Read the New York Times news coverage carefully enough, and the subtle language tricks that the paper’s reporters and editors use to excuse Hamas and demonize Israel start to seem less subtle, more blatant and outrageous.
Two recent articles provide examples of the Times’s techniques.
One Times dispatch, from a university in Brussels, is by the Times bureau chief there, Matina Stevis-Gridneff.
[The Algemeiner Op-Ed continues]
Elsewhere in the same dispatch, we hear that, “The three Jewish students disagreed on politics, expressing views ranging from mostly pro-Palestinian to largely siding with the Israeli government line.” Some editor should have edited out “line.” There’s an asymmetry between “pro-Palestinian” and “largely siding with the Israeli government line.” Why not just “pro-Israel,” or, if the Times insists on going down the road of accusing people of taking a party line, what about “siding with the Palestine Liberation Organization line”?
Another Times article, by Matthew Mpoke Bigg, is about a Hamas leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar. That article explains in passing that, “Hamas has constructed a network of tunnels beneath Gaza to shield the group from Israeli surveillance and attack.”
That seems like an awfully benign, to the point of inaccurate, way of describing the reason Hamas built those tunnels. It might also be said that Hamas built the tunnels so they could pursue, under cover of secrecy, their mission of killing Jews and wiping Israel off the map. It could be said that the tunnels also advanced the Hamas purpose of hiding from the rest of the world the scale to which they were looting Gaza’s economy and diverting humanitarian aid resources for military use. The “shield…from Israeli attack” language the Times uses makes it sound like the tunnels are defensive, when in fact the tunnels were offensive, used to conceal preparations for attacks on Israel that were perpetrated by Hamas.
[The Algemeiner Op-Ed continues]
Stevis-Gridneff describes herself in her Times bio as having been “born and raised in Athens, Greece” and educated at Oxford and the London School of Economics.
Being educated and raised outside the U.S. may contribute to the anti-Israel tilt, though you can certainly acquire an anti-Israel tilt from inside plenty of American universities, too.
As the Times tries to grow by amassing an international readership, and also adds more international staff, it’ll face a choice between chasing anti-Israel readers in Europe and elsewhere, or serving readers based in America. Americans in general, if not necessarily the left-leaning Times audience, are more likely than many European elites are to sympathize with Israel. In other words, the Times can try to be the Guardian, or it can try to be the New York Times, but it’s perilous to try to be both at the same time. American readers will notice and will get annoyed by the bias.
Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
View the Algeminer Op-ed from June 21st