice trembling.
“We need a free, established, strong media. Otherwise, all we will be left with is a pro-government newspaper that is handed out for free,” he added, referring to Yisrael Hayom.
Bender suggested that the government look to France for ideas to support the print media, such as giving free newspaper subscriptions to citizens for their 18th birthdays and increasing government print advertising.


Tom Friedman: SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE!

September 18, 2012


(I’m sure you all recognize Yasser Arafat on the left, but do you recognize his buddy on the right?)Here’s a video of Sunday’s Face the Nation, featuring Tom Friedman on a panel discussing the Iranian nuclear threat. Note Tom’s comments between 7:51 and 9:03.(A ONE TRICK PONY) The man is more ‘Palestinian’ than the ‘Palestinians.’ He is simply obsessed. He doesn’t recognize anything else. Progressives will eat each other like cannibals in the end…


NY Times’ Dowd Accused of Anti-Semitism in Sunday Column

September 18, 2012

(NewsMax) New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd @NYTimesDowd came under fire Sunday night for what some on both the left and the right said were words that came dangerously close to anti-Semitism.
Dowd’s Sunday column, about the Republican ticket’s foreign policy proposals, accused Mitt Romney of being a tool of neo-conservative puppet masters.
The problem, critics said, was that many leading American neo-conservatives are Jewish and that Dowd’s turns of phrase were reminiscent of anti-Semitic slurs of the 20th Century, Politico reported.
Late Sunday night, the editorial page editor of the Times, Andy Rosenthal, responded via email that “No fair-minded reading of Maureen Dowd’s column supports the allegations” that Politico reported. “She makes no reference, direct or implied, to anyone’s religion.”
Dowd, a liberal who has made of career of mocking conservatives, wrote that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan are experts in the field of foreign policy. She then asserted their strategy was orchestrated by a “neocon puppet master” who was leading the neocon effort to “slither back” into power.
Those words struck experts as a seeming appeal to anti-Semitic stereotypes. They seemed especially offensive ahead of the first night of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah.
“Dowd’s use of anti-Semitic imagery is awful,” Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on Twitter.
“Maureen may not know this, but she is peddling an old stereotype, that gentile leaders are dolts unable to resist the machinations and manipulations of clever and snake-like Jews,” Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic columnist and leading journalist on Israeli issues, wrote.
“[A]mazing that apparently nobody sat her down and said, this is not OK,” Blake Hounshell, the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, tweeted.
On the right, The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper called it “outrageous,” while Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin described it as “particularly creepy.”
“Dowd’s column marks yet another step down into the pit of hate-mongering that has become all too common at the Times,” Tobin wrote, according to Politico. “This is a tipping point that should alarm even the most stalwart liberal Jewish supporters of the president.”


Wikileaks Publishes Fake Column from “Bill KeIler”

July 31, 2012

That’s not a typo in the headline. You’ll see what I mean as you read on.
So Wikileaks published a phony article — purportedly by New York Times editor Bill Keller, but really by an imposter — which was supportive of Wikileaks. The hoax was very well done and fooled a lot of people into thinking Keller truly supports Wikileaks to the hilt. The article was published at the phony Web address opinion-nytimes.com instead of their actual opinion pages at nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html, and looked like this:

TIME explains further:

The phony column was posted on a website that looks exactly like the online version of the New York Times Opinion Page — the pranksters even loaded the site with similar-looking ads and links to other (legitimate) Times webpages. But that wasn’t all. The WikiLeaks hoax-masters injected some tromp l’oeil magic into their scheme. The article was initially tweeted by @nytkeIler, a ripoff of Keller’s real Twitter handle, @nytkeller. (In Twitter’s standard font, a capitalized “I” and lowercase “l” are nearly indistinguishable.) And while the host domain of the article, http://opinion-nytimes.com, clearly varies from that of the paper’s actual Opinion site (http://nytimes.com/opinion), it was approximate enough to fool readers.

(Note that the “substitution of the capital I for the lower-case L” trick was used against Jennifer George from California during Weinergate, when a hoaxster imitated her @blogarsay account with a hoax account called @bIogarsay.)
TIME also explained how the verisimilitude of the piece was enhanced by genuine Keller quotes lifted from an email sent to a blogger, who republished the email on his site.
There are those who say this stunt undermines Wikileaks’s “credibility.” I’m not sure what “credibility” a site necessarily has that publishes stolen and even “hacked” information. But to the extent that Wikileaks had credibility with anyone, publishing a hoax certainly isn’t going to enhance that credibility. I mean, it’s not like it’s April Fool’s Day or anything. (*Ducks*)
What this is, I think, is a reminder that hackers are not always going to publish the truth. Just because someone releases a huge cache of supposedly hacked emails, for example, does not mean they haven’t sprinkled a few false gems in there. Yet people will always seem to take the word of the leaker/hacker over that of the established entity, regardless of the squirrelly nature of the publisher.
It is reminiscent of Justice Scalia’s views on stories about Supreme Court deliberations, as expressed in the video I linked last night. Justice Scalia says that one should not credit stories about internal deliberations, because if they are not a lie, they are based on the word of people who are unreliable — because they have promised not to reveal those deliberations, and then turned around and did it anyway.
He has a point. I think if such stories are properly corroborated — as much of “The Brethren” appeared to be, for example — they can provide a useful insight into court deliberations. But you always have to remember that you’re trusting the word of people who promised not to tell these stories. Meaning you’re ultimately relying on unreliable people.
One final question on the Wikileaks deal: a hoaxster in the orbit of Julian Assange, you say? A dirty-tricks type guy moving the world of hackers? Someone familiar with the Weinergate-era trick of using a capital “I” in place of a lower-case “L” in a Twitter handle?
I wonder who that could be.

I find this amusing. It isn’t like Assange and Co. didn’t have a charming part of their shtick.