The newspaper speaks of two Jordanians killed in a "confrontation" with an Israeli embassy guard. Why does it avoid mentioning that one of those Jordanians first stabbed the guard?
Weeks after the New York Times slurred Kenneth Marcus, who has worked to oppose anti-Semitism, as a "longtime opponent of Palestinian rights causes," the same newspaper refuses to cast a clear-cut anti-Israel activist as "anti-Israel." In fact, the Times insists her "credentials as an anti-Israel activist are far from clear-cut."
Almost every day brings new evidence that the New York Times has become a propaganda source, where history and current events alike are distorted and ordinary professional norms of objectivity are cast aside. A case in point is the recent "analysis" of the failed Oslo talks.
Following a well-worn pattern, The New York Times is again downplaying Palestinian belligerence, this time obscuring the fact that intensive Palestinian rocket attacks against southern Israel prompted a wave of Israeli airstrikes on Hamas sites in the Gaza Strip in the last 24 hours.
Following communication by CAMERA, the New York Times updated its piece to note that the new embassy isn't partially in east Jerusalem, but rather what was called "No Man's Land," which separated the western and eastern sectors of the city.
The New York Times was wrong to claim an Egyptian intelligence officer urged the media not to condemn U.S. recognition of Israel's capital. It was wrong to suddenly change its characterization of Ramallah from a lively city to a dreary town. And it was wrong to ignore anti-Semitism by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.
The New York Times did not publish quotes from the campaign of incitement by Palestinian leaders or describe the enactment of anti-Israeli violence at a Hamas camp. And it did not report on the terrorist stabbing of an Israeli civilian, likely a result of such incitement. What did it emphasize instead?
A New York Times' article about a July 14th Palestinian terror attack in Jerusalem contains no falsehoods or errors, but nevertheless manages to mislead readers both about Jerusalem and its holy sites, as well as the motives behind the events.
NYT journalists employ a singular set of criteria to assess racism in Israeli society versus others, similar to the double standard they use to condemn Israel for the sort of laws democratic countries routinely use to govern entry by foreigners into their borders.
The New York Times is willing to label as terrorism attacks against civilians in France and other countries. But when the attacks are against Israelis, terrorism is not terrorism.