Posted on 01/26/2005 5:05:02 PM PST by wagglebee
The world is now observing the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp. More Jewish people were slaughtered there than at any other point on earth. In the midst of the remembrance, it is well to recall the New York Times article by C.L. Sulzberger noting the liberation.
Cyrus Sulzberger listed the different kinds of people slaughtered at the camp: men, women, children, Poles, Italians, etc. One thing old Cyrus neglected to mention in his article was the religion of the overwhelming majority of victims: They were Jews.
This should not surprise us. After all, another Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, was one of a number of speakers at a public recognition of the revolt of the Warsaw Ghetto; he was noteworthy on this occasion by being the only speaker to forget to mention that the people engaged in this revolt were Jewish. What is more important: Jews being slaughtered in enormous numbers, or the Sulzberger clan downplaying their Jewishness so they can be admitted to Gentile clubs in New York?
One can find in the Times index the subject of Jews being slaughtered in concentration camps, but not before the indices of 1950 and beyond. If my memory serves correctly, VE Day occurred in 1945.
Time has passed. The millennium has turned. The New York Times has issued an apology for the manner in which it covered the slaughter of Jews in Europe during the Second World War. But why apologize to me? Despite my father's honorable service to his country during the war (he was a physician), I was safe and sound here in America. The people to whom the Times owes an apology went up in smoke in Auschwitz and other death camps.
The major media have disgraced themselves by calling the Times "America's newspaper of record." In the interest of truth and advertising, the Times should change its motto from "All the news that's fit to print" to a simple Latin expression: "Caveat emptor." The Latin would give class to the paper, and it would be truthful; it means let the buyer beware.
When the Holy Father, who is certainly not Jewish, speaks of the horrors of Auschwitz after having lived in Poland through the dark days of Nazism and the cruel oppression of the communists, one is moved to tears; when the Sulzberger clan, who most certainly are Jewish, decide to deal with Auschwitz at this late date, one tends to lose one's appetite.
What happened at the death camps was a new level of horror and depravity in an already sick world; what the Sulzbergers did does not by any means match what the Nazis did, but it is disgusting enough. The silence of the Jewish community generally about the shabby role that the Sulzberger clan and the New York Times played in reporting the story of the European slaughter should bring shame to everyone who is Jewish in America.
To our esteemed Jewish leaders: Does the cat have your tongue?
To the New York Times and the great Sulzberger family: You are beneath my contempt.
And to think, the Old Gray Whore did this just after they told the world what a "utopia" the Soviet Union was and how wonderful Stalin was -- it's sickening.
It's Bush's fault.
Sulzberger's NYT - lining even the most liberal birdcages.
or
"Only the best for your untrained puppy"
Why not, the Times missed the story the first time around.
bttt
"The major media have disgraced themselves by calling the Times "America's newspaper of record." In the interest of truth and advertising, the Times should change its motto from "All the news that's fit to print" to a simple Latin expression: "Caveat emptor." The Latin would give class to the paper, and it would be truthful; it means let the buyer beware." ... "The silence of the Jewish community generally about the shabby role that the Sulzberger clan and the New York Times played in reporting the story of the European slaughter should bring shame to everyone who is Jewish in America. To our esteemed Jewish leaders: Does the cat have your tongue? To the New York Times and the great Sulzberger family: You are beneath my contempt."
Right-on, Rabbi Pomerantz! Amen and right-on! I wouldn't use the NY Times to like a cat's litterbox, it would be a grave insult to the cat.
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.