Two stories in two days reveal two standards governing New York Times coverage of violence in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
When The New York Times reported on soccer racism in Europe on Jan. 5, 2013, the story was about the negative response to racism by European soccer fans. But when discussing the recent protests by Israeli soccer fans against the recruitment of Muslim players, the newspaper used this as an excuse to present a sweeping indictment of Israeli society.
If 62 percent of Arabs in Israel back the state's national service program, why does a New York Times story on the subject devote 82 percent of quoted words by Arabs to opponents of the program? The newspaper is forcing stories through its preferred frame.
The New York Times holds its own skewed view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, according to which Israel is always to blame. It tries to impose this perspective on its readers by carefully choosing which facts to present and which to conceal.
Jodi Rudoren’s recent friendly tweets to extreme anti-Israel activists were no aberration. More than 10 years ago she was already at it, failing to display the kind of journalistic objectivity that even a cub reporter should know was a basic requirement of her profession.