On March 4, a 59-year-old American Baptist, William P. Hyde, was among 21 people killed by a suicide bomber in Davao in the southern Philippines. That an American died was made clear in the following day’s New York Times. The Times titled its news report “Bombing Kills An American And 20 Others In Philippines.” The first seven paragraphs concerned Hyde, who had lived and worked in the Philippines since 1978, and another American, Barbara Stevens, who had been “slightly wounded” in the attack. The caption alongside two photos at the top of the front page of that day’s Times also made reference to his death, as did a news summary on page 2. In addition, the paper ran an editorial titled “Fighting Terror in the Philippines.” And a front-page photo of a wounded boy, and the caption that accompanied it, made clear that at least one child had been among the injured.
On the next day (March 5), another American Baptist, 14-year-old Abigail Litle, was among 16 people killed by a suicide bomber on a bus in Haifa, Israel. The story and photo caption in the March 6 Times, tucked at the bottom corner of page 1, made no mention of Abigail’s name. Neither the headline nor the photo caption indicated that an American had died, or that the suicide bomber had deliberately chosen a bus packed with schoolchildren, or that a majority of those killed had been teenagers.
The suicide bombers in both Davao and Haifa were acting on behalf of Muslim fundamentalist groups fighting for separate states...
I wouldn't send your kids over to read the rest of it. But it does show how, again and again, the coverage of the New York Times seemed slanted against Israel - and, at times, Palestinian moderates, too. In his introductory note, Gross includes this:
5. Liberals like myself want to see two democratic states, one predominantly Palestinian Arab and one predominantly Jewish Israeli, coexisting in peace. But we have also followed the conflict closely enough to know that the Western media's misreporting has contributed to the failed policies in the region of both American and European diplomats.
Fast forward to today, when I came across Camp Katrina: An Interesting Omission, which contrasts an AP story and a New York Times story on a bombing outside a hospital south of Baghdad. The AP was kind enough - and responsible enough - to note that the person driving the car bomb targeted U.S. troops handing out food and candy to children. The New York Times just says that a suicide car bomb exploded near an American convoy at the entrance to the hospital, and never got around to why the troops were there or what they were doing. (See the end of this Major K. post for why American troops were at the hospital.)
Now, I don't want anybody reading more into this than they ought. I think the New York Times isn't quite as demonic as some folks like to portray it. But, doggone it, sometimes it does seem to pave the way for trouble instead of report on what's gone on. And sometimes, doggone it, it does seem to side with brutes, or otherwise gnaw at the foundations of civilization with unseemly gusto.
And, all too often, the folks at the New York Times seem to forget that it became the paper of record because it earned that distinction. I was reading an old novel the other day, from decades and decades back, and some characters in it were joking about how some guy couldn't get in the New York Times because what he had to say couldn't be double-checked and cross-referenced several different ways.
These days, no matter your credentials or experience or reliability, if you say something the reporters and editors think certain 'elites' want to hear...
That's what it looks like, anyway. I'd like to be wrong on this. Tell me I'm wrong.
