News that doesn’t fit the narrative is only covered if absolutely necessary. In this case, the Times was getting criticism for ignoring the story, so this disgraceful Leftist propaganda rag finally had to notice the incident.
“New York Times Belatedly Finds Stabbing of Chabad Rabbi Fit to Cover, at Least Online,” by Ira Stoll, Algemeiner, July 12, 2021:
…Two days after an Algemeiner column faulted the New York Times for failing to cover the July 1 stabbing of a rabbi in Boston, the Times waddled in with an online-only article bringing its readers up to date on the story.
The Times article, headlined, “Man Charged With Hate Crimes in Stabbing of Rabbi in Boston,” includes four paragraphs from the accused assailant’s defense lawyer, Stephen J. Weymouth, who told the Times the new hate crime charges were “based on some very weak evidence.”
The attack had drawn immediate coverage from outlets including the Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, and the Daily Mail, even as the New York Times skipped it. A rally against antisemitism, organized in response to the attack, attracted Boston’s acting mayor, the district attorney, and a member of Congress.
The Algemeiner column had speculated that the Times might have been ignoring the story because “a fair-minded, thorough investigation into such attacks might eventually force the newspaper to examine unflinchingly the role that the Times’ own coverage has played in inciting the violence.” It also wondered whether the Times had lost interest in the antisemitism issue “now that antisemitism is not so readily blamed on Donald Trump.”…
Mike says
not enough evidence!
Of what I’ve read over and over again
Attack’s on Jews by Muslims is not a flunk it happens over and over again
Muslims either claim that the perp always has a mental health issue every time
All over the middle east Islam teaches hate of Jews and the book of peace says kill them (Jews) where you can and the perps get a reward
How is it that Muslims attack Jews and Christens and the law enforcement has no idea how it happened and what is or was the cause
a blind person could see it
But know they don’t want to upset Islam and they fold every time
gravenimage says
New York Times covers Muslim stabbing rabbi a week late, claims hate crime charges based on ‘weak evidence’
…………
Right–because what could possibly be hateful about stabbing Jews? The disgusting NYT is morally abhorrhent.
James Lincoln says
gravenimage,
I know a number of people who read the New York Times. Makes them feel “uptown”, “with-it”, and part of the “sophisticated intelligentsia”.
If I find a copy lying around a hotel lobby, I bring it home to line the cage of my daughter’s pet rabbit…
Wellington says
Putting mendacity and wokeness to good use, James. Guess everything’s good for something.
gravenimage says
James, I like their puzzle pages–beyond that, generally not so much.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
The headline of this Jihad Watch article says, “New York Times … claims hate crime charges based on ‘weak evidence'”. This is false. This claim is made by the rabbi-stabber’s lawyer, not by the NYT.
gravenimage says
Mark, the article above says this:
The Times article, headlined, “Man Charged With Hate Crimes in Stabbing of Rabbi in Boston,” includes four paragraphs from the accused assailant’s defense lawyer, Stephen J. Weymouth, who told the Times the new hate crime charges were “based on some very weak evidence.”
Kepha says
Yes, this a great example of Leftist hypocrisy. Apparently, a Muslim criminal cannot be guilty of a “hate crime” simply because he belongs to a Leftist client group, while his victim belongs to a group no longer seen by the Left as a client group. But I pray that one day, we will have enough legislators and jurists willing to call out the “hate crime” category as a redundancy and political tool. Would it have been less of a crime had this Muslim assailant stabbed another Muslim of a different ethnicity, or even of the same ethnicity over some other issue, rather than a Jew? I recall then-Gov. Dubya Bush of Texas being condemned because he did not refer to the murder of James Bird (dragged to death behind a vehicle) as a “hate crime”. Yet Mr. Bush did not even pretend to be gone fishing when the appeal for clemency for the two of three murderers sentenced to death crossed his desk, but upheld the executions.
One does not murder, rob, assault, or rape others out of love or simple respect. The whole idea of Mens Rea presupposes an element of hatred in any crime. In this stabbing, I am all for the stabber feeling the full weight of the law and the victim getting the protection of the law. If the rabbi files a civil suit over his injuries in addition to the state prosecuting criminal charges, I hope the rabbi gets compensated. If a bunch of Kluxers burn a cross on a black man’s lawn, go after them for trespass, assault, vandalism, or whatever else is on the books; if the black man, fearful for his life, pulls out a firearm and shoots one or more of the Kluxers on his lawn, call it good old self-defense or appeal to the home-as-castle doctrine. But, don’t treat the crime as qualitatitvely different than a black-on-black or white-on-white crime. The “hate crime” category is simply a means to give political clout to certain client groups.