Tuesday, March 13, 2012

New York Times honchos staff Jerusalem bureau with fellow Jews to get the pro-Zionist coverage their ethnocentric religo-ideology commands

New York Times Wages War on Palestine

(The People's Voice) -- by Stephen Lendman --

Like all US major media scoundrels, longstanding New York Times policy features one-sided pro-Israeli reports, commentaries, and opinions.

Its coverage of Israel's latest Gaza aggression is one of many examples. More on that below.

On June 1, 2010, in response to Israeli commandos massacring Freedom Flotilla humanitarian aid activists the previous day, a Times editorial headlined, "Israel and the Blockade," saying:

"The supporters of the Gaza-bound aid flotilla had more than humanitarian intentions (in mind). The Gaza Freedom March made its motives clear in a statement before Monday's deadly confrontation: A violent response from Israel will breathe new life into the Palestine solidarity movement, drawing attention to the blockade."

In other words, the editorial outrageously suggested activists wanted violence, provoked it, and welcomed it when it came. In fact, they wished only to deliver vital humanitarian aid peacefully. Knowing Israel's likely response, they risked their lives heroically doing it. The Times portrayed them as agitators.

In 2010, a Jonas Xavier Caballero University of Pittsburgh honors thesis titled, "The Impact of Media Bias on Coverage of Catastrophic Events: Case Study from the New York Times' Coverage of the Palestine/Israel Conflict," focused on Times reporting on Israel's Cast Lead Gaza war.

Three weeks of premeditated incursions and terror bombings caused mass deaths and vast destruction. Not according to the Times, however.

Its coverage "manifest(ed) media bias toward Israel...." Caballero "examined (it) within a context of media manipulation, misrepresentation, framing, slant, and linguistic determinism."

Extreme "distorti(ion of) the facts....present(ed) a picture that portrays Israel" as victim, not aggressor. Caballero examined 91 Times articles and editorials from December 27, 2008 (when conflict began) to January 18, 2009, plus another week for corrections and more coverage.

He concluded that Times pro-Israeli reports increased throughout the conflict. It was "deplorable," he said, adding:

Its "practice of distorting its coverage to present Israel in a favorable light represents an abuse of freedom of the press in the United States."

"The Times’ history of media bias, agenda setting, and group (mis)representation seeks to support the Israeli narrative by omitting facts on the ground while demonizing the Palestinians."

"The marker of terrorism, which is habitually attached to Palestinians in news coverage, to the 'exclusion of its Israeli counterpart,' shows how 'normal/deviant dichotomies are constructed by and subsequently embedded within the news.' This is particularly true with regard to the Times’ coverage of the conflict."

Cast Lead was Israel's worst atrocity since the June 1967 Six Day War. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday Gaza terror bombings is the worst one since Cast Lead. But not according to Times coverage. Once again, Israel is victim, not villain.

On February 17, 2012, a Jerusalem Post article headlined, "Judaism at the New York Times," saying:

This week, Jodi Rudoren took over as Times Jerusalem bureau chief. Like others before her, she's Jewish. They include Ethan Bronner (replaced after reports exposed his conflict of interest), Steven Erlanger, James Bennet, and Deborah Sontag beginning in August 1998.

"Why does the New York Times consistently send Jewish journalists to head their central office in the Jewish state," asked the Post?

It doesn't fill other foreign correspondent positions with ethnic nationals. Why Israel? The Post suggested it's because Times Ochs and Sulzberger controlling families were Jewish. In 1992, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. succeeded his father as publisher and board chairman.

"In choosing Jewish journalists to lead in Jerusalem, the Times" subscribes to its founding families' beliefs." Yet, claims the Post, doing so "affirms not just the belief that Jews are not different, but that they cannot be different."

Chew on that for meaning. The Post later said Jews were sent "to report in a most un-Jewish way," when, in fact, their bias is blatantly one-sided.

Moreover, whether or not Jews fill Jerusalem bureau chief roles or elsewhere reporting on Israel, they'd better better do it favorably, no matter how egregious its crimes. Otherwise they'll be replaced and likely fired...MORE...LINK

No comments: