An editor at the New York Times has recently apologized for having written several anti-Semitic and racist tweets. Tom Wright-Piersanti is a senior staff editor at the Times. In the years 2008-2010, Wright-Piersanti wrote several offensive tweets, which were uncovered by the website Breitbart.
On New Years’ Day 2010, Wright-Piersanti tweeted, “I was going to say ‘Crappy Jew Year,’ but one of my resolutions is to be less anti-Semitic. So… HAPPY Jew Year. You Jews.”
The previous month, during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, Wright-Piersanti shared a picture of a car with a lit menorah on its roof and wrote, “Who called the Jew-police?”
“I have deleted tweets from a decade ago that are offensive,” Wright-Piersanti tweeted after the Breitbart article was published. “I am deeply sorry.”
He also mocked Native Americans, and Afro-Americans, for which no doubt he is also “deeply sorry.”
Amazing how “deeply sorry” people are about so many things the minute they are found out, but not one minute earlier. Perhaps he is “deeply sorry” only because those tweets came to light. They were not just “offensive,” but disgusting. In any event, Wright-Piersanti apparently needn’t worry about his job. As of this writing, he’s still at the New York Times, a paper that has a Jewish, and latterly an Israeli, problem. It recently published two antisemitic cartoons in its international edition. The more offensive of the two depicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a guide dog (a dachshund) wearing a Star of David collar and leading President Donald Trump, who is wearing a black kippah. Anyone of sense would have seen this cartoon as antisemitic, save apparently the editor at the Times who approved the cartoon. And the Times, just like Wright-Piersanti, said it was “deeply sorry.” Yes, it was “deeply sorry for the publication of an anti-Semitic political cartoon” that appeared in its international print edition. And the Times has decided to stop publishing cartoons from non-staff members. It has also said that it will also overhaul its bias training to have an emphasis on antisemitism, according to an internal note from the Times’s publisher, A.G. Sulzberger. What about training on how to bring a modicum of fairness to reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or would that be asking too much?
The Times has had a “Jewish problem” ever since Hitler came to power in 1933. So let’s go back to the 1930s and 1940s, before there was even an Israel for the Times to be anti-Israel about, to see how, and to ask why, the most influential paper in the world, owned by Jews, paid so little attention to the murderous threat of Hitler and the Nazis as it grew throughout the 1930s. It was precisely because the paper was owned by Jews, who were determined not to have their paper be thought of as an organ of special pleading about Jewish suffering, that the New York Times failed so miserably, in its under-reporting of the Holocaust and the antisemitic crimes during the 1930s that led up to its final, murderous efflorescence. In her brilliant Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper, Laurel Leff notes that Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who became the publisher in 1936 (though he was effectively the publisher from 1933, because of the illness of the previous publisher, Adolph Ochs) and continued in that post until 1961, at the most critical period for the Jews of Europe, had studiously refrained from having anything to do with Jewish organizations or causes. He (Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the Times) refused to donate to the United Jewish Appeal or the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. He wrote in 1934, “I am a non-Zionist because the Jew, in seeking a homeland of his own, seems to me to be giving up something of infinitely greater value of the world. … I look askance at any movement which assists in making the peacemaker among nations merely a national Distribution Committee, favoring instead the National Missions of the Presbyterian Church.” In 1948, he wrote, “I know of no difference in my way of life than in that of any Unitarian.”
Sulzberger was committed to an odd definition of journalistic balance. The Times refused to run letters to the editor that attacked the rise of antisemitism in Germany, so that it would not also have to offer space to those supporting antisemitism.
Instead of speaking of Jewish refugees, Times editorials tended to speak of German refugees. Arthur Hays Sulzberger refused to intervene with American officials to get a visa for a cousin, Fritz Sulzberger, advising him in 1938 to stay in Germany. So indifferent was he to what was going on in Germany, apparently, that he thought as late as 1938 that Jews should remain in Germany and ride out the storm. His misreading of reality was astonishing. By that year, it should have been clear that staying in Germany amounted to a death sentence. In 1933, Jews had been discharged from all universities, and then from all civil service jobs. Long before Kristallnacht, there were boycotts of Jewish shops, Jews were attacked, even beaten to death, on the street, Nazi rallies were held where Jews were hysterically denounced; a phrase from a 19th-century antisemite, Heinrich Treitschke, was recycled for use by the Nazis: “Die Juden sind unser Unglück!“(“The Jews are our misfortune”).
Yet in 1938, the publisher of the New York Times was advising a relative to remain in Germany. A. H. Sulzberger didn’t want to hear about all the atrocities German Jews were enduring. And he didn’t want his paper to make too much of such things either.
The threat to Jews was always minimized by the Times. Early in the war, the Times ran a campaign of nine editorials and three front-page stories that urged Congress to allow British families to send their children to safety in America, but made no such campaign on behalf of the Jews. Those British children might have been in danger from V-2 rockets, if they lived in the East End of London, but the Jews in Nazi-occupied countries faced certain death if they were not brought to America. The New York Times – under Arthur Hays Sulzberger – didn’t care enough to call for their admission.
Nor did the Times think helping Jews find refuge from the Nazis outside of America was a cause to promote in its editorials. When the British issued the White Paper of 1939, restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine to 15,000 a year for five years, the Times ran an editorial praising the move as necessary “to save the homeland itself from overpopulation as well as from an increasingly violent resistance on the part of the Arabs.” That White Paper effectively kept hundreds of thousands of Jews, who might have escaped from Europe in time, from being admitted to Mandatory Palestine. Churchill thundered against it as unjust and cruel. But not according to the New York Times; its editors thought the White Paper was perfectly correct in permitting no more than 15,000 Jews a year to find refuge in Palestine from the Nazis. Otherwise, the editorial absurdly claimed, Mandatory Palestine would be “overpopulated.” On what basis did the Times editors make that claim? Israel now has a population that is six times the population of Mandatory Palestine in 1939, and it is still not overpopulated. And the Times actually thought that it was preferable in 1939 to keep Jews in Europe, where they were almost certain to be killed, in order not to anger the Arabs in Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine’s provisions, that required Great Britain, as the Mandatory authority, to “facilitate” Jewish immigration and “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land,” were to be ignored so as not to upset the local Arabs.
Arthur Hays Sulzberger lived among, and wanted to be accepted by, other people of great wealth, including many non-Jews, and he did not wish to be thought of as caring too much for the fate of Europe’s or Palestine’s — Jews. In that he succeeded, and for that he deserves endless obloquy in the history books. Assimilated and anti-Zionist, he instructed his editors to downplay news about the suffering of Europe’s Jews so that the newspaper would not appear to be too concerned with Jewish matters. He was a horrible man.
There was very little reporting in the Times on the rising antisemitism in Nazi Germany all through the 1930s. Atrocities against Jews in Germany, which began in the streets soon after Hitler took power in 1933, were mentioned intermittently, almost always in a few paragraphs deep inside the paper. Even Kristallnacht, November 9-10, 1938, when Jewish homes, hospitals and schools were demolished by Nazi attackers using sledgehammers, received less treatment in the New York Times than it did in many other newspapers around the world. The rioters destroyed 267 synagogues throughout Germany and Austria and the Sudetenland. Over 7,000 Jewish businesses were damaged or destroyed; 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to concentration camps. Hundreds of Jews were murdered, often beaten to death by mobs. This had no visible effect on the editorial and reporting policies set down by Arthur Hays Sulzberger.
Why did this underreporting at the Times matter so much? It mattered because it had a direct effect on the sense of urgency among American Jews, and on the attitude in the government about rescuing Jews from the Nazis.
When the Holocaust began in earnest, and news about the roundups of Jews sent to concentration camps – labor and death camps were distinguished, though in the “labor camps” the inmates were often worked to death — managed to filter out, the New York Times continued to give such reports a few paragraphs deep within the paper. It did the same with reports from the Eastern Front, about the gassing of Jews in the mobile gas vans, about the mass shootings right on the edge of open pits into which those killed would topple. The paper never connected the dots of the Nazi efforts to exterminate the Jews of Europe, never presented it as part of a comprehensive genocidal plan. Its coverage of the murders of six million Jews was absurdly small, given the world-shattering size of the atrocity; this “Jewish news” from Europe was most often covered in a few paragraphs in the back; more attention was given in the Times to business, movies, golf championships, and racing news than to the Holocaust. Sulzberger, the publisher, was not haunted by what was going on in Europe. He gave his own attention to such pleasures as vacationing at Knollwood on Saranac Lake, in the Adirondacks. Knollwood was an enclave consisting of seven or eight luxurious “rustic cottages” that belonged to leading members of “Our Crowd,” that is, the assimilated and rich German Jews of New York, members of the Harmonie Club, families who had arrived in the 19th century from Germany and looked down on the recent Jewish arrivals from Eastern Europe. They were glad to host a celebrity refugee from Germany – Einstein went twice to Knollwood, and his photograph is still on display in one of the “cottages” – but didn’t want to be unduly bothered with unpleasant news from Europe. And Sulzberger was one of them.
That failure by the New York Times to report adequately throughout the 1930s on the growing danger to Germany’s Jews was not without consequences, as shall be discussed tomorrow.
Me says
Hmmm… He probably HALF Jewish & doesn’t know it yet…
Terry Gain says
He appears to be 100% Nazi.
Robert_k says
I
Robert_k says
Arthur Schulzberger supported the Classical Reform Judaism of wife’s grandfather Rabbi Isaac Meyer Weiss which only regards Judaism as a Religion and not a national identity.
It is ‘ironic’ that Reform Judaism was founded in Germany, the very same country that through Nazi Germany forced a national identity on every Jew.
Are the Shulzbergers and their ilk another bad weed to come out of Germany?
gravenimage says
How is Reform Judaism like Nazism?
Charles Lutz says
By the way his chin is not in line with his eyes he should not have been trusted to tell the truth.
elee says
Imagine having to decide, every day, whether you would sacrifice your brother to save your daughter, not as a hypothetical in a philosophy class, but with the same chilling practicality with which we address the grocery list. Imagine deciding to shuffle off to extermination and hoping only that they don’t find people you love. Imagine really hard. Imagine you’re not imagining. Now you’re imagining daily life in the Spanish Inquisition or the Pale of Settlement. Shuffling off to the pogrom is a daily drill; you think of it maybe the way modern office workers think of escape routes in a fire drill. These are the Jews who, learned that Hitler was invading Mitteleuropa a nation at a time, and rejoiced because they thought that this man Hitler had to be better than the past few centuries of homegrown antisemitism. Did you think America or Britain were free of antisemitism? Go back and read about Henry Ford, Lindberg, Oswald Mosely, Joe Kennedy. This was the world in which the NYT family made the same decision to not rock the boat and hope it all subsided. Oh and for a present-day insight, imagine that, instead of Charlie Chaplin’s Great Dictator, today’s pogrom is sponsored by a billion and a half cultists more fanatical than any of Hitler’s small band of thugs. You can try saying “Never again.” What is that, a prayer muttered on the way to the cyanide showers? “May my sons and brothers pass unnoticed until this blows over”? Or: when the Muslims overrun Zion like the Babylonians, may my cousins escape unnoticed as silent strangers among the goyim, the nations of the world? Have compassion and respect for the Jews who had to make these decisions playing the hands the world dealt to Jews. Have compassion and respect for the Jews who have to make the same decisions today and maybe hope that proclaiming sympathy to the “Palestinians” lets them walk away unnoticed and unmolested.
gravenimage says
elee, your insinuations that Britain and America were just as bad as Nazi Germany is *quite* mistaken. Were this the case, why did so many Jews flee here? Yes, antisemitism was here, and it was ugly–but there was discrimination, *not* extermination camps.
And I have never heard of *any* Jews who welcomed being invaded by the Nazis, no matter how antisemitic their own nations–a good example of this would be Poland, Even before the Death Camps became well known, it was common knowledge that the Nazis were violent haters of Jews.
Robert_k says
One picture in the book ‘Buried by the Times’ by Laura Leff has a Nazi Flag hoisted on the New York Times office building in Berlin.
The NYT identifies with the Palestinian enemy of the Jews today as many assimilated Jews do today.
Ian Featherstone says
Any KKK Dens near NYT?? Next to the DNC offices??
Rarely says
Why?
elee says
Hey Robert_k and Ian Featherstone, you know what a kapo was? I submit that only an inmate can ever judge a kapo. We’d all like to think we’d be proud handsome and illuminated like a movie hero; remember what they told Winston Smith when they gave him a mirror and asked him to look at himself……..
CRUSADER says
— kapo or prisoner functionary was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp who was assigned by the SS guards to supervise forced labor or carry out administrative tasks. Also called “prisoner self-administration”, the prisoner functionary system minimized costs by allowing camps to function with fewer SS personnel.
CRUSADER says
I am a Zionist because the Jew, in seeking a homeland of his own, seems to me to be building toward something of infinitely great value for the world.
… I look askance at any deception movement which assists in making the detractors among nations merely an international Fake News Distribution Committee, so I am favoring instead that which I prefer to promote : ACT for America , and the Friends of Zion.
ACT for America :
https://www.actforamerica.org/
Visit FOZ:
https://www.fozmuseum.com/
Angemon says
Ouch – that’s going to cost him some points with the Left. Not the anti-semitic ones though – leftist anti-semitism is par for the course.
Rarely says
Anti-Semitism itself is par for the course. If only it was reserved for the left.
CRUSADER says
Media
Immorality
Culpability
Participants
……..
There’s a lot of eroding of character and of moral compass in society.
Here’s a question to the soul:
If an actor, for instance, participates in a production which presents immoral content, are they themselves culpable?
They are adults, after all, and therefore cognizant of their decisions; but they may not know anymore what morality is, yet they also have to pay their bills and responsibly make proper choices, as well as have their egos stroked and their rush for fame stoked.
Where does this place Muslims with their choices?
Do we blame and hate all or most Nazis for following Nazism?
At what point are people fully accountable for their choices, thoughts, acts?
(Not until they stand at the pearly gates?)
elee says
Good insight into questions that are only academic in academia. Given the Muslim view that individual decision-making, individual thinking, individuality itself, should be beaten out of the true Muslim, preferably in childhood……..it’s hard to hold Muslims to the same moral standard we expect of westerners who grow up believing in individual choices and individual responsibility. Muslims are most unfortunate but still very dangerous……..sort of like feral dogs. As to Nazis, they mostly got raised as western Christians and chose to become genocidal neo-pagans.
CRUSADER says
If Western civilization and our way of life are to survive,
we must understand and re-embrace the biblical principles and values
they were built on.
No doubt much could be learned from Vishal, below….
“The Book That Made Your World:
How The Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization”
by
Vishal Mangalwadi
A man from the East clearly sees how the Bible built Western Civilization. I’ll tell you about his new book.
Vishal Mangalwadi, a native of India, is one of the greatest Christian worldview thinkers of our day. He believes that much of modern India, including its language, educational system, and political freedom, developed not out of Hinduism, but out of Christianity.
His newest work, The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization explores the Bible’s impact, not only in leading the West to unparalleled liberty and prosperity, but in helping India and other nations to share in the West’s success.
Mangalwadi carefully examines the intellectual roots of Western concepts of human dignity, reason, morality, science, liberty, and self-sacrificial heroism, explaining how each of these concepts grew out of Biblical principles. He then contrasts the biblical view of life with alternative worldviews like Secularism, Islam, and Hinduism.
His own extensive experience doing relief work in rural India showed him the dehumanizing consequences of false worldviews.
For instance, he tells how he and his wife tried to take care of a baby girl whose parents refused to provide her with medical care that she needed to digest food. As unbelievable as it sounds, the parents refused to let the Mangalwadis rescue their daughter because their fatalistic, karma-based worldview taught them that their daughter had no hope for a happy, successful life.
The tragic story illuminates the importance of the biblical worldview, which sees all people as valuable because they are made in the image of God. And because we are made in the image of Him who freely chose to create the world, we are free to work to change our lot in life, not bound by fate or karma to a life of misery.
As Mangalwadi documents so well, the Bible and the biblical worldview also spurred remarkable technological development. Monks created labor-saving technologies (like the watermill and the flywheel) because while they saw work as valuable Christian service, they saw repetitive “toil” as a result of sin. They sought to minimize toil so that they could have more time to pray. These and other technologies spread in order to liberate others made in God’s image.
Mangalwadi also shows how translating the Bible into vernacular languages brought about a social revolution in literacy even among the poorest peasants. Those peasants had as much right to study the word of God as priests and nobles. Bible translation also helped to create writing systems and unite various dialects into national languages, such as modern Hindi.
In one especially interesting chapter, Mangalwadi shows how the biblical view of marriage and family life — which emphasized the equal dignity of women — helped lead to Western prosperity.
Mangalwadi credits the Bible for everything we value in Western civilization, but he also warns that by abandoning biblical beliefs and practices, the West has lost its soul and begun to degenerate. But there is hope. God’s Word still has the power to transform individuals and resurrect entire cultures.
I recommend a lot of books on BreakPoint, but this is a must-read. If Western civilization and our way of life are to survive, we must understand and re-embrace the biblical principles and values they were built on.
Please, get your copy of “The Book That Made Your World.”
It’s that important.
http://www.breakpoint.org/2011/07/the-book-that-made-your-world/
VIDEO:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5nHV3j8InRQ
Mr. Cohen says
On June 1, 2006, former New York City mayor Ed Koch
wrote an opinion piece in the [New York] Times
titled “The New York Times’ Anti-Israel Bias,”
asserting that “the British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC]
and the New York Times consistently carry news
stories and editorials that are slanted against Israel
and sympathetic to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.”
SOURCE: Unfreedom of the Press
(chapter 6, page 157) by Mark R. Levin,
published by Threshold Editions, year 2019, NYC,
ISBN 9781476773094 * ISBN 1476773092
Mr. Cohen says
Matti Friedman [Former Associated Press Reporter] wrote:
“Hamas’s strategy is to provoke a response from Israel
by attacking from behind the cover of Palestinian civilians,
thus drawing Israeli strikes that kill those civilians,
and then to have the casualties filmed by one of
the world’s largest press contingents, with the understanding
that the resulting outrage abroad will blunt Israel’s response.
This is a ruthless strategy, and an effective one.
It is predicated on the cooperation of journalists.
One of the reasons it works is because of the reflex I mentioned.
If you report that Hamas has a strategy based on co-opting the media,
this raises several difficult questions, like:
What exactly is the relationship between the media and Hamas?
And has this relationship corrupted the media?”
SOURCE: What the Media Gets Wrong about Israel
by Matti Friedman, 2014/11/30
http://www.TheAtlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262
Mr. Cohen says
Mark R. Levin (a lawyer and best-selling author) said:
The examples of the [New York] Times’
and mass media’s hostility toward the Jewish State
is not even a matter of indifference, as it was during
the plight of European Jews in the 1930s and 1940s,
which was horrifying.
Instead, there is frequently open and affirmative hostility
toward the Jewish State, despite the fact that the small country,
a democracy and an ally, faces daily threats of extermination
from terrorists groups and surrounding terrorist states,
including, if not especially, nuclear-weapons-obsessed Iran.
After examining more than a year’s worth of recent
coverage by the [New York] Times,
Gilead Ini of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East
Reporting in America [CAMERA] concluded that the [New York] Times :
“consistently flouts the rules of ethical journalism.
And it does so as part of a campaign to protect anti-Israel
activists and steer public opinion against the Jewish State.”
SOURCE: The ‘Times’ and Israel: A Review of 2018
by Gilead Ini, February 2019
www (dot) CommentaryMagazine (dot) com/articles/the-times-and-israel-a-review-of-2018/
SOURCE: Unfreedom of the Press
(chapter 6, page 163) by Mark R. Levin,
published by Threshold Editions, year 2019, NYC,
ISBN 9781476773094 * ISBN 1476773092
Mr. Cohen says
Mark R. Levin (a lawyer and best-selling author) said:
“How is it possible that such colossal media failures of integrity,
morality, and professional canons in the face of the mass
extermination of Jews and Ukrainians do not permanently
cripple the reputation and standing of the New York Times
and the other press organizations, or at least force serious
circumspection within, and reformation of the media industry?
And what of the weak excuses and feeble explanations
offered decades later, as if they are atonement enough
for the abhorrent consequences of the media’s role
in the cover-up of the genocidal murder of millions?”
SOURCE: Unfreedom of the Press
(chapter 6, page 172) by Mark R. Levin,
published by Threshold Editions, year 2019, NYC,
ISBN 9781476773094 * ISBN 1476773092
Mr. Cohen says
Jonathan S. Tobin [editor in chief of JNS dot org] said:
“When a newspaper like the [New York] Times
focuses attention on the indiscreet tweets of others,
they call it journalism.
However, when someone else uses the same methods
against the press, including revelations about anti-Semitic
comments, the [New York] Times thinks it’s unfair.”
SOURCE: Insect analogies and making journalists
accountable by Jonathan S. Tobin, 2019 August 28
http://www.jns.org/opinion/insect-analogies-and-making-journalists-accountable/
Mr. Cohen says
Caroline Glick said:
“The Far Left and anti-Semitic positions the New York Times
stakes out, for instance, aren’t the function of one editor.
They are reflections of the nature of the organization.”
SOURCE: The New York Times’ 120 year war
against the Jews by Caroline Glick, 06/05/2019
http://carolineglick.com/the-new-york-times-120-year-war-against-the-jews/
Mr. Cohen says
Jerold Auerbach said:
“Blithely disregarding modern history — to say nothing
of ancient Jewish sovereignty in the Biblical homeland
of the Jewish people — [Nathan] Thrall [of The New York Times]
ignores international guarantees dating from the 1920s
(and never rescinded) that recognize land
west of the Jordan River as the Jewish homeland.”
SOURCE: The New York Times is
enthralled by hating Israel by Jerold Auerbach
http://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/03/the-new-york-times-is-enthralled-by-hating-israel/
Mr. Cohen says
Jonathan S. Tobin said:
When The New York Times decided
to give the Democratic presidential
candidates a chance to answer 18
policy questions in a video essay,
the only one that touched on
the Middle East went as follows:
“Do you think Israel meets international
standards of human rights?”
That question summed up the anti-Israel
bias of the so-called “newspaper of record”
as well as anything it has ever published.
Considering the scores of nations with
egregious human-rights records and
the presence in Israel’s immediate
proximity to many of them, it speaks
volumes about the obsessive nature
of the paper’s prejudice that the
only query it would ask about was
the one country in the region that is
a democracy and respects human rights.
SOURCE: Trump discarded the
carrot-and-stick approach to Israel
by Jonathan S. Tobin, 2019 June 20
http://www.jns.org/opinion/trump-discarded-the-carrot-and-stick-approach-to-israel/
Mr. Cohen says
Please join this public group on FaceBook:
New York Times HATES Israel:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NYTvs.IL/
PS: This is the ONLY Facebook Group
whose theme is that a specific newspaper hates a specific nation.
Think about that!
Mr. Cohen says
The New York Times LIED about Multi-Million
Dollar Payments to Terrorists who Murdered Jews:
http://www.algemeiner.com/2018/04/23/jewish-media-watchdogs-in-uproar-over-latest-new-york-times-fake-news/
Mr. Cohen says
Tamar Sternthal of the JointMedia News Service said:
“On the news side, [New York Times] editors
refused to correct both the false report that a Pew survey found
that nearly half of Israeli Jews favor expelling all Palestinians,
as well as the completely unfounded claim that most of Jaffa’s
Arab residents were forcibly expelled from their homes in 1948.”
SOURCE:
Anything Goes in New York Times Coverage of Israel
by Tamar Sternthal / JointMedia News Service, 2019 April 9 http://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/09/anything-goes-in-new-york-times-coverage-of-israel/
Mr. Cohen says
Israel’s ambassador to the United States,
Ron Dermer, has called The New York Times:
“a cesspool of hostility towards Israel.”
SOURCE: article by Ira Stoll, 2019 April 29, for The Algemeiner
http://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/29/new-york-times-is-cesspool-israeli-ambassador-to-us-says/
Mr. Cohen says
Jewish Leader Refuses New York Times
Apology over ‘Deeply Anti-Semitic’ Cartoon:
http://www.jns.org/outrage-over-anti-semitic-new-york-times-cartoon/
Mr. Cohen says
On 2018 December 2, The New York Times
published the article: “The Hypocrisy of Hanukkah”
by Michael David Lukas, which describes Hanukkah as:
“an eight-night celebration of religious fundamentalism and violence.”
SOURCE: The New York Times and Hanukkah
by Jerold Auerbach, 2018 December 4
http://www.algemeiner.com/2018/12/04/the-new-york-times-and-hanukkah/
http://www.jns.org/opinion/american-jewrys-hanukkah-hypocrisy/
PERSONAL QUESTIONS:
When will Jews STOP BUYING The New York Times?
When will YOU STOP BUYING The New York Times?
Mr. Cohen says
Emanuel Miller (from www dot HonestReporting dot com) said:
“Repeatedly, New York Times writers side with those
who seek to spread the poison of anti-Israel rhetoric.”
SOURCE: Buying the BDS Lies —
Hook, Line, and Sinker by Emanuel Miller, 2019 April 22
http://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/22/buying-the-bds-lies-hook-line-and-sinker/
Mr. Cohen says
Michael Moore is one of the greatest heroes of the political Far-Left.
This is what he said about the accuracy of The New York Times:
“The day before the election, The New York Times
said he [Donald Trump] had a 15% chance of winning.
Why would you believe anything The New York Times says after that?
This is a [news]paper that, like much of the media, has been out of touch.”
SOURCE: Michael Moore interviewed by Andy Greene,
in Rolling Stone magazine, 2017/11/30 edition, issue 1301, page 66
Mr. Cohen says
Why Richard Block (a Jewish Liberal-Democrat)
UNSUBSCRIBED from the New York Times:
“I am a lifelong Democrat, a political liberal, a Reform rabbi,
and for four decades, until last week, a New York Times subscriber.
What drove me away was the paper’s incessant denigration
of Israel, a torrent of articles, photographs, and op-ed columns
that consistently present the Jewish State in the worst possible light.”
SOURCE:
Why I’m Unsubscribing From the New York Times
by Richard A. Block, 2014 August 28
Tablet Magazine P.O. Box 20079 New York, NY 10001
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/183412/why-im-unsubscribing-to-the-new-york-times
Mr. Cohen says
New York Times columnist Bret Stephens said:
“…the almost torrential criticism of Israel and
the mainstreaming of anti-Zionism, including
by this paper [the New York Times],
which has become so common that people
have been desensitized to its inherent bigotry.”
SOURCE: New York Times AntiSemitic Cartoon
Controversy Escalates by Ira Stoll, 2019 April 28
http://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/28/shame-on-you-new-york-times-antisemitic-cartoon-controversy-escalates/
Mr. Cohen says
“The [New York] Times has a longstanding aversion
to reporting straight-on demonization of the Jewish people…”
SOURCE: ‘New York Times’ ends the year
with an epic Israel smear by Andrea Levin, 2019/1/1
http://www.jns.org/opinion/new-york-times-ends-the-year-with-an-epic-israel-smear/
Mr. Cohen says
“One [New York] Times opinion editor,
Matt Seaton, even admitted last year [2014] that the newspaper
has a policy of veering away from criticism of Palestinians.”
SOURCE: Final sentence of article titled:
“New York Times Editor: Coverage of Israel
Most Criticized Aspect of Opinion Pages”
by Shiryn Ghermezian, 2015 October 14, found in: The Algemeiner.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/10/14/new-york-times-editor-coverage-of-israel-most-criticized-aspect-of-opinion-pages/
Mr. Cohen says
Mr. Dennis Prager said:
“The New York Times has been in the forefront
of the Left’s hysterical, hate-filled attacks on police officers and whites.”
SOURCE: The New York Times and
the Left Have Blood on Their Hands
by Dennis Prager, 2016 July 12
ww.jewishworldreview.com/0716/prager071216.php3
Mr. Cohen says
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky said:
“In the genocidal war being waged against the Jewish people,
the New York Times is an accomplice.”
SOURCE: A New Low, a blog article
by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, 2015/10/29
http://rabbipruzansky.com/2015/10/29/a-new-low/
Mr. Cohen says
Why Rabbi Haskel Lookstein permanently
stopped reading the New York Times:
SOURCE: Time’s Up for the New York Times
in My Home by Haskel Lookstein, 2019/5/13
http://www.algemeiner.com/2019/05/13/times-up-for-the-new-york-times-in-my-home/
Mr. Cohen says
Rabbi Benjamin Blech said:
It is time for Jews to say to the New York Times:
“we’ve had enough.”
SOURCE: J’Accuse
by Rabbi Benjamin Blech, 2014/7/30
http://www.aish.com/jw/mo/JAccuse.html
Mr. Cohen says
“I find it especially distasteful the New York Times
will not report that college campuses have refused to let
the FBI interview Muslim students who have been planning attacks
on Jewish organizations on campuses, particularly in the Midwest.
It just isn’t Politically Correct to report those things about Muslims,
so they don’t.”
SOURCE: Kristopher Irizarry-Hoeksema, 2014 August 29
Mr. Cohen says
Matti Friedman (veteran news reporter) said:
“The big players in the news business practice groupthink…”
………………………………
“Many of the people deciding what you
will read and see from here [Israel] view
their role not as explanatory but as political.
Coverage is a weapon to be placed
at the disposal of the side they like.”
SOURCE: An Insider’s Guide
to the Most Important Story on Earth
by Matti Friedman, 2014/8/26, Tablet Magazine
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide
SUMMARY: This article exposes intentional anti-Israel bias in the news media.
It is still VERY relevant, even though it was written in 2014.
gravenimage says
Mr. Cohen, thank you for all your useful links.
CRUSADER says
Heavens to Mergatroid ! — there certainly are a lot of ‘em!
??♂️
CRUSADER says
http://www.FaithandLeadership.com
Article by Obama influencer Michael Wear on religion & politics:
————————————————————————————-
Whether Democrats or Republicans, Christians in the U.S. can be active participants in party politics and still be true to their faith, says a consultant on religion and politics and former staffer in the Obama administration’s faith-based initiative.
All U.S. citizens have a duty to participate in our political system, but for Christians, the obligation is even deeper, says Michael Wear.
“There is a Christian obligation to be politically involved, given the Christian command to love our neighbor,” Wear said. “It’s fine for Christians to place themselves within institutions and steward the influence that they’ve been given in a way that they think is best-oriented toward the good of their neighbors.”
In fact, Christians can make an important contribution, he said, because for them, politics is not “a first love” or “an ultimate thing.”
“Christians bring an ambivalence to politics, because we don’t believe it’s the forum for deciding final matters,” he said. “That’s not just a restraint; it’s a contribution that would make our politics healthier.”
Michael WearAn evangelical Democrat, Wear served in the White House faith-based initiative during President Barack Obama’s first term and directed faith outreach for his 2012 re-election campaign. He later founded Public Square Strategies LLC, a strategic consulting firm on faith, politics and American public life. He is the author of “Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America.”
Wear was at Duke recently for “Road of Hope? The Challenges of Faith in Politics,” an event sponsored by the Duke Center for Christianity and Scholarship and the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy.
He spoke with Faith & Leadership about faith and politics, the evangelical vote in the 2016 election, and what Democrats can do to reach out to religious voters. The following is an edited transcript.
Q: Tell us about your background in faith and politics. You worked on the Obama presidential campaigns, and also in the White House, right?
Yes, my background is specifically in faith and politics. I worked on the president’s first campaign in 2008 as an intern. After we won, I worked on the National Prayer Service for the first inaugural and then worked three and a half years in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. I ran religious outreach for the president’s re-election campaign in 2012. Then I ran religious affairs for the second inaugural, and that was my last formal role with the president.
Since then, I’ve worked as a consultant helping Christian organizations navigate the political and cultural landscape and helping mainstream organizations partner with the faith community on common goals.
Q: Where do you locate yourself politically these days? As I understand it, you’re an evangelical Democrat.
Yes, that’s it. If you’re going to describe me, that’s as good a way as any. I’m a Democrat Christian. I definitely hold views on religious freedom and abortion that are more conservative than what seems to be the status quo in the party right now.
…..
CRUSADER says
…..
Q: The issue of faith and politics is everywhere recently. What role should Christians play in politics?
There isn’t one role that transcends time, culture and place, but for American Christians living now, there is a duty that is a matter of just earthly citizenship, living in a country like ours with a system of government like ours. There isn’t an opt-in. You’re already opted in by being a citizen.
And then there is a Christian obligation to be politically involved, given the Christian command to love our neighbor. It’s fine for Christians to place themselves within institutions and steward the influence that they’ve been given in a way that they think is best-oriented toward the good of their neighbors.
One contribution Christians bring to our politics is that politics is not a first love for us. It’s not an ultimate thing. Christians bring an ambivalence to politics, because we don’t believe it’s the forum for deciding final matters. That’s not just a restraint; it’s a contribution that would make our politics healthier.
Q: Is it possible to be active in party politics and remain a faithful Christian?
Yes. But in the short term, day to day, it may mean that you take some losses for not being willing to go outside the boundaries of faithfulness. It means that for Christians, there are some tools in the political toolbox that we don’t pick up.
There is a value in restraint and respect for your political opponents — a basic acknowledgment of their human dignity — that in the long term will bring significant benefits to the way that you engage in political disagreement and make progress on issues.
Christians can be involved in politics, involved in parties, but some things aren’t on the table for us.
Q: What are the tools Christians don’t use?
Incessant fearmongering, putting this existential weight on political decisions in order to rile people up. Christians won’t deploy fear as a motivation with the same flippancy and instrumentalization that has become standard in our politics.
Christians won’t use deception in our politics. Christians will present their opponents’ argument in a way that their opponents put it forth and not willfully mislead people about what the other side wants.
That means you can’t draw as stark a contrast, which seems to be the name of the game in politics now. That’s not the kind of politics that Christians will be interested in employing, because we’re not motivated by hatred of our enemies. We’re motivated by a love of enemies.
Q: What do you make of Christian support for Donald Trump?
What turned religious voters in 2016, especially white evangelicals, was that they had only one candidate who was asking for their vote. For my Democratic friends, yes, it’s despicable that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump. That’s not the way I would have advised them to vote.
But Democrats’ first reaction should be to look inward and say, “We didn’t even care enough about them to make a case. We made a case to every other constituency in the country. But white evangelicals — we couldn’t even fathom why they would support us, other than, ‘Trump is so bad, they have no choice.’”
Well, they did have a choice, and their choice was a man who certainly didn’t vocalize the moral convictions that white evangelicals had been known for, but he did say he’d protect them and their religious freedom. And Hillary Clinton and the Democrats didn’t even deign to give their own positive vision for what religious freedom could look like.
But what’s also been driving much of this conversation is the safe harbors that Christianity generally, and white evangelicalism in particular, have been for misogyny, racism, sexism and xenophobia. The fact that those are things that we’ve, at best, tacitly allowed — and, at worst, welcomed — meant that we did not have the resources within our institutions to push back when Trump made appeals to those kinds of emotions and perspectives.
…..
CRUSADER says
…..
Q: What should the Democrats be doing to reach religious groups?
The first step is to reach out, to show up. If we don’t believe that what we’re proposing is best for everyone in the country, then we don’t deserve to be elected. I was proud to work for Barack Obama. He would meet with people he knew weren’t going to vote for him, but if he was going to be elected, he wanted them to know that they had his ear, along with everybody else in the country. That he was going to be president for them, too.
Democrats have strayed from that. Barack Obama has been clear with his critique of what happened in 2016. I think that what he sees happening in the Democratic Party now is that it was naive, instead of rejecting the politics of division as he did in his 2004 convention speech, to think that the Democratic Party would win if they’d just appeal to 51-plus percent of the country and have a turnout war.
That’s not good for the country, and that’s not good for the party. We saw that in 2016.
So the first thing Democrats can do is reach out. There are ways to reach out to evangelicals, Catholics, the broad faith community as the faith community, not using faith as an institutional foot in the door but actually treating faith seriously.
Also, make institutional changes to make sure that our campaigns have faith outreach and are making a direct case based on the policy perspectives of the candidate and of the party, advancing the most positive case to people of faith.
There are policy changes that are important. America’s faith communities are diverse, but from a strategic perspective, the Democrats could do a lot more to emphasize economic fairness, and specifically, anti-poverty policies. They could do a lot more on policies that support families, family creation, family stability, family security, and then they could turn back the clock to five minutes ago when the party had room for diverse perspectives on the issue of abortion, when the party was willing to make a positive case around religious freedom.
People act as if it’s normal for the Democratic Party platform to call for federal funding to go toward abortion. But that wasn’t the Democratic Party’s policy until 2016, when the platform changed. Before, it was always off the table. Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the most pro-choice people, was a leader on conscience clauses, because he thought there had to be a respect for a difference of opinion, particularly of religious institutions, on those issues.
[As we think] about positive policy changes — justice issues, criminal justice reform and other issues — we need to create more room in the party for socially moderate and even socially conservative folks. There’s a lot that can be done.
There’s so much talk about the 81 percent of evangelicals who supported Trump, and there should be. But if Democrats are going to talk about the 81 percent, we also need to talk about the 16 percent, which is what Hillary Clinton got of the white evangelical vote.
It’s a historic low. John Kerry got more of the evangelical vote than Hillary Clinton did. Barack Obama got [24 percent] in 2008. We’re talking about [nearly] a quarter of the electorate, so just a point or two difference is millions of votes. In 2012, after Obama became the first sitting president to support same-sex marriage, after the HHS contraception mandate and folks accusing him of engaging in a war on religion, he still won 21 percent of the white evangelical vote. Hillary Clinton only got 16 percent.
Q: I understand that you feel strongly that people of faith should be involved in politics, whether they’re Republican or Democratic. You had a piece in Time taking to task Republicans who have left the party to become independents.
When I go to college campuses, nothing riles people up more than suggesting that independents maybe aren’t the best thing for the country.
The reason for that is clear. In this country right now, we have the highest percentage of independents that we’ve ever had. The last numbers I’ve seen were 43 percent, [matching 2014’s] record high.
You would think that if independents were the bomb that a lot of the media suggests [they] would be, then we’d be starting to see the impact. But you can track the rise of independents with the decline in our politics and the polarization of our political parties.
When people leave the party and become independent, they’re starving our political parties of the balance and nuance that parties need in order to justify moderation and inclusion. If the only people left in our political parties are people who can sign on to every jot and tittle of the party platform, then the parties have no internal rationale for allowing any difference of opinion or not being the most strident they can be.
What the Republican Party needs most right now are faithful Christians who are happy to be Republicans and to be voices within that party, for instance, against that party’s rightward xenophobic turn on immigration. What the Democratic Party needs most right now are faithful Christians who are happy to be Democrats but are willing to be a voice within that party for moderation and nuance on issues involving sanctity of life.
But those voices, compared with 25 years ago, are largely gone. And then we critique from the outside: Why are our parties so extreme? It’s because you’re not there. Not only do they have little reason to listen to you; they have very few lines of communication to listen to you. You’re literally not at the party.
Q: How do Christians even begin to find common ground?
I am not as concerned from an ecclesial standpoint about disagreement among Christians on issues. It’s healthy for there to be Christians motivated by different issues, whose experiences lead them to different positions. God uses that. I’m not sure uniform Christian politics would be good for the church.
That being said, what’s really been exposed is not a crisis in political thinking among Christians. What’s been exposed is a crisis of discipleship. What’s been exposed is a crisis of spiritual formation.
What’s been exposed is this fact that we have millions of Christians who don’t think God has anything to say about their politics. That Jesus is somehow confused about our political system, that he just doesn’t get it.
[It’s as though] the only purpose of politics is to achieve security, whatever that means, and power, so that we can continue to be Christian in our personal lives. But God has a claim on more than that. So we need to be thinking as a church about what spiritual formation for public life looks like.
That doesn’t mean that we need pastors speaking on Sunday morning about what they think the marginal tax rate should be. What it does mean is that we should be insisting that Christians are thinking “Christianly” about politics.
—————————
gravenimage says
The New York Times Has a Jewish Problem (Part 1)
………………………..
What a creep Wright-Piersanti is. And as Hugh Fitzgerald notes, this is really nothing new with the NYT.
Austriandude says
Call me a Nazi, but the mentioned comics aren’t really that much “antisemitic” to me
Or at least, it counts as fool freedom
The whole story what the times did during WW2, welll yeah, that was wrong
gravenimage says
Part of freedom of speech is being able to criticize other speech.
Heidi says
There are more organizations than just the NYT going against Israel and the Jews. Interesting article. https://www.globalresearch.ca/lying-israel-nearly-everyone-washington-does-it/5687524
gravenimage says
Yes–the creeps at “Global Research” hate America *and* Israel.