| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Walter Duranty was the New York Times correspondent in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. He also won a Pulitzer Press for his coverage of the Soviet Union. This was strange, because what he reported was nonstop apologetic nonsense, and perhaps worst of all was his supposedly splendid reporting in the Soviet-induced famine in Ukraine.
The Times did a terrible job in its coverage of the Soviet Union. But that was not all. It also did a terrible job in its reporting on Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the persecution of Jews throughout the 1930s, and then of course, on the mass round-ups ("Aktion") and murders during the war. Many things were not mentioned at all. Others were relegated to tiny paragraphs deep inside the paper. You can read all about it in excellent book by Laurie Leff (of Northeastern University).
Because of the miserable coverage of the Nazi war against the Jews, many of the readers of The Times, and readers of other less well-endowed newspapers that did not have foreign bureaus but took their lead from The Times, never published the truth. And many readers of The Times had relatives in Europe, and could have done things to save them, had they been properly informed, properly alarmed. And perhaps, too, those in Washington who treated the groups of Orthodox rabbis who went to Washington to implore that something be done, might have done more, might have done something, anything. Instead, they let a cabal of antisemites stymie their efforts. These included Breckenridge Long in the State Department -- see "The Truth About the State Department" by William Bendiner, a pamphlet written during the war, who was determined to keep Jewish refugees out, and John J. McCloy, that swinish "pillar of the establishment." As Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, McCloy prevented the bombing of the rail lines to Auschwitz, even though American bombers were successfully destroying targets just a few miles away. One of the pilots on the first daylight bombing raids over Berlin, incidentally, and a recipient of the Medal of Honor, was one of my relatives. He and those who flew with him would have gladly bombed any rail-lines leading to death camps, had they only been given the information, and the target.
Anyway, that's why The Times -- that failed to properly cover the Soviet system, and failed to cover, and hence to warn many who might have, had they known more, worked to get their relatives out, out, out in the 1930s, out even from Germany itself -- is called The New Duranty Times.
And it has now failed again, in its miserable coverage of Islam -- of what Islam inculcates, of what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Does the Times even mention the Hadith and Sira? Have you learned a single thing about any teachings about Infidels in Islam from reading The Times over the past decade? Since 9/11/2001? Since last year? No, you have not.
What a paper. What an example of so much that is wrong with America, and the Western world. The ignorance. The arrogance. The lack of sense and lack of responsibility. I wish it ill. Don't you?
If you subscribe, unsubscribe and read it online. Don't give them money, if you can possibly help it. If you place advertising in The New Duranty Times, stop it. Use the Internet as much as you can. If you see glossy ads in The New Duranty Times, call up the advertiser. Tell him that you will only reluctantly patronize his store, buy his goods, act in whatever way his advertising was intended to make you act. Tell him you strongly urge him to, at the very least, cease for a month -- no make that six months -- in The New Duranty Times, until they change their editor. Oh, and their attitude. Newspapers With Attitudes, when that attitude consists not of intelligent and potent criticism of the Administration's "war on terror" (the kind that can be found, for now, almost exclusively at this website or in the columns of those who read this website and take it to heart), but of the revelation of details about programs designed only to make us safer.
Do it. And do the same thing to any other newspapers (e.g. The Boston Globe, with its Op/Ed page still open to bow-tied anti-Israel H. D. S. Greenway, anti-American Jonathan Power, the egregious William Pfaff, and others of that ilk) that may be owned by the cost-conscious owners of The New Duranty Times.
Do them damage in the only way that now counts. Until they start humming "I'm Beginning to See the Light."
Posted by Hugh at April 30, 2007 8:15 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Actually, I e-mailed the "Public Editor" of the "NYT" a few weeks ago concerning the article that appeared by Sabrina Tavernise on the 3 Christian men working in the Bible Distribution house in Turkey who had their throats cut by a group of Muslim males.
Here's what I said: "I realize how PC the "NYT" is, but you can't even identify the murderers? Tavernise uses the words "Assailants," "five men," "attackers," "suspects," and "nationalist fringe," but never MUSLIMS, hello, MUSLIMS! Apparently, the "NYT" has the word "Christian" in it's vocabulary but not "Muslim." Now, why is that? Why don't you just identify Muslims from now on as "carbon-based life forms," since that's practically what you do already. Such a shame you can't use the word "Muslim" esp. when innocent Christians have been brutally murdered. Politically Correct Cowards!"
I did not get a reply.
Posted by: darcy
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 30, 2007 8:45 AM
...The New York Times is afraid to print the truth...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 30, 2007 9:12 AM
The New York Times presents one of the MANY flaws of modern liberal democracies: The mass media - given the right to freedom to bullshit.
As long as papers like this one can continue to print lies and sway the public and even influence elections, i will be laughing.
There is no way to stop it unless you break the laws of democracy.
Democracy is a joke.
Posted by: bff at April 30, 2007 9:55 AM
What's the name of the book by Laurie Neff?
The NY Times is a cringe inducer. Everything Hugh has to say about this paper is true and then some.
Personally, I dropped the NY Times from my daily 'to do' list when I began to see that the desperately stupid social posturing extended well past the 'society' section and informed every single aspect of the paper. (Also, and basically annoying, is the Time's insistence that the reader wade through some needy cook's trotted out pretentious crap in order to learn how to make a good pudding).
If the NY Times were a person, it could be seen as a insecure, people-pleasing and crudely obvious social climber. Uh, no thanks. I'll get my news elsewhere.
Posted by: Daisytoo at April 30, 2007 10:08 AM
It means that Democracy cannot survive in the type of world we live in today. And if you cant see that then you are blind.
Posted by: bff at April 30, 2007 10:30 AM
"And if you cant see that then you are blind."
Actually, I'm not blind. Furthermore, I'm not interested in exchanges w/someone who considers forcing a viewpoint a worthy idea. Better look elsewhere for an exchange of ideas.
Posted by: Daisytoo at April 30, 2007 10:52 AM
ok
Posted by: bff at April 30, 2007 10:58 AM
Pehaps the NYT should change its motto to "All The Truth Fit To Be Hidden".
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at April 30, 2007 11:00 AM
Another cogent masterpiece from Hugh Fitzgerald.
All we need to make it complete is another
nonsensical reply from ADD sufferer and Muslim
apologist "An American" about how it is too long.
Enough with the "thinking", try sitting still and reading!
at April 30, 2007 11:19 AM
Re: "Democracy is a joke."
I'll both agree and disagree. I don't think Democracy is a joke but do believe that it is suited only for a mature, peaceful society. Countries like the US are democracies only by development. Constitutionally, the US is a republic with rights and freedoms guaranteed by checks and balances. The UK is (or at least was) a free society because of parliamentary checks on the monarchy. Today, it is rapidly loosing its freedom because there are no checks on the power of Parliament.
Democracy in an Islamic nation is a blueprint for sharia and nightmare. Nations like Russia and China are best guided by traditionalist governments until they are ready for democracy. The examples to followed are countries like Taiwan and Chile where moderate dictatorships first build a free economy that naturally led to democratic governments. Without a free economy, an educated people, and checks on special interests, democracy is only a phase in the march to oppression.
Posted by: Provoslavni at April 30, 2007 11:49 AM
The only newspaper I've read in the last few years that is attuned to the reality of Jihad 3 is INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY.
My local media in the warm, sunny, middle of the country is as clueless, if not more clueless, than the New Duranty Times.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl at April 30, 2007 11:50 AM
Duranty's parroting of Stalin's falsifications should be instructional to all of us. The Soviet General Secretary killed millions via man-made famine....and millions more in bloody purges and through the enforced depredations of the Gulag. Yet, his propaganda machine was so effective in creating the 'cult of personality' that his death evoked such sorrow among the Soviet citizenry that thousands were trampled to death at his funeral just to get a glimps of his body.
So it is today that at the very time that North Korea's Kim Jong-il says about his people 'let them eat grass,' he remains revered by those same people....worshipped even. Once again, the effects of propaganda.
Then, we have the followers of Muhammad, engaged in the most ridiculous intellectual gymnastics to put the most tolerant spin on his (and his God's) intolerant utterances...and finding their apologia accepted as gospel among the infidel mainstream in its desperate search for common cultural ground.
And let's not forget the Western Left, at war with their own culture, perversely inverting the most heinous act of terrorism in modern times by claiming it was an inside job....and finding so very many receptive to such an outrageous and devious contention.
Moral:
Never underestimate the gullibility of the human animal.
Posted by: Cornelius at April 30, 2007 1:05 PM
HUGH!
It's LAUREL Leff!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521812879
Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America's Most Important Newspaper is an in-depth look at how The New York Times failed in its coverage of the fate of European Jews from 1939-1945. It examines how the decisions that were made at The Times ultimately resulted in the minimizing and misunderstanding of modern history's worst genocide. Laurel Leff, a veteran journalist and professor of journalism, recounts how personal relationships at the newspaper, the assimilationist tendencies of The Times' Jewish owner, and the ethos of mid-century America all led the Times to consistently downplay news of the Holocaust. It recalls how news of Hitler's 'final solution' was hidden from readers and - because of the newspaper's influence on other media - from America at large. Buried by The Times is required reading for anyone interested in America's response to the Holocaust and for anyone curious about how journalists determine what is newsworthy.
Posted by: Mentat at April 30, 2007 2:02 PM
Personally, I don not want the Times to see the light. I'd like that evil paper to go out of business altogether.
Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at April 30, 2007 2:22 PM
Everyone, go to the LSU Reveille (lsureveille.com) tomorrow morning and see the utter CRAP the female Muslim writer employed by them writes about. It's unbelievable.
Please comment on her column. Best Wishes, Darcy.
Posted by: darcy at April 30, 2007 3:02 PM
I can not think of a palatable alternative to democracy. - Just doing some thinking.
Posted by: MP at April 30, 2007 5:26 PM
This brings the events of 1939 involving the SS St.Louis with its refugees of German Jews into clear focus. Since I was unable to read the NYT in the years between 1933 and 1939 I will defer to those who have done the research.
What if the NYT had reported details of the plight of German Jews? What if the NYT had editorialized about what was happening? Perhaps Roosevelt might have allowed them to land and seek refuge. Instead FDR took the cowardly way out and did not allow the passengers to disembark. After all, his re-election was more important than the lives 900 or so Jews. Damn near all of those people perished at the hands of the Nazis. I do not fully understand why my parent's generation idolized that creature (FDR).
We would be better served if the NYT went the way of FDR.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 30, 2007 5:28 PM
I did not explain the historical details of the SS St Louis. Go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St_Louis
I have read other accounts of this sad event; I think the Wikipedia article is fairly accurate, at least in this case.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 30, 2007 5:31 PM
"Democracy is a joke."
Sounds like a potential convert to Islam to me.
"The UK is (or at least was) a free society because of parliamentary checks on the monarchy."
Well, I hate to get all accurate, but The House of Lords? Council, bi-elections and general elections. Very free and diverse press.
Tell The Welsh Assembly, The Scottish assembly and the Scottish National Party that.
You must be American, the monarchy thing, you still expect us to invade, take all your guns away, and give you free health care at the point of delivery don't you, hmmmm.
Watch out, Apache.
at April 30, 2007 5:42 PM
Mentat--
Laurel Leff has been mentioned by me a half-dozen times at this website.
For example, there is this:
"Given the embarrassing history of how, for example, The New Duranty Times covered not only famines in the Ukraine, but life in the Soviet Union all through the 1930s, thanks to Walter Duranty, or how that same newspaper failed so miserably (see Laurel Leff's book on the subject) in its non-conveying of the truth about Hitler's war on the Jews, again all through the 1930s, when some might, if duly informed, even have managed to save their relatives, and to work much more frantically to alert others still living in what were regarded as the safety of France, or Holland, or other inevitable future victims of the Third Reich. The newspaper has blood on its hands, and in such circumstances, it has a higher duty than any other newspaper of, by, or for the so-called goddamned record.
[Posted by: Hugh at August 6, 2006 01:08 PM]
at April 30, 2007 5:56 PM
Hugh:
Sometimes you call her Laurie Leff and sometimes you call her by her proper name, Laurel Leff. When you call her Laurie Leff, people like me spend a half an hour trying to figure out why they can't find any books by her, etc.. All I'm sayin' is call her Laurel, please. BTW I scored a copy of her book at the library already!
Thanks for your continued hard work at this site.
Posted by: Mentat at April 30, 2007 6:17 PM
Democracy is only as good as the people who form it. If you have an uneducated, fanatical, violent mob, democracy will be a violent mob rule.
Posted by: Lili at April 30, 2007 6:20 PM
Lili, I suppose the alternative is rule by an uneducated, fanatical, violent dictator. I'll take the mob.
Besides that; what you have given as a example is that old straw man trick. Well, that straw man won't stand up.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 30, 2007 7:11 PM
Listen up, people, most countries are not democracies in the sense the Swiss have a democracy. This is called a representative republic. The US model is unique in that there are subtle mechanisms that actually prevent complete rule by a simple majority. A "super majority" is required to amend the Constitution. The Electoral College provides a slight edge in power to the less populous states in presidential elections; otherwise, al Ghor would be POTUS. Without the electoral college, no candidate would ever, ever campain in states like New Mexico.
It is "a repbublic if you can keep it."
Posted by: Pelayo at April 30, 2007 7:31 PM
"Tell him you strongly urge him to, at the very least, cease for a month -- no make that six months -- in The New Duranty Times, until they change their editor."
Have to disagree with Hugh here. Changing the editor of the NYT will change very little in terms of what the paper reports as news and how it reports it. Sure, Abe Rosenthal was a better editor than the curent aplogist for Islamic terrorism. However, if you want real change, you'll need to change the publisher and the family which controls the Times.
The Sulzberger Family has, for generations, been known for their self-loathing ( their hatred for Jews- especially of Russian and Polish immigrant Jews ) and for their hatred of the State of Israel. This hatred extends from the founding member of the family to it's current publisher.
The Sulzberger's were major backers of the American Council for Judaism, a group of extremely wealthy German Jews whose main hope was that all other Jews would disappear. Think I'm kidding? I'm not.
Google Rabbi Elmer Berger and Rabbi Alfred Lilenthal. Notice that their writings are favorites on every Neo-Nazi and Pro-Terrorist web site out there. And remeber- these two were funded by the Sulzberger family.
Posted by: MJ at April 30, 2007 7:58 PM
If I called her "Laurie" it was a mistake, and I should always have referred to her as "Laurel Leff." In any case, she and her important work did not go unrecognized. I have no idea what hypocoristic diminutive she would permit me, if I ever met her, but I'd be ready to try them all.
Posted by: Hugh at April 30, 2007 8:09 PM
Allah News That's Fit To Print
Secret Invisible Masthead Motto of the NYT.
(You have to iron the paper so the lemon juice darkens enough to read.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 30, 2007 8:45 PM
Democracy is a joke
Rome was sacked by Barbarians.
Democracy contains jokes (and non-jokes).
As a system, it is vulnerable to barbarism.
And therefore, at times, the system needs protection - and that itself needs to be understood by the people.
The problem we have is the willfull blindless by left-wing papers like the New York Times (USA) and Guardian (UK). The editors make sure PC is applied at all times to what is output. The masses of Westerners are then left ignorant.
And on another point, I have never seen anything economically good come out of socialism. At its extreme it is communism. France's Presidential elections are revolving round the fact that France is sinking under the weight of socialism ideas and the French know it.
Posted by: UK Infidel Lover
at April 30, 2007 9:50 PM
Here's a few questions for anybody with insight into the news bidness. Has(Have?) the New Yawk Times made an economic decision? A decision msde to avoid controversy, a decision to stoke the PC fires in hopes that no one will be offended, much like a candidate pandering to everybody and afraid to offend anybody. Are they just trying to sell papers? Are they willing to make a buck while selling our souls down the river?
Have the NYT publishers made the most cynical and treacherous decisions of all time - the importance of their "precious" is more important than our grandchildren's future?
Damn them!
Posted by: Pelayo at April 30, 2007 10:34 PM
The New Duranty Times have been wrong about more things over an extended period of time than just about any other group of people I am aware of. It is hard to be wrong so often on purpose, so it is difficult to fathom the insanity that has been festering over there for so many decades.
The NYT will never learn, we can only hope that its prestige continues to decline to a point where it is no longer the talking points for the rest of the media.
Posted by: JSobieski at May 1, 2007 12:31 AM
Money talks and bulls*** drops your company’s market value 50% in three years. It’s nice to know that the staff probably owns stock. NY Times just sold their building. You can get link to their stock charts from the building sale story.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070430/new_york_times_building.html?.v=2
at May 1, 2007 1:05 AM
L.Leff@neu.edu
Posted by: special_guest at May 1, 2007 1:21 AM
A worthwhile subject that has long been ignored and so well brought out by Hugh.
And the Holocaust issue does take the prize in its long history of dishonest reporting.
One cannot help pondering on the mindset of the Sulsbergers who were jews or"converted jews".
How could they deliberately cloud the issues of the deportations to death camps of their fellow Jews?
Surely the desire to be accepted by the higher echelons of the antisemetic elites of New york society could not have overridden such obvious need for solidarity?
or was it the need for the NYT not to be seen as a Jewish propaganda rag but as the height of new York intellectual journalism?
at May 1, 2007 2:40 AM
MJ
what you say is extremely interesting. I had wondered if the Sulsbergers were in Fact Austrian Jews in origin.
But it is well known that many German and Austrian Jews before WW2 were arrogantly disdainful of their Russian and polish brethren.
Any links would be much appreciated.
at May 1, 2007 2:44 AM
Democracy is only a tool. It is only as good as the people using it. It's benevolence is predicated upon the belief, albeit a false one, that the majority knows what is right. History proves otherwise. Democracy only yields what the the culture yields. Garbage in, garbage out.
In islamic countries, a democratic vote simply means that islamic parties are put into power, and usually it will be the most virulent. Witness the FIS in Algeria, and witness Hizbullah in Palestine. Democratic outcomes, yet the choice was for radical islamic governance.
In Afghanistan, under the auspices of democracy, they draft a constitution that calls for the execution of apostates. In Iraq, a similar democracy would produce an islamic hardline government. That is what muslims want. The few that don't want such sharia, are either intellectuals or live in Copenhagen. And half of those people, are not big on human rights either.
What the islamic countries need is a dictator to force them to become human and to treat each other with decency and respect. Only a strongman would have a chance. But not an arab strongman. Maybe someone from Tennessee.
Posted by: jihadwatcher at May 1, 2007 8:41 AM
New Duranty Times??????
You must mean
THE NEW JEWISH TIMES
From link about Rabbi Elmer Berger
www.wrmea.com/backissues/1096/9610012.htm
Once, Berger related, he and other anti-Zionist Jewish leaders sought an interview with the Jewish owners of the Times to complain about its pro-Zionist bias. “They promised us the top management, which would of course be Jewish. But when our group got there, we were ushered in to talk with a non-Jew, Clifton Daniel, who was married to [former] President Truman’s daughter, Margaret. And Daniel tried to convince us that the Times owners and managers were not Zionists so much but that many of their readers were. He seemed to assume, or at least wanted us to believe, that a major newspaper such as the Times does not shape public opinion, which of course it does.” The rabbi added that, since the New York paper carried so much Zionist propaganda, “rather than The New York Times it might well be named the Jewish Times.”
at May 1, 2007 11:59 AM
The NY Times is still garbage and Walter Duranty still burns in Hell...
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
white-wash communism
.
at May 1, 2007 4:01 PM
"What the islamic countries need is a dictator to force them to become human..."
Or more precisely:
What the islamic countries need are dictators to force them as much as possible to refrain from being inhuman.
Posted by: remote_control at May 1, 2007 4:14 PM
Yankedoodl: "The only newspaper I've read in the last few years that is attuned to the reality of Jihad 3 is INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY."
True. Also, WDEO, AM 990 Ann Arbor. Catholic Radio with Al Kresta. He tackles ALL these issues we talk about here. He regularly has Robert Spencer on as a guest. It's a small audience, but I'm thankful for whomever we can reach.
Posted by: nichtdhimmi at May 2, 2007 11:33 AM
Yankedoodl says:
"The only newspaper I've read in the last few years that is attuned to the reality of Jihad 3 is INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY."
I agree. They also have it right on illegal immigration, but their understanding of the global jihad is first-rate.
Posted by: texan at May 2, 2007 6:10 PM
UK Infidel Lover observes:
"I have never seen anything economically good come out of socialism."
Well, almost. There IS something economically good that comes out of socialism: refugees. Especially those that are perceptive enough to see the ills of socialism early on, and get the hell out while they can.
Posted by: texan at May 2, 2007 7:03 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)