╌>

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  buzz-of-the-orient  •  5 years ago  •  2 comments

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?



by   Alan M. Dershowitz , Gatestone Institute, April 29, 2019

512

For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel's enemies. (Photo by Mike Coppola/Getty Images)

Imagine if the New York Times cartoon that depicted Israel's Prime Minister as a dog had, instead, depicted the leader of another ethnic or gender group in a similar manner? If you think that is hard to imagine that you are absolutely right. It would be inconceivable for a Times editor to have allowed the portrayal of a Muslim leader as a dog; or the leader of any other ethnic or gender group in so dehumanizing a manner.

What is it then about Jews that allowed such a degrading cartoon about one of its leaders? One would think that in light of the history of the Holocaust, which is being commemorated this week, the last group that a main stream newspaper would demonize by employing a caricature right out of the Nazi playbook, would be the Jews. But, no. Only three quarters of a century after   Der Stürmer incentivized the mass murder of Jews by dehumanizing them we see a revival of such bigoted caricatures.

The  New York Times  should be especially sensitive to this issue, because they were on the wrong side of history when it came to reporting the Holocaust. They deliberately buried the story because their Jewish owners wanted to distance themselves from Jewish concerns. They were also on the wrong side of history when it came to the establishment of the nation state of the Jewish people, following the holocaust. When it comes to Jews and Israel, the  New York Times  is still on the wrong side of history. I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and the  New York Times  has a right to continue its biased reporting and editorializing. But despite my support for freedom of speech, I am attending a protest in front of the  New York Times  this afternoon to express my freedom of speech against how the  New York Times  has chosen to exercise its. There is no inconsistency in defending the right to express bigotry and at the same time protesting that bigotry. When I defended the rights of Communists and Nazis to express their venomous philosophies, I also insisted on expressing my contempt for their philosophy. I did the same when I defended the rights of Palestinian students to fly the Palestinian flag in commemoration of the death of Arafat. I went out of my way to defend the right of students to express their support of this mass murder. But I also went out  of my way to condemn Arafat and those who support him and praise his memory. I do not believe in free speech for me, but not for thee. But I do believe in condemning those who hide behind the First Amendment to express anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, sexist or racist views.

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the   New York Times   op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel's enemies. Most recently, the   New York Times   published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the   New York Times   and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism "news analysis," when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven't even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel errors.

The publishers of the   New York Times   owe its readers a responsibility to probe deeply into this bias and to assume responsibility for making the Times earn its title as the newspaper of record. Any comparison between the reporting of the   New York Times   and that of the Wall Street Journal when it comes to the Middle East would give the   New York Times   a failing grade.

Having said this, I do not support a boycott of the   New York Times . Let readers decide for themselves whether they want to read its biased reporting. I, for one, will continue to read the   New York Times   with a critical eye, because it is important to know what disinformation readers are getting and how to challenge that disinformation in the marketplace of ideas.

So I am off to stand in protest of the   New York Times , while defending its right to be wrong. That is what the First Amendment is all about. Finally, there is some good news. One traditional anti-Semitic trope is that "the Jews control the media." People who peddle this nonsense, often point to the   New York Times , which is, in fact, published by a prominent by a Jewish family, the Sulzbergers. Anyone who reads the   New York Times   will immediately see the lie in this bigoted claim: Yes, the   New York Times   has long been controlled by a Jewish family. But this Jewish family is far from being supportive of Jewish values, the nation state of the Jewish people or Jewish sensibilities. If anything, it has used its Jewishness as an excuse to say about Jews and do to Jews what no mainstream newspaper, not owned by Jews, would ever do.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

As I recently posted, the NYT has often been chosen the runner-up for an award for the most biased against Israel mainstream medium, awarded by an organization that checks media bias - there are more of such organizations than MBFC.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

Someone on this site posted a comment on another article that contained his opinion that when Jews criticize Israel it is not considered antisemitic, but if non-Jews do, it is.  How does one explain the Jewish family that owns control of the NYT consistently allowing their medium to post biased anti-Israel and antisemitic articles and editorials - is that being considered by Jews to be okay?  How do you explain Bernie Sanders' support of the antisemitic BDS?  Do other Jews consider his anti-Israel bias to be okay?  How do you explain self-loathing Jews like Noam Chomsky who would drink champaigne to celebrate if Hamas were to carry out its intention of demolishing Israel and killing every Jew they can?  That opinion of that NT member is a lame bit of garbage. 

 
 

Who is online

MrFrost
evilone
umeko


103 visitors