Surprise: NY Times and WaPo don't report Abu Bluff's comments
Last week, Haaretz reported that 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President "You are freedom fighters and holy warriors for the sake of God and the homeland," Abbas exulted.That comment, which constituted clear support for terrorism was (surprise!) ignored by the New York Times and the Washington Post, both of which are desperately trying to maintain the illusion that Israel has a partner for peace.
The Times not only omitted coverage of Abbas's speech at the Ramallah rally; it depicted Abbas as a leader who has "long focused on popular nonviolent struggle. ("Hard Feelings Test Hope in Israel-Hamas Deal" by Ethan Bronner, page A4). In Bronner's upside-down journalism, Abbas, who just called a bunch of murderers "holy warriors," remains nevertheless an apostle of non-violence.Indeed.
The Washington Post similarly covered up Abbas's "holy warrior" salute to his freed terrorists. And like the Times, it vouched that Abbas remains the "leader of the more moderate Fatah." ("In Swap for Shalit, Hamas sees victory" by Ernesto Londono" front page).
"Non-violent struggle" "more moderate Fatah" -- which is, of course, a bunch of hooey. Still, what gives here, why would the Times and the Post so glaringly censor Abbas's "holy warrior" salute? Because like most mainstream media, they are heavily invested in promoting a make-believe peace process and a make-believe Palestinian leader whom they peddle as a genuine, reliable peace partner. The hard evidence belies their coverage, but if it gets in the way of their pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel agenda, out it goes.
There's an old adage that the truth will make you free. At the Times and the Post, the conceit is that lies will.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, New York Times, terrorists for Gilad trade, Washington Post
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:04 PM
2 Comments:
From the article; "... Still, what gives here, why would the Times and the Post so glaringly censor Abbas's "holy warrior" salute? Because like most mainstream media, they are heavily invested in promoting a make-believe ..." ------ Sounds like how they acted about candidate/President Obama.
WaPo typically sits on stories until they can work out a line-for-the-day as to what it means--and then they choose picaresque human interest anecdotes and cherry pick facts, semi-facts, and deliberately distorted factoids to fit the preconceived slant. Hasn't the Times reached the point where they just make up crazy shit on whim? Does anybody except fashionable liberal hacks rely on either paper for anything approaching "objective news"? Both are losing money hand over fist--the Times relies on shady subventions from gazillionarie investors, and the Post on Kaplan's proprietary college diploma mills to bilk the government out of financial aid for unqualified candidates the government will never get back.
Post a Comment
<< Home