Add Anti-Semitism To The Biases Of 'The New York Times'

If you want to find the cartoons that characterize the worst of Nazi Germany and Arab anti-Semitism, you now have homegrown stock. You have to go no further than the many papers that run the syndicated cartoons of Pat Oliphant (Universal Press Syndicate), the most widely syndicated editorial cartoonist in the world.

Early published reports said The New York Times also ran the cartoon, but those who complained (as I did) soon got this message from The Times: “The offending cartoon by Oliphant was not and will not be published in The New York Times. It did not appear on our Web site either. What did appear there, by a long-standing contractual arrangement with a company called uclick.com, is an ‘Oliphant’ button. This button on the cartoons page took people who clicked on it March 25 to that cartoon, which is now relegated to the Oliphant archive. Nobody at The Times, therefore, made any decision to ‘publish’ the cartoon. But, though the click gets you to a uclick.com page, regrettably in this case, the banner on the page says ‘The New York Times ...Cartoons.’

So The Times didn’t publish the cartoon, it publicized it, linked to it, and gave the impression it was a New York Times cartoon. So we go with our initial instincts — The Times has to take full blame for the bigotry captured by the cartoon. And this column will give it full “credit” for printing it because that’s what it’s Web site set up did!

Here’s an accurate description of the cartoon as framed by the Anti-Defamation League:

“The cartoon portrays a headless, jack-booted figure marching in a goose step with a sword in one hand and pushing a Star of David on a heel with the other. The Jewish Star has fangs and is chasing after a woman carrying a child, labeled ‘Gaza.’ ”

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, in a statement, condemned the cartoon as follows: “The imagery in this cartoon mimics the venomous anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazi and Soviet eras. It is cartoons like that that inspired millions of people to hate in the 1930s and help set the stage for the Nazi genocide.”

‘The Times’ Is Anti-Israel And Anti-Semitic

The New York Times has a long record of being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, so its association with this cartoon should surprise no one. I checked a group of anti-Semitic cartoons circulated by the Nazis and Arabs, and Mr. Oliphant’s fits that mold perfectly. He has captured the vicious, pernicious Jew-hatred perfectly. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, and Yasser Arafat would be proud of him. The ADL also stated the objection to the cartoon perfectly:

“Pat Oliphant’s outlandish and offensive use of the Star of David in combination with Nazi-like imagery is hideously anti-Semitic. It employs Nazi imagery by portraying Israel as a jack-booted, goose-stepping headless apparition. The implication is of an Israeli policy without a head or heart. Israel’s defensive military operation to protect the lives of its men, women and children who are being continuously bombarded by Hamas rocket attacks has been turned on its head to show the victims as heartless, headless aggressors.”

The newspapers running or publicizing this cartoon and Mr. Oliphant have demonstrated they are not content merely to print biased, dishonest and fraudulent material about Israel and Jews, but want to get into the incitement to hatred and violence mode, which was the intent of Nazi cartoons and other propaganda and is now the intent of Arab propaganda.

Mr. Oliphant failed to find the real Nazi storm-trooper type in this scenario. First of all, it is clearly Hamas, which is intent on murder, the slaughter of innocents and genocide. Second, it is Mr. Oliphant, the newspapers that ran and publicized the cartoon that most approximate the Nazi mentality. Remember the warning of the great English historian Paul Johnson in his book The History of the Jews — incitement to hatred translates into violence and death … even to genocide. This crew of hate inciters has or will have bloody hands.

This cartoon is only one more reason to join the boycott of The New York Times and the other mainstream media outlets that follow in its tradition. The leader in that boycott effort is a media watchdog called Accuracy in Media, which maintains a valuable Web site at www.boycottnytimes.com, where you can sign its boycott petition and also get detailed reports on many examples of Times’ media bias.

Don’t assume that the bias of The Times is directed only against Israel and Jews. It runs the gamut, and includes bias against what most Americas deem to be different parts of their value system. The Times is anti-American, anti-religion, anti-law-enforcement, anti-military, anti-conservative, anti-Republican, anti-family values and on top of that is a boot-licking lackey for the Democratic Party and all kinds of kooky, radical liberal ideas.

‘The Times’ Is Anti-Catholic

And when it comes to anti-religious bias, it’s not only anti-Semitic, but is also, for example, anti-Catholic. This is illustrated on the boycott Web site by an article by the editor of the site, Don Feder, titled “When The Times Thinks 6 Protestors Are Worth 524 Words” (March 9, 2009).

Mr. Feder compares the coverage The Times gave to two protests. The first protest involved a group of six — yes only six, one half dozen, count ’em — Catholics holding a protest and press conference in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral to criticize the New York archdiocese for allegedly downplaying the number of priests accused of molestation. They also criticized the archdiocese for not releasing the names of the accused — even before formal charges might be filed or an investigation launched.

As this was a protest critical of the Catholic Church, it was automatically an important story … for The Times. It considered each protester worth 87 words. And Mr. Feder adds, “Given the way The New York Times treats scandals involving the Catholic Church, it’s entirely possible that the paper would have devoted as much space to a solitary protester standing on the steps of St. Patrick’s in the middle of a blizzard.”

Compare that with The Times’ coverage of a protest of thousands at a union rally at City Hall on the same day. That didn’t even rate a story. It only rated a picture with a 39-word caption.

Mr. Feder notes: “Anti-Catholic bias is a regular feature of The Times. As we noted in a February 27 posting, the day before the paper ran a quarter-page photo meant to depict Ash Wednesday observance in New York City. The photo showed a priest giving ashes to a woman. No one was in the line behind her.

“According to the Catholic League, thousands showed up at that church on that day. The Times photographer, who was there for hours, waited until the church was almost empty to take a picture meant to show Catholicism in decline.

“Note to all groups having a demonstration, rally, protest or picket in New York City. If you want wall-to-wall coverage of The New York Times, be sure to have someone criticize the Catholic Church.”

‘The Times’ Is In The Tank For Obama

One of the most damaging biases of The Times involves its cheerleading and virtual campaigning for candidate Barack Obama and now President Obama.

Consider one of the many excellent reports prepared for the Accuracy in Media Web site www.boycottnytimes.com. It is titled “Exclusive: New York Times Lacks Credibility.” Most pieces are by the Web site’s editor, Mr. Feder, but this one is by U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. He writes: “After years of biased reporting — reaching a new low with the most one-sided converge of a presidential campaign in history last year — The New York Times has lost its credibility. But rather than try to restore it, The Times continues to lose credibility by serving as a cheerleader for Obama’s administration.”

He illustrates his point by a story The Times ran headlined, “Survey Reveals Broad Support for President.” It used its own poll to conclude President Obama enjoyed “remarkably high levels of optimism and confidence” and an “aura of good will” with Americans. The article went on to compare Mr. Obama’s standing to that of President Reagan early in his term and found Mr. Obama has “substantial political clout.”

But the same day, Gallup released a poll with about the same approval numbers as The Times’ poll. But Gallup put the numbers into historical perspective, noting Mr. Obama had approval “typical of how the last several presidents have fared at the one-month mark.” In fact, Gallup also pointed out his approval rating was nearly identical to that of the last six presidents. Gallup made no mention of “remarkably high levels” of support or an “aura of good will.”

In addition, Gallup pointed out that Mr. Obama’s disapproval rating went up from 12 to 24 percent in one month. In addition, Gallup noted that Mr. Obama’s disapproval rating was actually higher than the average of the last six presidents.

Why the difference in interpretation of essentially the same polling numbers? That’s so because The Times is wildly biased in favor of President Obama. Mr. Feder notes that nationwide reporters contributed 15 times more money to Democrats than Republicans in the last election cycle. Even some of the mainstream media admitted the liberal pro-Obama bias. That admission was too kind — it was outright advocacy, not just bias.

This cheerleading for Mr. Obama is dangerous, as the public relies on the media to be objective and to give them a picture of the real world, rather than propaganda for President Obama.

Here’s the way Congressman Smith answers the question, what to do?

“We can start by calling on The Times and other national media outlets to adhere to the highest standards of their journalistic profession by reporting the news objectively and fairly. We can single out examples of bias and ask for better coverage. We can encourage the media to give the American people the facts and then let them make up their own minds. And, when appropriate, we can let our voices be heard by changing viewing habits or canceling subscriptions…

“We must make the media’s responsibility part of the public dialogue. Holding them accountable will go a long way towards providing the balance in the news that our nation needs and deserves.”

The examples of The Times propagandizing on Mr. Obama’s behalf and running interference for him are almost endless. One recent example involved his appointment of Charles W. Freeman to a top intelligence post. It turned out that Mr. Freeman had a background that made him more of an agent of Red China and Saudi Arabia than someone who should be preparing intelligence reports for the U.S., as he would be doing in the job Mr. Obama had appointed him for. When it turned out the appointment was another disastrous personnel decision by the White House, The Times had to run interference for Mr. Obama and try to save him from embarrassment. So it relied on the fact he did not technically name Mr. Freeman, but he was appointed through the office of Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence. So here’s how The Times attempted to whitewash the Obama appointment.

It reported: “When Dennis C Blair, the director of national intelligence, announced that he would install Charles W Freeman Jr. in a top intelligence post, the decision surprised some in the White House.” Mr. Feder observes, “Sure, and the president had no idea the minister of 19 years was anti-American.”

‘The Times’ Is Anti-Social Conservative

The Times was once a newspaper. But now it seems to make up stories to fit its prejudices. Its motto should not be “All the news that’s fit to print.” Instead it should be “All the fiction that matches our prejudices.” Here’s another example, of The Times, which doesn’t like social conservatism, so it suggests it is fading. As we saw above, The Times likes Mr. Obama so it distorts the news in his favor, and ignores the facts. In the case of social conservatism, it doesn’t like it, so it distorts the news against it, and its opinion pages reflect The Times fictional party line.

For example, columnist Frank Rich was ecstatic over what he saw as the growing insignificance of social conservatism. He wrote that the “good news in our global economic meltdown” is that “Americans have less and less patience for the intrusive and divisive moral scolds that thrived in the bubbles of the Clinton and Bush years.”

To prove his point that social conservatives are fading in influence, Mr. Rich cited polls — one supposedly showing that “55 percent endorse either the gay civil unions or same-sex-marriage (Newsweek, December 2008).”

But Mr. Feder notes the left often uses polls to prove a point when the poll got its answer by asking the wrong question. For example, during the Terri Schiavo affair (when a disabled woman was starved to death to what Mr. Feder calls “the massive applause from Rich and The Times”), ABC came up with a poll that misstated the facts to be able to claim that 63 percent supported removing Schiavo’s feeding tubes. When a Zogby poll correctly described the situation and hence asked the question the right way, then 79 percent opposed denying Schiavo food and water.

So what about the poll showing the public favors either gay civil unions or same-sex marriage? Mr.Feder responds,

“If most Americans favor gay marriage or civil unions, why do voters keep passing state defense-of-marriage amendments (Arizona, California and Florida last November)? To date, 30 states have prohibited gay marriage, by an average vote of almost 70 percent … Looks like the ‘intrusive and divisive moral scolds’ continue to thrive.”

You could write a book on The Times biased, dishonest, fraudulent, and hate-inciting journalism. In fact someone did. Bob Kohn wrote an excellent volume titled Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted.

But that departure of journalistic principles is getting more pronounced, so now you’d need a 50-volume encyclopedia to cover all the examples of The Times bias.

What makes The Times journalistic malpractice so damaging is that it sets the agenda for the mainstream media. So the largest providers of news and opinion, the mainstream media, are deceiving and misleading the public. Among those following The Times are The Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, NPR and many others. They all deserve to be boycotted and they all require that the public look for alternative sources of information. To understand a world growing more complicated and dangerous by the minute, you can’t rely on the dishonest propaganda of left-wing zealots for your news and information.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

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.