Posted on 09/07/2004 6:17:23 PM PDT by chiller
I know that's a strong headline, but imagine you're a person who only gets his or her news from the New York Times. For many people, that isn't much of a stretch.
You open up today's Times to the Page 3 feature on the Beslan horror. It doesn't mention that the terrorists were Muslims.
I know, I know. The sun rose today in the east, the sky is blue, roses are red, and the Times won't call terrorists Muslim. What else is new?
How about altering a quote specifically to remove any implication that the Beslan terrorists were Muslims?
The wire services reported, in a quote printed in thousands of newspapers, that the captured Beslan terrorist said, "By Allah, I did not shoot."
Today's Times piece quotes him as saying, "By God, I did not shoot"—a translation that no other news organization has used.
In other words, the Times wanted so badly to leave Islam out of its Beslan feature that it altered the terrorist's quote.
This is more than political correctness. This is the deliberate alteration of a news quote to create the false impression that a terrorist follows the Judao-Christian God and not Allah.
This is an outrage.
Why are we not surprised? Al Jazeera on the Hudson.
"Collusion" is the exact word he used I believe. It was on CNN headline news around 6:00 or so. I am sure CNN people do lurk here but I am not one of them if that is what you are implying. I really was surprised to hear someone on CNN ask a question like that since most of us here on FR just assume the liberal media is in "collusion" with the terrorists, communists, etc.
The New York Times is still too busy covering the Abu Ghraib story...I guess 50+ front page stories wasn't enough. Savage just ran through a number of headlines from around the country (and world)...and some outlets actually refered to them as "activists"...with none of the ever mentioning the word, terrorists.
ratings. And their guy Kerry isn't doing so good..
No, I wasn't at all!
I guess the liberals are tired of blubbering "why do they hate us?". Now they are blubbering "why do they hate the Russians?".
Concerning the "boo" story, look here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1207644/posts?page=1
With all of their analyzing, I'm surprised they don't have their anchors give the news from a psychiatrists couch.
NYT is sold nationwide at Starbucks. I would like to boycott Starbucks unless / until they drop the NYT.
It is, indeed, an outrage. Nothing more than typical of this bullsh*t so-called newspaper.
The issue of whether the NYT translation is appropriate turns on whether the cowardly thug was pleading entirely in Arabic, in which case a full translation is appropriate, or was using the Arabic "the God" in what was otherwise spoken in Russian or Chechen. Only the Muslims (or those following their custom in reporting Muslim speech or writing) treat Allah as a proper name and leave it untranslated when passing into other languages. An Arabic speaking Christian will sing "Holy God. . ." when singing the Trisagion in English, never "Holy Allah. . .". A Muslim speaking English will speak of Allah in refering to his deity, regarding the Arabic name as part of the Koranic 'revelation'.
If he was pleading in Russian or Chechen, translating Allah from the Arabic along with the translation from Russian or Chechen is dishonest. If he was speaking entirely in Arabic, I have no problem with the translation.
Suggest they get the WSJ for balance? It *is* one of only two national newspapers: the other being USA Today. I think the WSJ is trying to be nationwide too.
WSJ editions are published in Europe and Asia.
Okay. I'm imagining... I only get my news from the New York Times... Yesssss...I'm a moron...a dysinformed moron...
The New York Times has become one, with the enemy.....
They have become the enemy....
Semper Fi
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.