American Madness

Intelligent Criticism in the Service of a Better Nation




New York Times supresses opinions in its comment line!!!

Posted by Joel Friedlander | No Comments

The New York Times has adopted a policy of holding indefinitely any comments with which it disagrees when the subject is one they wish to editorialize. Prior to this date, whenever I posted comments which were not in agreement with the general NYTimes position, my comments were held up for most of the day, and when the story was about to leave the editorial section, they were posted.  That, I suppose, was the best way to prevent other people from reading them. Yesterday the procedure changed, as indicated above. My comment was made to an opinion piece entitled, Against ‘Pro-Israel’ by Robert Wright.

The Comment:

Joel L. Friedlander
Plainview, New York
March 24th, 2010
12:47 pm (please note the time, as this has never been run and is still indicated as “being moderated”)

I have read with interest the hostile crap that makes up this line of comments. So tell me Mr. Wright, when did the people of the United States elect General David Petraeus to any position? He is a soldier and in this country we leave policy decisions to our elected officials. If I were the President and he was one of my generals I would do to him what Harry Truman did to General Douglas McArthur: FIRE HIM.

General David Petraeus seems to forget that if we didn’t invade Afghanistan and Iraq we wouldn’t have any troops in the middle east at all. The cause of most of the Anti American hatred on the part of the Arabs has been our interference in their countries. We didn’t go into either of those countries because of Israel, but because of our own interests, and we stay there because of our own interests.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a RED HERRING in the Arab World and if it settled tomorrow the Arabs would still hate us like poison!

Meanwhile, Israel is the only democracy in the region, and it is a reliable ally at all times, and the Israeli people provide the world with countless scientific, medical, business, and cultural contributions. What the hell do the Arabs give us besides selling the oil that occurs naturally under their countries.

Get your priorities straight Mr. Wright! Lose the Israelis and you may lose a cure for cancer; lose the Arabs and you might have to find another way to power your motor vehicle.

Now why is the NY Times so intent upon hiding comments they don’t agree with.  Well, this is a situation involving the Jews, whether the NYTimes wants to admit it or not.  They have underplayed stories involving the Jews in the past.  They did it most spectacularly in WWII, when they knew of the Holocaust.

“… [A]t the end of the war and for decades afterward, Americans claimed they did not know about the Holocaust as it was happening. How was it possible for so much information to be available in the mass media and yet simultaneously for the public to be ignorant?

The reason is that the American media in general and the New York Times in particular never treated the Holocaust as an important news story. From the start of the war in Europe to its end nearly six years later, the story of the Holocaust made the Times front page only 26 times out of 24,000 front-page stories, and most of those stories referred to the victims as “refugees” or “persecuted minorities.” In only six of those stories were Jews identified on page one as the primary victims.

The New York Times was in touch with European Jews’ suffering, which accounts for its 1,000-plus stories on the Final Solution’s steady progress. Yet, it deliberately de-emphasized the Holocaust news, reporting it in isolated, inside stories. The few hundred words about the Nazi genocide the Times published every couple days were hard to find amidst a million other words in the newspaper. Times readers could legitimately have claimed not to have known, or at least not to have understood, what was happening to the Jews.” How the NYT Missed the Story of the Holocaust While It Was Happening, By Laurel Leff , George Mason University’s History News Network. http://hnn.us/articles/10903.html.

I agree with the conclusions of the above article.  A newspaper can limit the influence of an idea by placing it where few people can see it.  The above writer suggests that the reason for this was that the NY Times was Jewish owned and operated and they were:

“Fearful of accusations of special pleading or dual loyalties, the newspaper hesitated to highlight the news. In addition, the newspaper’s Jewish publisher believed that Jews were neither a racial nor ethnic group, and therefore should not be identified as Jews for any other than religious reasons. He also believed that Americans would only want to help Jews if their cause was melded with that of other persecuted people. He therefore ensured that his paper universalized the Nazis’ victims in editorials and on the front page.” Leff, Supra.

Today, probably for the same reasons, the Times is afraid of being labeled a Jewish newspaper, so they make sure that their position is almost never pro Israeli, at least in the comment lines.  This is especially insidious since many people are influenced by what their peers think and the opinions of others often shape a persons opinion.

Is this Anti Semitism on the part of the N.Y. Times?  You decide for yourself!

Comments

Leave a Reply





  • Trust us


    As with Anna Karina, we prefer to remember the U.S.A as she was in the 1960s.
  • Archives

  • RSS Matt Friedlander’s Tumblr Feed

  • RSS Josh Friedlander’s Twitter Feed