Update: A Window into the NY Times Biased Mindset

In East Jerusalem, the police shot and killed a local Palestinian who drove a construction vehicle over a pedestrian, killing him, and then knocked over a bus, which happened to be nearly empty, slightly injuring three people. The incident took place in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, and the police said that they were regarding the attack as a response to Israel’s conflict in Gaza. Tensions have been high in Jerusalem and in the West Bank, with intermittently violent protests against Israeli policies and war conduct. (New York Times, August 4, 2014; see Update below, however)

So to Erlanger the most important point is not that, in what is clearly a Palestinian terror attack aimed at killing as many innocent Israeli civilians as possible, a Palestinian driving a tractor crushed an Israeli pedestrian, murdering him, and smashed and overturned a bus that was, fortunately, nearly empty.

 

No, the really important issue was that the police “shot and killed” the “local Palestinian.”

 

In addition, unmentioned by the Times is that this is not the first time Palestinian construction workers have carried out such an attack, as this Haaretz article from 2011 about a similar attack outlines.

 

And in a few months, when “local Palestinians” find it harder to get jobs in Israel, perhaps the Times can write a human interest story about the injustice of it all.

 

UPDATE: The Times has now edited the description of the bulldozer terror attack in Israel, and included information about the separate shooting attack that also took place:

In an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Jerusalem on Monday, a Palestinian drove a heavy construction vehicle over a pedestrian, killing him, and overturned a nearly empty bus, injuring three people, before the police shot the driver to death.

Later, a gunman shot and wounded a soldier waiting at a bus stop near Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, escaping by motorcycle, in what the police said was a suspected terrorist attack.

While it’s positive that the Times redid this part of the story, the point stands: what does it say about the mindset of the paper that they could publish the original version?