NYTimes: From anti-Israel bias to an anti-Israel basher

Submitted by Beth (United States), Jul 6, 2010 at 13:12

NYTimes: From anti-Israel bias to an anti-Israel basher

To the NewYorkTimes [letters@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com. Fax# 212-556-3622]

It has been a long time since I took a peek in that paper, I apologize for being forced into it when meeting 2 relatives in a starbucks cafe, their flight was delayed, so the nytimes gained my attention, regrettably.

July 4 - 2010

Here are glimpses of the "quality" newspaper:

1) Frontpage of the ("Jewish?") New York Times talks about strained relations between US-Israel, note, A) Mark Landler does not talk about frictions between Obama's administration and the Netanyahu's (A.K.A. naming the problem), but 'between US & Israel.'
B) It titles the flotilla ship (you know, that radical-Islamists IHH led boat that attacked violently the Israeli security and called: "Kill the Jews for Allah!" and "Go back to Auschwitz! prior to that), no more and no less but: "humanitarian aid."

2) Then, in the section: "Inside the Times" (p. 3, a summary of what awaits the reader...)
I notice briefly that Nicholas D. Kristof writes something... oh, wait where do I remember
that name from? Of course, that's the guy that wrote about the Arab slavery & genocide
on Africans in Darfur but never had the courage to name it what it is: Arab racism, writing and writing so much material about that calamity, yet always beating around the bushes (Mr. Honigman has criticized him, a lot, google it up). So, Am I interested in anything Mr. Kristof has to say? not really. [if he can't "see" the Arabs committing crimes against humanity in Africa, why would he see it in Arab-Palestine?] I didn't even bother to look "inside" his article that "criticizes" Israel's blockade over (Hamas' controlled) Gaza.

3) Obituaries... (p. 19) Do you ever think, the bias-virus can spread there as well, sure enough in the never impartial Nytimes, anything is possible. Do you have any idea who the "chosen one" was this week? believe it or not, the planner of the infamous anti-Israel massacre by Arab-Muslim "Palestinians" in 1972, the Munich murderous cold blooded attack on Israel's sport team [Why? "freedom fighters" of course].
So, Do you also know who provided the material for the "quality paper," it was an Arab in Ramallah, W.B [Khaled Abu Aker - whatever] "reporting..." about how "great of a father he was," [these loveable neutral guys always "report," never posting opinions of course, not surprisingly the 'Pallywood' term pops up suddenly) aren't
you intrigued as me to know how "wonderful" this low life murderer was?

In any case, all in all, a typical "dry" Sunday (wait until it gets interesting in Israel "Palestine"), and anti-Israel rant is all over it, and I barely had a chance to really 'read' the times. My family members appeared, thank you very much. I think I'll pass, (Ma'am) Can I have 2 cappuccinos, to go, please?

I still notice how racist Arabists and Nazi KKK/supremacists call that paper "jewish," not sure why, for all it is, it's one staunch Arabist paper, certainly no better than the BBC, who openly admitted a few years back of being biased against Christianity & against Israel.
I take it back, What a stupid question to wonder about haters' "facts?"

PS
The date above says, July - 2010, but the date is irrelevant, the sample is certainly a pathetic routine.

1) Sad note: Whatever happened to the prestigious newspaper, the last 10-15 Years or so...?
2) Reality note: I guess there's a real logic behind the huge loss of subscription, on top of deep disapppointing "opinions," its bias has already reached a dreadful boring (not boiling) point - yawn!
3) Happy note: I am so glad that I do not have a habit to read that quality-less paper.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".