The New York Times, one of the most influential newspapers in the world, not only influences its readers but also has significant impact on the news judgment and editorial perspective of other media. The caliber of accuracy, balance and thoroughness in this publication are therefore of particular importance.
Contact the newsroom: [email protected]
The New York Times buried on page 6 of the Business Section (Section C) an important story (February 7, 2005) on the escalating scandal surrounding the facts of the infamous Muhammad al Dura episode. The case involved the alleged Israeli killing of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy and the severe wounding of his father at Gaza's Netzarim Junction in September 2000.
“A precipitous Israeli overreaction” is what a January 15, 2005 New York Times editorial labelled Israel’s decision to end all contact with the Palestinian Authority (PA) until it begins to take action against the type of terrorism unleashed against Israel on January 13.
A New York Times report on the exodus of Christians from Bethlehem omitted a major reason for this demographic change – official and unofficial Muslim discrimination against Arab Christians, amid a rising tide of Islamism in the Palestinian territories.
The New York Times has finally found space on its pages to expose one of the foremost obstacles to peace — the chronic anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement that has flooded Palestinian public television and radio since 2000. Why now? To inform readers that the current PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has asked for the incitement to stop. The Times is apparently unable to expose Palestinian incitement for what it is, however, without suggesting that Israel has done something similar. But this is simply not true.
In his interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz, Dov Weissglas, a close advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was asked about Israel's decision to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. According to American media coverage of this interview, Weissglas suggested that Ariel Sharon's true intention in planning the Gaza disengagement is to freeze the peace process and prevent a Palestinian state. However, this was not his message at all; his words were taken out of context.