It\'s \"The New York Times vs. Israel.\" So at least is how some pro-Israel readers of the paper see it, and have started a massive campaign (\"www.nytprotest.sitegrow.net\") to make their gripes known. Claiming a long pattern of anti-Israeli reporting in the paper, the organizers are asking readers to stop their subscriptions for at least one month, starting tomorrow.
\"With Israel fighting for its very survival,\" begins one of their ads, \"we are witness to shockingly biased reporting by most of the world\'s media organizations - The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, New York Sun and Fox News being notable exceptions… The New York Times may not be the worst offender but it is certainly the most influential…\" The ad accuses the paper of using headlines and photographs to elicit sympathy for suffering Palestinians, while failing to do the same for Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism, and of inadequately reporting Palestinian intransigence, corruption, and its \"murderous dictatorship.\" The ad directs readers to \"www.camera.org\" for an \"independent study documenting recent New York Times coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.\"
A similar one-day cancellation campaign was undertaken last week, and another ten-day campaign was held last year. Readers of the Los Angeles Times, as well, have started a campaign to boycott that paper for two days, starting tomorrow. They cite the success of their previous one-day campaign last month, when 1,000 people called in to cancel - for one day - their LA Times subscriptions.
It was noted that Sunday\'s Salute to Israel Parade in New York City drew 700-800,000 people, as well as 600 pro-Arab protestors - yet The New York Times ran a front-page photo only of an anti-Israel poster held by one of the latter. The Times itself apparently realized its error and published the following \"correction\" the next day:
\"An article yesterday about a parade in Manhattan marking Israel\'s 54th anniversary reported that 100,000 people had registered to march and hundreds of thousands more lined Fifth Avenue in support. The article also said that anti-Israel protesters numbered in the hundreds.
\"A front-page photograph, however, showed the parade in the background, with anti-Israel protesters prominent in the foreground, holding a placard that read, \"End Israeli Occupation of Palestine.\" Inside the newspaper, a photo of a pro-Israel marcher was outweighed by a larger picture of protesters, one waving a sign that likened Zionism to Nazism.
\"Although the editors\' intent in each case was to note the presence of opposing sides, the effect was disproportionate. In fairness the total picture presentation should have better reflected The Times\'s reporting on the scope of the event, including the disparity in the turnouts.\"
\"With Israel fighting for its very survival,\" begins one of their ads, \"we are witness to shockingly biased reporting by most of the world\'s media organizations - The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, New York Sun and Fox News being notable exceptions… The New York Times may not be the worst offender but it is certainly the most influential…\" The ad accuses the paper of using headlines and photographs to elicit sympathy for suffering Palestinians, while failing to do the same for Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism, and of inadequately reporting Palestinian intransigence, corruption, and its \"murderous dictatorship.\" The ad directs readers to \"www.camera.org\" for an \"independent study documenting recent New York Times coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.\"
A similar one-day cancellation campaign was undertaken last week, and another ten-day campaign was held last year. Readers of the Los Angeles Times, as well, have started a campaign to boycott that paper for two days, starting tomorrow. They cite the success of their previous one-day campaign last month, when 1,000 people called in to cancel - for one day - their LA Times subscriptions.
It was noted that Sunday\'s Salute to Israel Parade in New York City drew 700-800,000 people, as well as 600 pro-Arab protestors - yet The New York Times ran a front-page photo only of an anti-Israel poster held by one of the latter. The Times itself apparently realized its error and published the following \"correction\" the next day:
\"An article yesterday about a parade in Manhattan marking Israel\'s 54th anniversary reported that 100,000 people had registered to march and hundreds of thousands more lined Fifth Avenue in support. The article also said that anti-Israel protesters numbered in the hundreds.
\"A front-page photograph, however, showed the parade in the background, with anti-Israel protesters prominent in the foreground, holding a placard that read, \"End Israeli Occupation of Palestine.\" Inside the newspaper, a photo of a pro-Israel marcher was outweighed by a larger picture of protesters, one waving a sign that likened Zionism to Nazism.
\"Although the editors\' intent in each case was to note the presence of opposing sides, the effect was disproportionate. In fairness the total picture presentation should have better reflected The Times\'s reporting on the scope of the event, including the disparity in the turnouts.\"