Powered by WebAds

Monday, July 21, 2014

The New York Times on why no terrorist pictures in the New York Times

In an earlier post, I blogged an article by Noah Pollak on how the New York Times is playing by Hamas rules in this war - no pictures of terrorists and no pictures of weapons in civilian areas.

The Times has - unofficially - responded to Noah's accusations by two tweets from Anne Barnard. Barnard is the Times' Beirut bureau chief and is currently the Times' reporter who is embedded in Gaza.


Labels: , , , ,


At 11:34 AM, Blogger AngryBell said...

But yet they will print their lies. What the hell happened to American Journalism?

At 3:30 PM, Blogger Empress Trudy said...

Read Laurel Leff's "Buried by the Times" or Deb Lipstadt's "Beyond Belief" or David Wyman's 'Abandonment of the Jews' or Walter Laquer's 'The Terrible Secret', or Edwin Black's 'IBM and the Holocaust' or Robert Abzug's 'America Views the Holocaust, 1933-45 A Brief Documentary History' and you will see that the US, particularly the press and particularly the New York Times worked as hard as it could to put a nice friendly face on the Nazis and the Holocaust both inside Germany and all of the occupied countries before and during the war. While Sulzberger was obviously not a Nazi he ran his business by letting Nazi sympathizers run it for him. He was an elitist snob who not only disliked Jews he disliked anyone not of his 'class'. He refused in most cases to even help distant family members get out Germany and France before and during the war. He worked to support the State Department's complete refusal to process visas for escaping Jews and the Times coverage of the Holocaust where they bothered with it all, was forbidden by editorial diktat from uttering the word 'Jew' at all. After the war the Times stance on Israel was to be viscerally opposed to it. As far as the Times was concerned, Zionists were traitors to America by definition.


Post a Comment

<< Home