Media activist Alison Weir (10/8/12) calls attention to a remarkable New York Times report (10/9/12) on Gaza violence. While we’ve come to expect a pro-Israeli bias from the Times, it’s still surprising to find the paper using time travel to make sure that events happen in their proper sequence.
The headline of the Times piece is:
Israel Launches Airstrikes After Attacks From Gaza
But if you read the article, you immediately find that the sequence is exactly reversed:
Gaza militants fired a barrage of rockets and mortar shells into Israeli territory on Monday, causing no casualties but some property damage, after an Israeli airstrike in southern Gaza on Sunday killed one Palestinian and wounded at least nine others.
Emphasis added–because the Times went out of its way to deemphasize this crucial fact.
Another thing deemphasized by the Times‘ Isabel Kershner and Fares Akram–in fact, not mentioned at all–is that among the “nine others” wounded by the unprovoked Israeli strike were an infant and four other children (International Middle East Media Center, 10/8/12). They did find room to mention, however, that “several goats were killed in a petting zoo in an Israeli communal farm.”
Talk about all the news that’s printed to fit
Time is meaningless
When you’ve got worldviews to warp
Apparently, at the New York Times reporting on the welfare of goats is more important than reporting on the death and wounding of Palestinian Children. No wonder that trust in the media is at a low point.
Shameful.
Doug Latiner, but don’t you think news editors should lie to us — for the greater good of protecting the civilized world from barbarian goat slaughterers?!!
Look, I don’t want to do this:
If FAIR had included the next paragraph in that Times article you would see that the headline was accurate as to the events of the day the article was filed: a rocket barrage from Gaza was immediately followed by an Israeli airstrike in response.
It is a bit rough to bash the Times on this one, since you are punishing them for pointing out in the article that those rockets themselves followed an earlier attack from Israel. They could have left that information out.
Yes, the Times is probably more comfortable writing headlines that cast the Palestinians in the role of aggressor, but I don’t see how you can fault the headline too much in this case.
Even if you disagree with me that the headline is acceptable, do you think FAIR was right to cut off the quote of the article right before the language that would make the headline at least defensible?
This FAIR item makes the Times look like it was operating on a Fox News level, but I think in this case it was FAIR being manipulative and deceptive, and that weakens the larger body of FAIR media criticism, which I overwhelmingly support.
The Times often operates on a Fox News level. They have undermined their own credibility. They did it.
You are saying that the outright deception employed by the warmongering New York Times, was “not technically lying”.
I read the report, and nowhere does it make the Headline defencible….
ISRAEL struck FIRST, Gazans retaliated, then Israel took the retaliation as justification to strike AGAIN….
The headline IS indefencible, as it totally omits the FIRST strike, by Israel, in order to paint them (once again) as the victims, justified in retaliation, when in fact, those hit FIRST were the victims…
Sadly, many people only bother reading headlines, and not the article that, essentially, says “We’re LYING!!!”
…. and people wonder why newspaper circulation and TV news viewing figures are nosediving….
In a situation where two sides are trading blows, it can be arbitrary how many hours you go back to say who struck “first”. I say the headline was defensible because it described what occurred that day. The article it headed gave the additional context of including the strike by Israel of the day before, which, again according to the article, does seem to have broken a period of relative quiet. Therefore I agree a better headline could have been written, and it is reasonable to think a pro-Israel bias at the Times is to blame (though Times headlines are routinely awful as a matter of style, independent of politics).
On the other hand, the article could have limited itself to the events of Monday, in which the Palestinians did strike “first”, so it seems perverse to get on the Times just because the body of the article did in fact include the extra context.
But I understand that just as any indication that the Israelis are the aggressors makes the NY Times very uncomfortable, the opposite will set off many people here, no matter how limited the scope of the statement.
My main point was that it seems wrong of FAIR to quote only the first paragraph of the article (as did Alison Weir), so as to make the headline seem completely looking-glass backward and utterly inexplicable or mendacious, when if they extended the quote by just one sentence you at least could see why the headline appeared as it did (regardless of whether you agree with it). Considering what FAIR does for a living, that seems to me to be a very bad practice.
The deception by the NY Times which you are trying to defend is not defensible.
The excuses you have provided are weak.
You have to read the first two paragraphs several times in order to sort out the sequence of events. Not a good example of journalism. A great example of bias, but not a good example of clear writing. So technically, the headline is correct depending on when you start the clock. The wheel goes round. But you need to put this headline into a larger perspective. For much of the Times writing, in fact for much of the mainstream press, the clock starts when the shells are fired by Palestinians regardless of events that preceded this. FAIR has many times pointed out the pro-Israel bias whenever the latest round of shots is fired off. Still, I think FAIR could have handled this one a little bit better and pointed out how misleading that headline is and what it assumes.
Technically it is deception and technically what you are trying to do is to make excuses for it.
I definitely see the larger perspective, and appreciate FAIR’s part in illuminating it. That’s all the more reason not to take shortcuts to bend the facts to fit the agenda, as I think they did here (albeit passively, by basically copying Weir’s piece). Bad practices like quoting selectively will weaken their overall effort.
Thanks to Bog and JB for your thoughtful replies.
I understand that you wish to try to defend the deceptive practices of the NY Times.
David G:
I agree with your last comment. When any one or any organization takes an unpopular position or a position that goes counter to mainstream thinking or reporting, as FAIR does, then the burden lies on FAIR to be exemplary in its behavior. It has to be above reproach. This may be unfair (absolutely no joke intended), but that’s the way it is. Otherwise FAIR will be accused of the very thing it’s supposed to be oppose viz. bias in the media.
That’s ridiculous. The NY Times is a known purveyor of deception and lies and they are at it again, they never learned, they never cared, they just plain deceive people – Americans.
I do not buy your act, or any of you up here today, I do not believe you are concerned about anything.
JB: I’m not sure what you’re reading or not reading. Here are the first tow paragraphs from The TImes piece:
“JERUSALEM — Gaza militants fired a barrage of rockets and mortar shells into Israeli territory on Monday, causing no casualties but some property damage, after an Israeli airstrike in southern Gaza on Sunday killed one Palestinian and wounded at least nine others.
Israeli warplanes responded immediately, striking a number of rocket-launching squads as they fired toward Israel, according to the military, and hitting several facilities belonging to Hamas, the Islamic group that controls Gaza. The military said the sites were being used to store weapons.”
Please explain where you see FAIR twisting the facts. I certainly cannot.
This little incident embodies the entire Hasbara campaign of the Zionists. Always the victim, never the attacker but only because their revisionist history starts AFTER they have done unto others what they will not have others do unto them. And the same applies to what they’re doing to Lebanon, Iran and the rest of the world. I’m so sick of the shenanigans of these mongrels…they make my stomach hurt!
The ever-so-compliant NYT, always pandering to their masters, be they in Wall Street or Tel Aviv. That rag is no longer worth the paper it’s printed on.
So, maybe it is time to drop the NYT subscription and donate $10/month to TRNN. At least there, you can be certain that the only views expressed there are based on the cold hard facts on the ground as gathered by their own independent, non-corporate, non-governmentally-funded reporters.
Do this enough times with enough viewers, and someday, we won’t ever need FAIR again!!! (But until then, I hope FAIR keeps up the good work.)
whoever struck first and whoever retaliated last, the fact remains that israel is a colonialist entity based on violently stolen palestinian land. once you know this, it doesn’t matter who’s on first.
The most important point is to end this war, which, obviously, cain’t be done, alone, by the two antagonists. Both sides must choose an arbitor, agreeable by both. And be strongly, persuaded to follow by the neutral party’s dictates/decisions or suffer from agreed upon sanctions, boycotts and economic trade barriors, without exception.
But, Thomas, they have a WALL, now… to do just what you said– end the War. So, depending upon the construction schedule, the Inner Kingdom will soon be safe from the Mongol hordes… uh, Semite herds. (Those darn GOATS!) ^..^
Now, now Greg S, isn’t your expression “twisting the facts” a bit strong. Here’s the sequence of events as reported in the first two paragraphs (I’ve put them in temporal order):
1. Sunday, Iraeli airtstrike on southern Gaza
2. Monday, Gaza retalialiates
3. (not sure what day) Israeli retaliates in response to Monday’s events
The Times, as most mainstream media do, has amnesia and starts the clock, in this case, on Monday. Many people never get pass the headlines. But FAIR states this, that the Times has engaged in “time travel to make sure that events happen in their proper sequence.” There’s no time travel here at all. So technically, as pointed out by one other reader with whom I concur, technically the Times headline is not wrong. Yeah, Israel retaliated in responspe to Monday’s events. No time travel on the part of the Times to make events come out they way the paper wants. A better analysis of this Times article by FAIR would be to use it as an example of how the article, specifically the headline, reinforces (actually shapes) public opinion, viz. the Palestinians started it, they always start it, and Israel has every right to protect itself becasue Israel must survive (for the record not my position). Actually FAIR has done this sort of analysis elsewhere, just not here. So I stand by what I wrote earlier No time travel here to get events in the order the Times wants. A seriously misleading headline, of course. And FAIR could have done a bit better job, as I wrote above.
Thank you for admitting that the NY Times is pushing “seriously misleading and deceptive” headlines because of their bias against Palestinians.
Does the story mention why Israel attacked on Sunday?They were trying to kill two terrorists as I recall.I don’t think anyone believes the Israeli defense minister gets up and says hey- go bomb somebody.Well maybe on FAIR they do.
Since you’re so interested in details, you may tell us what are the names of the terrorists and who did they terrorize, and why did they do it, and where did they go to school.
Let’s be honest- the Jews wanted an independent country, on a piece of land populated by another group of people. The jews declared independence and took control on the land, in a war against almost all arab countries. since then, there are no “first” or “response”, there is constant fighting between two groups of people thinking the land is theirs.
You all sound like 6th graders arguing about who started, and exactly when. I’ll put you all in detention if you don’t stop.
Uhm. You forgot about the 80+ rockets that were fired into Israel from gaza just prior to that?
Ms. Alison remains a well known antisemitic racist who praises and keeps company with Holocaust deniers. Surely you can find other sources to bolster your points without calling attention to right-wing racists
That isn’t true. Provide an example of the anti-Semitism. You are a liar.
Actually, this has all been quite well documented – and I do believe you know this.
https://m.facebook.com/notes/owen-r-broadhurst/the-company-that-alison-weir-keeps/886569801380610/?ref=m_notif¬if_t=like
Leave it to our media to make sure the truth is obscured. Fairly easy to confuse Americans when most have no idea what the conflict there even entails, nor do they want to learn. Very sad. The people of Gaza have suffered far too long.
All life was precious.
Then, any loss of innocent life was regretted.
Then, rockets rained down.
Then, what would you have done?
Then, and only then, the Israelis became occupiers.