Once again Israel is fighting for its very survival. As the citizens of Israel continue to man the front lines in a ceaseless battle against the evil wrought upon them in their markets and cafes, a second battlefront has arisen. This war must be fought in the world media as Israel is now forced to defend its policies and values in the public forum.
Several months ago, a group of concerned American Jews undertook a campaign to focus attention on the Mideast news coverage of the prestigious New York Times. Despite concerted efforts to meet with the senior editorial staff to discuss a pattern of factual errors and distorted coverage of the Middle East crisis, the newspaper continued to mislead their readers. As the number of innocent Israeli civilian casualties rose, the newspaper?s failure to recognize Palestinian barbarism as ?terrorism? became ever more obvious.
A few examples of The Times? anti-Israel bias:
1) A large photo on the front page after an Israeli Solidarity March which featured an ?End Israeli Occupation of Palestine? sign. This photo distorted the reality of the event. A public outcry and massive subscription cancellations occasioned an editors note the following day.
2) An article by Joel Greenberg describing the death of two girls, 17-year old Rachel Levy and 18-year old Ayat al-Akhras as two high school seniors whose lives intersected, divided by war but joined in carnage. This comparison was obscene and morally repugnant. To place a homicide bomber on the same level as an innocent girl shopping for the Sabbath is odious. Imagine The Times printing an article last fall describing how the lives of Muhammad Ata and a 25-year old bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald had been intertwined and joined in carnage. The failure to recognize terror as terror is moral relativism at its worst.
3) The 39 day standoff in The Church of the Nativity was reported from a Palestinian perspective. It was continually referred to as an Israeli ?siege?, not an occupation by Palestinian terrorists. Yet Palestinians shot their way into one of Christendom?s holiest sites and held the church and its religious leaders hostage. The Times? journalists frequently turned the terrorists into victims when they described them as taking ?refuge? in the church.
4) The Times uses the words terror or terrorist selectively. In articles describing the terrible attacks against the World Trade Center or the USS Cole, the term terror was freely used. But in describing individuals belonging to groups such as Hamas or The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, The Times frequently refers to them as militants or activists even though they have committed horrendous acts of carnage. President Bush has said it in the simplest terms; terror is terror, no matter who the perpetrator or victim is. Apparently The Times disagrees.
5) A Camera report dated May 1 (www.camera.org) analyzes The Times coverage for the two-week period from March 28 to April 11. During this period, ten terrorist attacks against Israelis and Operation Defensive Shield took place. The Times is shown to have taken a highly imbalanced and skewed perspective of the events. They have repeatedly refused to comment on this report when asked.
As a result of The Times biased coverage, a decision was made to begin a campaign that might impact The Times? executive staff. We began to urge Times readers to 1) suspend their subscriptions, 2) ask their local and national organizations to stop placing notices and public service announcements in The Times and 3) most importantly, to convey to corporate advertisers the reader?s strong disapproval of The Times for not presenting a balanced coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict, when the only democracy in the Middle East is combating a corrupt dictatorship that supports terrorism.
The response to our request has been tremendous and we believe that some impact has been made. But there is still a long way to go.
We have focused on The Times, even though some other media outlets may be more biased in their presentation of this conflict. This is because we believe The Times is the most influential media source in the world today. It is the newspaper of record. Many TV and radio stations, as well as other print media, key off The Times? stories to form their own presentations. Government opinion makers are certainly influenced by what they read in The Times. Israel?s ability to effectively fight this war has been constrained by a fear of negative reactions from other friendly governments. Undoubtedly this has resulted in the needless tragic deaths of many innocent Israeli citizens. That is why this effort is so important.
The Times simply is not telling the truth about Israel. It is our responsibility to tell the truth to The Times.
Please visit our new website to view how we are proceeding in this most important effort, at: www.nytimesprotest.org.
-------------------------------
Fred Ehrman is an investment adviser in New York. He is involved in many
Jewish organizations, and is coordinating the protest against The New
York Times Mideast coverage.
Several months ago, a group of concerned American Jews undertook a campaign to focus attention on the Mideast news coverage of the prestigious New York Times. Despite concerted efforts to meet with the senior editorial staff to discuss a pattern of factual errors and distorted coverage of the Middle East crisis, the newspaper continued to mislead their readers. As the number of innocent Israeli civilian casualties rose, the newspaper?s failure to recognize Palestinian barbarism as ?terrorism? became ever more obvious.
A few examples of The Times? anti-Israel bias:
1) A large photo on the front page after an Israeli Solidarity March which featured an ?End Israeli Occupation of Palestine? sign. This photo distorted the reality of the event. A public outcry and massive subscription cancellations occasioned an editors note the following day.
2) An article by Joel Greenberg describing the death of two girls, 17-year old Rachel Levy and 18-year old Ayat al-Akhras as two high school seniors whose lives intersected, divided by war but joined in carnage. This comparison was obscene and morally repugnant. To place a homicide bomber on the same level as an innocent girl shopping for the Sabbath is odious. Imagine The Times printing an article last fall describing how the lives of Muhammad Ata and a 25-year old bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald had been intertwined and joined in carnage. The failure to recognize terror as terror is moral relativism at its worst.
3) The 39 day standoff in The Church of the Nativity was reported from a Palestinian perspective. It was continually referred to as an Israeli ?siege?, not an occupation by Palestinian terrorists. Yet Palestinians shot their way into one of Christendom?s holiest sites and held the church and its religious leaders hostage. The Times? journalists frequently turned the terrorists into victims when they described them as taking ?refuge? in the church.
4) The Times uses the words terror or terrorist selectively. In articles describing the terrible attacks against the World Trade Center or the USS Cole, the term terror was freely used. But in describing individuals belonging to groups such as Hamas or The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, The Times frequently refers to them as militants or activists even though they have committed horrendous acts of carnage. President Bush has said it in the simplest terms; terror is terror, no matter who the perpetrator or victim is. Apparently The Times disagrees.
5) A Camera report dated May 1 (www.camera.org) analyzes The Times coverage for the two-week period from March 28 to April 11. During this period, ten terrorist attacks against Israelis and Operation Defensive Shield took place. The Times is shown to have taken a highly imbalanced and skewed perspective of the events. They have repeatedly refused to comment on this report when asked.
As a result of The Times biased coverage, a decision was made to begin a campaign that might impact The Times? executive staff. We began to urge Times readers to 1) suspend their subscriptions, 2) ask their local and national organizations to stop placing notices and public service announcements in The Times and 3) most importantly, to convey to corporate advertisers the reader?s strong disapproval of The Times for not presenting a balanced coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict, when the only democracy in the Middle East is combating a corrupt dictatorship that supports terrorism.
The response to our request has been tremendous and we believe that some impact has been made. But there is still a long way to go.
We have focused on The Times, even though some other media outlets may be more biased in their presentation of this conflict. This is because we believe The Times is the most influential media source in the world today. It is the newspaper of record. Many TV and radio stations, as well as other print media, key off The Times? stories to form their own presentations. Government opinion makers are certainly influenced by what they read in The Times. Israel?s ability to effectively fight this war has been constrained by a fear of negative reactions from other friendly governments. Undoubtedly this has resulted in the needless tragic deaths of many innocent Israeli citizens. That is why this effort is so important.
The Times simply is not telling the truth about Israel. It is our responsibility to tell the truth to The Times.
Please visit our new website to view how we are proceeding in this most important effort, at: www.nytimesprotest.org.
-------------------------------
Fred Ehrman is an investment adviser in New York. He is involved in many
Jewish organizations, and is coordinating the protest against The New
York Times Mideast coverage.