Another Example of Why the New York Times is Not a Trustworthy Source

The Times doesn't even pay attention to its own reporting when it doesn't suit the narrative, in this case that until this month, recent antisemitic violence was largely a Trump-related phenomenon.

|

Back in January, I wrote, "I can't say I've ever fully trusted the Times to be accurate, but until recently I generally felt fairly confident that even if a story was slanted in perspective, the facts that were reported were basically accurate. Not anymore."

Here's another example, from a story on the recent wave of antisemitic violence.

Three things of note. First, while the most infamous incidents of antisemitic violence in the U.S. in recent years were the Pittsburgh and Poway synagogue shootings by white supremacists, the bulk of recent antisemitic violent incidents were a series of dozens of attacks on Orthodox Jewish men in the New York area, culminating in murders in Jersey City, NJ, and Monsey, NY. Here is what the Times itself reported in February 2020: "Most of the anti-Semitic incidents in New York have not been perpetrated by jihadists or far-right extremists, but by young African-American men." In fact, I believe that none of incidents were ultimately traced to "far-right extremists." The Jersey City and Monsey murders, which were of course covered in the Times, were perpetrated by individuals who had imbibed hateful extremist black nationalist ideologies.

Do the Times' reporters read their own paper, or do they just go with the prescribed narrative?

Second, the notion that the right-wing attacks were a product of being emboldened by Donald Trump is reported as a simple fact; there is, however, a lot of nuance involved (e.g., both attackers expressed anger and disappointment that Trump did not turn out to be an antisemite, not to mention several antisemitic murders by white supremacists during the Obama years, including at the Holocaust Museum and the Kansas City JCC).

Third, like much of the American media, the Times seems utterly incapable of acknowledging that radical anti-Israel activists, be they motivated by Islamism, pan-Arabism, Palestinian nationalism, self-described anti-colonialism, and/or antisemitism, are hostile to Israel's very existence, not "Israel's right-wing government." It's not uncommon to see Hamas, for example, described as objecting to Israel's "occupation of the West Bank," as if Hamas doesn't explicitly and repeatedly announce that it considers all of "Palestine" (that is, including pre-1967 Israel) to be "occupied" and that it wants to destroy Israel. Does the Times really think that people attacking Jews on the street would be content if only Yair Lapid was PM of Israel?

As an aside, I've noticed on social media that many people who consume a lot of news haven't even been aware of the big spike in antisemitic violence over the past two weeks. This is undoubtedly because media outlets like the Times have given it only a fraction of the attention they gave to a few hundred tiki-torch wielding white surpemacists in Charlottesville in 2017–and I'm referring to coverage before violence broke out, when the media descended on Charlottesville as if hundreds of thousands of white supremacists were gathering there.

 

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: May 27, 1935

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The slant of newspaper coverage reminds me of the headline a few years back via AP as I recall –

    “Kentucky man kills wife” with the first paragraph of the article implying that it was a redneck white guy who murdered his wife.

    The actual facts was a middle eastern man travelling through Kentucky was staying at a hotel in Etown (Elizabethtown) and killed his wife in a “honor Killing”

    1. All media, save for one, are now hate speech, propaganda outlets for the billionaire oligarch owners. They have the credibility of the David Duke website. Duke is honest about his hate. He is not a journalist violating the Code of Ethics requiring the reporting of all sides of a story. The sole exception is C-SPAN. Brian Lamb said he counts stories to keep the balance.

      The scumbag lawyer profession protects this garbage occupation. NY Times v Sullivan should be ended in a law allowing full liability for any violation of their own Code of Ethics. That violation should be negligence per se in the law.

      https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

      1. Asinine Authoritarian Assertions.

        1. The mirror is not your friend. Avoid.

    2. “the Pittsburgh and Poway synagogue shootings by white supremacists”

      “White supremacists” who both despised Trump.

      That needs to be mentioned as all Trump supporters are being described as “White supremacists” — it’s a broad brush being used to paint anyone to the right of Vladimir Lenin.

    3. Distrust of the NYT is rooted in deep-seeded antisemitism

      1. The NYT that remained quiet about the Holocaust?

    4. Or “French man” to refer to some worthless Moroccan immigrant.

  2. Professor Bernstein…Abe Foxman made some related points to yours in his ToI interview with David Horowitz. Particularly wrt Hamas’ repeated denials of Israel’s very right to even exist.

    I cannot believe that in 2021 America I have to refrain from wearing a kippah when I am outdoors in public. If someone had told me in 1981 that in the space of 40 years, Jews would be openly attacked in the streets simply for being Jewish, I would have said they’re mashugana. Yet, it is happening before our eyes.

    And the truly sickening part is the justification people use to enable and promote it.

    1. Yo, XY. Many times, here, we have explained the Holocaust and continuing attacks on Jews. Weakness. Jews have to conceal carry, and blast any attacker.

      In a natural, historic experiment, the Jews that were wiped out in Europe moved to Israel and were not wiped out. The difference for the same people? Guns.

      1. AND Vote Republican….

      2. The Jews that were wiped out in Europe of course did not move anywhere. You really need an editor, or at least a filter.

    2. It is both sad and pathetic that the majority locus of anti-Semitism is repeatedly ignored

      1. Don Nico….I still cannot come to grips that Jews in 2021 America are no longer safe. That was unthinkable before.

        1. C_XY,
          It definitely was not thinkable 50 years ago.
          I went to a high school of 45% Jews and 45% Italians. I never once heard a complaint prom my classmates that they did not feel safe.
          Were there prejudices? Sure we’ve all heard them about both groups, but were there incidents? Definitely not.
          Today’s developments with plenty of barely masked anti-Semitism is discouraging.

    3. “If someone had told me in 1981 that in the space of 40 years, Jews would be openly attacked in the streets simply for being Jewish, I would have said they’re mashugana. Yet, it is happening before our eyes”

      And yet Jews continue to vote Democrat….

      1. Well, they do tend to be better educated than average.

        1. And STILL vote Democrat…

          1. Education does not equal wisdom. Thus the term “educated fools.”

    4. “I cannot believe that in 2021 America I have to refrain from wearing a kippah when I am outdoors in public. “

      It’s not because of Conservative Christians and that needs to be said — you’ll likely get a lot of people wondering what it is and why you are wearing it, and maybe a few people who think it is “stupid”, but no one is going to assault you for it.

      It’s not Trump supporters who are attacking Jews. That needs to be said…

    5. And 75% of American Jews are idiot liberals who vote not only to release criminal blacks back onto the streets, but to import tens of millions of other low IQ, violent nonwhites.

      1. And 75% of American Jews are idiot liberals who vote not only to release criminal blacks back onto the streets, but to import tens of millions of other low IQ, violent nonwhites.

        Non-whites who hate jews – secular jewish individuals who trying to prove they are not racist by welcoming a class of people that hate them.

  3. Are there supposed to be links? I think I’m missing a lot of context.

    1. You aren’t.

      1. But I added links so you can see for yourself.

  4. David Bernstein all Israel all the time.

    1. Interesting that you think a post about how the New York Times covers violent antisemitism in the United States is about “Israel.” But you aren’t prejudiced at all, I’m sure.

      1. Your article critiques the New York Times’ coverage of violent antisemitism in the United States by saying that the Times doesn’t acknowledge that *Hamas* is opposed to Israel’s existence…

        1. It’s one sentence in a seven-paragraph post about the New York Times’ coverage of domestic American antisemitism. If someone sees one sentence about Hamas in a seven-paragraph blog post, and then complains that the post author is obsessed with Israel, when he has just displayed that trait… well, there is something unhealthy psychologically going on.

          1. Three of your paragraphs are one sentence, but I digress. You argue Hamas as an example of domestic antisemitism in the US, it’s hardly the only flaw of reasoning in the article, but it’s one you shouldn’t make and then complain when people claim you are obsessed with Israel.

            1. Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. It doesn’t say that. At all.

              1. “Third, like much of the American media, the Times seems utterly incapable of acknowledging that radical anti-Israel activists, be they motivated by Islamism, pan-Arabism, Palestinian nationalism, self-described anti-colonialism, and/or antisemitism, are hostile to Israel’s very existence, not “Israel’s right-wing government.” It’s not uncommon to see Hamas, for example, described as objecting to Israel’s “occupation of the West Bank,” as if Hamas doesn’t explicitly and repeatedly announce that it consider all of “Palestine” (that is, including pre-1967 Israel) to be “occupied” and that it wants to destroy Israel. Does the Times really think that people attacking Jews on the street would be content if only Yair Lapid was PM of Israel?”

                This is your response to the Times’ characterization of what they believe to be a motivating factor for antisemitic attacks in the US. Its your third point out of three in piece you’ve explicitly stated here is about domestic US antisemitism. You are arguing Hamas as an example of domestic antisemitism in the US. Are you now trying to pretend you weren’t? Are you saying that this sentence was meant to be non sequitur, an aside not really about or contextualized by the rest of the piece?

                Such a claim is as implicitly insulting to the intelligence of the rest of your readers as your comment is explicitly insulting mine.

                1. Still lacking. Hamas goes back to “radical anti-Israel activists,” not to domestic antisemitism. So the post is about the Times’ poor reporting on domestic antisemitism, and notes that the Times misreports the motivations of domestic antisemites, just like it misreports on Hamas. Or you can believe that I actually think Hamas is a domestic American group, because I know that little about the situation.

                  1. No, your argument is more along the lines of “So the post is about the Times’ poor reporting on domestic antisemitism, and notes that the Times misreports the motivations of domestic antisemites *like Hamas.*”

                    You didn’t state it as a comparison of a separate thing, you stated it as an example. If you’d like, we can find 100 people unfamiliar with Hamas, and ask them after reading the piece if they think it argues Hamas as an example of domestic antisemitism. How do you think that would turn out? What do you think they would say?

                  2. I would note, briefly, that your description of the NYTimes’ reporting on Hamas is inaccurate. I’ve never seen the NYTimes describe Hamas as meekly objecting to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. I’m quite aware, from the NYTimes coverage I’ve read, that Hamas does not believe that Israel has a right to exist, that it’s considered a terrorist group by the U.S., that it’s “the militant group that controls [Gaza]” – just looking at my copy of the paper here on my desk, and so on.

                    In contrast, I have to constantly remind myself that Hamas is the armed wing of a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Israel has radicalized over the years as a convenient foil in its broader efforts towards fully annexing the OTs. Strange how often that history gets left out of the coverage.

                    1. “Israel has radicalized over the years”

                      Israel wears its skirts too high, amirite? Asking for terror.

                    2. “Israel wears its skirts too high, amirite? Asking for terror.”

                      Absolutely not! They are above reproach in every way, at all times, and and suggestion otherwise is antisemitic!

                    3. “Muslim Brotherhood, which Israel has radicalized”
                      Israel never needed to do any such thing.

                2. Much of the domestic antisemitic attacks are by radical anti-Israel activists. Such activists are hostile to Israel’s very existence. Like much of the American media, the Times seems utterly incapable of acknowledging this fact. As a blatant example of that incapability, consider its coverage of Hamas. It can’t even acknowledge that Hamas’s own goal is to wipe out all the Jews in Israel; it certainly can’t acknowledge that Hamas’s open supporters in the USA, who attack Jews at random in the name of Hamas (without even bothering to ask how they feel about Israel), share that goal.

                  1. I don’t know anybody who share’s Hamas’s goals. I have to take them at their word that when they criticize government policies of Israel, they mean to criticize government policies of Israel, and not to advocate the killing of everybody with even a vaguely Jewish-sounding name.

                    1. “I don’t know anybody who share’s Hamas’s goals.”
                      So, your circle of acquaintances isn’t all that large, is that it?
                      You win the Dunning-Kruger Illusory Superiority statement of the day award.

            2. Whey,
              DB never made your claim. You obviously distort anything that comes through your eyes before it reaches your brain

              1. there’s plenty of that behavior to go around.

      2. I just notice every post you make has something to do with Israel. Do you have thoughts on anything else or is this your sole obsession? As far as prejudice – My opinion is that they (and people like you) have a disproportional amount of influence in and of the governance my country. Here at Reason – it seems every other thread has some mention of Jews/Israel. If it was France I would feel same way.

        1. You “just notice” something that is clearly false and easy enough to check, so once again it suggests something problematic.

          1. Just for example, my post just yesterday (!) isn’t about Israel, doesn’t mention Israel, etc.

            1. Hey!!!!! Using facts is rude, insensitive, and totally hurts people’s feelings. Please cancel yourself.
              sarc. – for the weak of mind

            2. “Just for example, my post just yesterday (!) isn’t about Israel, doesn’t mention Israel, etc.”
              It may, just MAY, contain some allusions to Israel. Will you go that far?

              1. And if it did, so what?

        2. I know this will come as a shock, but you can just skip the posts about Israel or by Bernstein. There is a big wide internet out there.

        3. “If it was France I would feel same way.”

          Would you, though? The UK has a ton of influence on the US, they don’t need a lobby because it’s woven into our political and national security structures, do you feel this way about them? Do you voice it?

          1. Astounding ignorance. Educate yourself here – https://www.opensecrets.org/fara/ – in 2020, the UK government spent twice as much lobbying in the US as the Israeli governemnt.

            1. I’m fairly sure he’s talking about AIPAC when he talks about Israel having ‘a lobby.’

              1. He was making a comparison between the UK and Israel . AIPAC is a lobby of and by American citizens. Don’t blame me for others’ lack of ability to clearly articulate what they really mean to say.

                1. Do you not know what a lobby is? It’s a group of individuals that advocate for a particular shared interest. AIPAC is a lobby for Israel because they advocate for policies they view as favorable to Israel, not because its membership is, itself, Israel or Israeli.

                  Do you think the gun lobby is made up of guns?

                  1. I know what a lobby is. And I am also aware of the difference between a lobby for Israel, and a lobby of, or by, Israel. A distinction that is lost on you,

                    1. Given that my original comment says nothing about a lobby of or by Israel or anyone, I don’t know why you think that distinction is lost on me. Can you quote specifically what I’ve said that you imagine you’re criticizing?

            2. Without conceding that spending tracked by FARA is an accurate measure of foreign lobbying efforts, last I checked, $15,315,916 (the amount spent lobbying by Israeli principals in 2020) is significantly more than $3,472,384 (the amount spent lobbying by British principals in 2020). And 2020 was an odd year because of COVID, historically it’s been far more disproportionate. Between 2015 and 2020, Israeli principals spent $149,289,841.51 lobbying in the US, while British principals spent just $8,463,917.

              Israeli principals spend a lot. British principals spend comparatively little, particularly when you consider their relative size in terms of both population and economy. Why does the United Kingdom spend so little? Because they don’t need it to influence our policy or decisions, they already have far more influence than Israel could ever hope to.

              1. Your argument was that US allies such as Britain do not lobby, not that British individuals do not. And you continue to equivocate in this response – “***British principals spend comparatively little***, particularly when you consider their relative size in terms of both population and economy. Why does ***the United Kingdom spend so little***?” – The UK, as a country, does not spend “so little” – it spends twice as much as Israel does, as country.
                I hope I don’t need to elaborate on the distinction between the efforts of governments and the efforts of private parties on a libertarian blog.
                The idea that US allies (other than Israel) spend little lobbying is utterly wrong not just with regard to Britain, but in general. To whit: “The countries that invest the most in influencing the U.S. are largely America’s closest allies,” https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-08-17/biggest-spenders-of-foreign-lobbying-in-the-us-comes-from-americas-closest-allies

                1. 1) You appear to continue to confuse the verb “lobby” with the noun “lobby”, the latter of which is what I referenced, as made explicitly clear by the article “a” before the word “lobby”.

                  2) even on lobbying, you continue to be confused. Your source does separate out direct government and other organization lobbying, but I don’t think “Her Majesty’s Treasury” or “Jewish Agency for Israel” are really just private actors. Both, while perhaps not the government proper, are entities created and given special status by their respective states. But,

                  3) if you really want to compare just what’s categorized as government, over that period from 2015 to 2020, the Israeli Government spent $76,354,881 lobbying the US per your source, whereas the British government spent just $6,299,487. You’re focused on 2020, an anomalous low year for the Israeli government because of COVID and because of fractured government since mid-2019, and an anomalous high year for the British government because Brexit meant they needed new trade arrangements.

                  You’re not only wrong about what I actually said, you’re wrong even on the facts of your argument against your strawman.

                  1. And the ignorance continues. The Jewish Agency was not created by the government of Israel (it predates the state’s existence by nearly half a century), and is not funded by it, unlike Her Majesty’s Treasury, which is an organ of the British government.
                    If 2020 was anomalous due to COVID, it was anomalous for all countries, not just Israel.
                    I am sure you can cherry-pick your way to finding years where the UK gov’t lobbying in the US was significantly lower than the GoI’s, and give convenient excuses for them (Brexit!), but the main point I made to you stands: The idea that US allies (other than Israel) spend little lobbying is utterly wrong, not just with regard to Britain, but in general. I gave you a link, it would serve you well to read it. Alternatively, you can start thinking up excuses for why the UK’s interests are supposedly so “woven into our political structures” that they don’t need to lobby, but Ireland’s are not. [Ireland spent $80,464,558 over the same period that Israel spend $76,354,881]

                    1. The Jewish Agency for Israel was literally involved in the creation of the state of Israel and it was explicitly granted special status by name by the Israeli government in the 1952 Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency Status Law. Its structure and remit are defined by law. It is not a purely private organization.

                      “I am sure you can cherry-pick your way to finding years where the UK gov’t lobbying in the US was significantly lower than the GoI’s”

                      FFS. You picked literally the only year in which the UK government’s direct expenditures were greater than Israel’s of the ones that are available, and you dare accuse me of cherry picking? What is wrong with you?

                      “not just with regard to Britain”

                      I only made a comment with regard to the United Kingdom, because they are a unique example of enormous influence on US policy, and one the commenter I originally replied to didn’t seem to be bothered by, despite apparently being bothered by Israel’s. I’m not sure what it is you think you’re arguing against, what you imagine my position is, but stick to what I’ve actually said.

              2. How much of the Israeli lobbying was Teva and other Big Pharma companies? Don’t you think you should mention that?

                1. None? Here is the entire accounting for my 2020 Israel figure. It’s two nominal NGOs with close ties to the Israeli government, the Israeli government itself, an Israeli offensive cyber intelligence firm, and some private individual who wanted to advocate an undisclosed position with the Trump Admin.

                  World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem $6,720,081
                  Jewish Agency For Israel $6,260,414
                  Government of Israel $1,719,321
                  Q Cyber Technologies $514,880
                  Kovo, Zari David Eliezer $101,220

                  1. “nominal NGOs ”

                    Both pre-date Israeli independence and are not “nominal” in any way.

                    1. Both were literally involved in the creation of the state of Israel. Both the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organization are explicitly granted special status by name by the Israeli government in the 1952 Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency for Israel Status Law. Their structure and remit are defined by law. World Zionist Organization has been found to be acting as an agent of the national government of Israel repeatedly by the Israeli courts themselves. They are not purely private organizations.

        4. ” they (and people like you) have a disproportional amount of influence in and of the governance my country”
          Another typically anti-semitic screed

        5. Well then you don’t read many of his posts. Lochner has certainly come up a lot, lately US racial classifications especially concerning Hispanics, labor law, and some Daubert over the years.

          1. And going way back to 2004-05, commenters were accusing me of being a “bitter renter” because I blogged about obvious signs of a housing bubble!

            1. As I remember it wasn’t so much a housing bubble, it was signs of an imperial capital in DC, that was totally divorced from the economic fortunes of the rest of the country.

              But our diagnosis of the root cause may vary.

        6. I just notice every post you make has something to do with Israel. Do you have thoughts on anything else or is this your sole obsession? As far as prejudice – My opinion is that they (and people like you) have a disproportional amount of influence in and of the governance my country. Here at Reason – it seems every other thread has some mention of Jews/Israel. If it was France I would feel same way.

          “I’m not an anti-semite; I just think Jews control the country.”

      3. “Interesting that you think a post about how the New York Times covers violent antisemitism in the United States is about “Israel.”

        Some nut goes and kills some *prostitutes* — most (but not all) of whom were Asian and it is all because of us blaming the CCP for the Wuhan virus.

        Interesting how the same thing doesn’t apply to criticism of Bibi N…

        1. Bibi’s a Chinese Communist, in your opinion? Or did you confuse him for an Asian prostitute? Your ramblings are a trifle less coherent than usual, which for you is saying something.

    2. Full refund always available, KCar.

    3. It’s perfectly normal for Bernstein to focus on Israel. He’s Jewish, a people persecuted for most of history and Israel is a (hard won) Jewish state.

      1. More “Little Satin and Big Satin” — they are quite serious, Israel first and then we are next…

        Remember September 11th?

        1. tell us more about the September 11 satin.

    4. KCar
      May.27.2021 at 9:16 am
      Flag Comment Mute User
      David Bernstein all Israel all the time.

      Berstein possibly supports Israel because the arabs living in Israel have greater freedom , rights and priviledges than the arabs living under arab or palestinian rule.

      Perhaps he supports Israel because it is an actual democracy.
      Perhaps he supports Israel because the Israeli nation and Israeli people have actually accomplished something for the greater world good unlike a few of its neighbors.

  5. On a larger note, we have to ask…Did Biden’s election help prompt Hamas’s large scale attack on Israel?

    To understand this, you have to understand the previous context.

    1. Trump was a firm supporter of Israel. He was clear about this, and Hamas understood it…Trump would back Israel, firmly, if things came to conflict. If Hamas instituted a strike, Trump would not hold Israel back from any counter attack.

    2. However Biden and the Democrats were more mixed. There were many elements in the Democratic party which didn’t really support Israel. So, if Hamas instituted a strike, Biden could be relied upon to hold back any counterstrike.

    3. Hamas then instituted a large scale military assault on the civilian population of Israel. Make no bones about it. Hamas launched over 4000 rockets, indiscriminately, at the Israeli civilian population. If it wasn’t for Israeli defenses, this could’ve resulted in over 10,000 civilian casualties. Mass terrorism.

    4. Israel, as expected, made a counterstrike at military Hamas targets. Unfortunately, Hamas has a habit of “hiding” its military targets underneath civilian buildings. But, as expected, the US (under Biden) held back a continued large scale Israeli counter strike. Hamas “won” in this respect. If this had been the US being attacked, there would’ve been no restraint in the counterstrike. But Hamas counted on the Democrats to protect it…So they knew they could make the strike in the first place.

    1. AL….I am frankly not sure if Biden’s election helped prompt Hamas’s large scale attack on Israel; I hope this was not the case. POTUS Biden shut down numerous attempts at the UN Security Council to wrongly malign Israel. He was unequivocal in stating that Israel had a right to defend herself. I am profoundly grateful that POTUS Biden very clearly did support Israel.

      POTUS Biden got that right = support for Israel in their fight against Hamas terrorists

      1. A lot of it comes down to perception. Biden, historically, used to be very pro-Israel. These days…he’s old, he’s vulnerable to being persuaded by other elements of the party, and so on. Other countries see that, see how other elements act, and plan accordingly.

        Perception means a lot. Saddam invaded Kuwait because he didn’t think the US would intervene. He was wrong. Hamas believed Biden would be persuaded to not fully back Israel to the hilt. They were right.

        1. “Perception means a lot. Saddam invaded Kuwait because he didn’t think the US would intervene.”

          Saddam asked us if the US would object to an attempt to seize Kuwait, and W’s State department bungled the response.

          1. Apologetics on behalf of a murderous dictator.

          2. Don’t you mean H.W.’s?

          3. Saddam asked us if the US would object to an attempt to seize Kuwait, and W’s State department bungled the response.

            Setting aside that you got the wrong Bush, you are mistaken. That’s not what Saddam asked.

      2. “I am frankly not sure if Biden’s election helped prompt Hamas’s large scale attack on Israel”

        It encouraged Iran, its sponsor. So, indirectly at least.

        1. Perhaps, Bob from Ohio. It is certainly true that POTUS Biden is much ‘friendlier’ to Iran than POTUS Trump ever was.

          And there is no doubt in my mind Iran is behind Hamas.

          1. ” It is certainly true that POTUS Biden is much ‘friendlier’ to Iran than POTUS Trump ever was.”

            Trump told Iran it was OK with us if they wanted to start building nuclear weapons.

    2. Answer is yes. Not b/c of Biden’s rhetoric or moves at the UN (for which he did pretty well), but because of a perception that he would hold Israel back, or not let it finish the job. The latter turned out to be accurate.

      1. I’m not sure what finishing the job looks like, Bored Lawyer. A ground invasion to hunt down and kill Hamas terrorists was an absolute last resort, and Israelis themselves were not overly keen on doing that. Add to that, there are onerous constraints on Israel right now, due to their electoral difficulties. I will say that there is a strong national consensus in Israel that Hamas has to be decisively defeated.

        I am no fan of POTUS Biden, that is for sure. But in this instance, I think he got it right.

        1. “I’m not sure what finishing the job looks like”

          Depends. Despite repeated chances for peace, Hamas continues to fire rockets at Israel’s civilian population. Over and over and over again.

          If Hamas was to be in a position to potentially actually endanger the existence of the Israeli State, Israel would really only have one option. The removal of Hamas from Gaza. If that required the complete removal of the Palestinian population from Gaza….If it’s that or Israel’s existence…Well, there’s only one choice unfortunately.

          1. AL…Yes, I myself prefer incentivized palestinian emigration as a solution as it is infinitely more humane than what we have today.

        2. ” I will say that there is a strong national consensus in Israel that Hamas has to be decisively defeated.”

          Can you decisively defeat them by creating at least 2 new recruits with every one of them who gets killed?

          1. Hamas, a judeocidal terrorist group, can and will be defeated.

      2. Indeed…it did.

    3. “If this had been the US being attacked, there would’ve been no restraint in the counterstrike.”

      F*ck you for maligning my country.

      1. Good luck winning the next election, bragging how you took it easy on people killing Americans.

      2. That’s history.

        Israel suffered 11 dead and 130 total casualties during the latest uprising….in a population of 9 million. Proportionately, that would be over 300 dead and 3000 casualties in the US.

        Last time the US got hit that hard, we invaded 2 different countries and occupied them for over 10 years.

    4. Except that Hamas launched attacks during the Trump administration too.

      1. Not of this scale

        1. “Not of this scale”

          Last one of this scale was 2014. Who was VP then?

          1. Last one of this scale was 2014. Who was VP then?”

            I’m guessing nobody.
            Does Hamas even have a VP?

    5. I’ve long come to expect you to have exclusively idiotic takes, but this one takes the cake.

      Trump’s approach to “peace in the Middle East” was to stack the deck so heavily against an independent, sovereign Palestine that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al. would unilaterally surrender. He gave up as much American leverage over Israel as he could, lined up the “Abraham Accords” without meaningfully addressing the Palestinian question, and let his moronic son in law handle the whole thing.

      What we are seeing, right now, is the consequence of those actions. Simply electing Biden did not make Fatah more corrupt and feckless, it didn’t enable the construction of those Hamas rockets, it didn’t change anything about the strategy of widespread displacement that the Israeli government is pursuing in the OTs. Those are the primary factors behind Hamas’s decision to build on angst over Sheikh Jarrah in order to put on a performative display of violence against Israel.

      Israel didn’t launch a massive ground assault on Gaza because it didn’t want to. Nothing Biden could do or say meaningfully impacted that analysis. Like, what do you think he did, or could have done, to hold back Netanyahu? Do you think he threatened not to block resolutions at the UNSC? To nix weapons sales or military aid?

      1. “Trump’s approach”

        Trump actually got peace treaties between Israel and other Arab countries. Actual…real..peace treaties. Something that hadn’t happened in decades.

        “that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al. would unilaterally surrender.”

        Peace requires that these terrorist organizations surrender or disband. Currently their charters call for the utter and entire elimination of the state of Israel. You can’t have “peace” when one side is demanding the other side’s destruction. Unless the other side (Israel) is destroyed….

        “What we are seeing, right now, is the consequence of those actions. ”

        Or the consequences of Biden’s feckless actions. He didn’t even have an ambassador to Israel in place.

        “performative display of violence”

        Over 4000 rockets fired. Hundreds of Israeli casualties. That’s “Performative?”

        “Like, what do you think he did, or could have done, to hold back Netanyahu? Do you think he threatened not to block resolutions at the UNSC? To nix weapons sales or military aid?”

        Perhaps. Keep in mind Biden PERSONALLY pushed for hours for a cease fire. Netanyahu did want to. He made a public declaration that he was “determined to continue” the Gaza operation “until its objective is achieved.” Daily polling showed most Israelis didn’t want a cease fire.

        If Biden had to pressure Netanyahu….he would’ve. US Senators were already calling to cancel the arms sales. Defensive missiles that were keeping Israelis alive… You think Biden wouldn’t say “I want to work with you Bidi…I want to sell you the arms…but you gotta do a cease fire. If you don’t, well…politicians in my own party are calling to cancel it. And if the violence continues, I’m in a tight spot…” You think Biden wouldn’t have done that?

        https://apnews.com/article/africa-middle-east-business-israel-palestinian-conflict-health-d2781b6e5aea8602547c5c0b4112e977

        1. Trump actually got peace treaties between Israel and other Arab countries.

          That were not actually at war with Israel. The agreements/payoffs were about normalizing relations, not “peace.” And we can see how poorly they did on the “peace” front.

          Peace requires that these terrorist organizations surrender or disband.

          Well, “peace” means the cessation of hostilities, not the amendment of charters or filing certificates of dissolution. Whining about what Hamas says on its website, as a justification for *checks* ongoing blockades, siege, and military attacks against a population that can do little to nothing about Hamas’s activities ends up being silly.

          But no, you seem to be missing is the point of the strategy. For decades the approach had been to get the Palestinians and Israelis to agree to a two-state solution by getting them to agree to various incremental steps on the way to various final status questions. Establishment of territorial borders, status of Jerusalem, the right of return, and so on. Nothing about Trump’s strategy contemplates that as the plan; it makes sense only if the plan is to achieve “peace” by securing the total submission, not just of Hamas, but the Palestinian population as a whole. Do you disagree? Can you see why pursuing that kind of strategy just might tend to exacerbate tensions, rather than immediately ensuring a unilateral surrender?

          Over 4000 rockets fired. Hundreds of Israeli casualties. That’s “Performative?”

          In its intent, yes. Hamas doesn’t have a military strategy or the means to destroy Israel, its website statement of purpose notwithstanding. Hamas can’t get Israel to back down from airstrikes or even ground invasions of Gaza. They can terrorize parts of Israel with numerous, low-quality rockets. Their volley was pathetic, in military terms. “Performative.”

          If Biden had to pressure Netanyahu….he would’ve.

          So now you’re saying that Biden’s election had nothing to do with Hamas’s decision to attack Israel. It was Congress.

          1. “So now you’re saying that Biden’s election had nothing to do with Hamas’s decision to attack Israel. It was Congress.”

            I doubt very much that Hamas’s decision to attack Israel had anything to do with the United States.

          2. 1. Normalizing relations is peace. It’s critical for long-standing peace…as opposed to just a cease fire.

            2a. Peace means normalization of relations. Not a simple cease fire that can be broken whenever.

            2b. Yes…What a party in power says are its motivations matters. IF they say they want to eradicate all Jews in Israel…Yes…that’s important. Especially when they’re firing rockets to do that.

            2c. ” For decades the approach ”
            That hasn’t been working very well at all. If an approach doesn’t work for decades, perhaps a different approach is needed.

            2d. “total submission”
            Like Japan or Germany after WWII, “Palestine” has been totally beaten. Yes, they should agree to peace on Israeli terms. It is much better in the long term. It worked out quite well for both Japan and Germany. Rather than perpetual struggle for things they aren’t going to get.

            2e. ” Hamas doesn’t have a military strategy or the means to destroy Israel”.

            Yet. They don’t have that yet. Over 4000 rockets, despite being in an embargo against exactly this sort of thing? What happens when they smuggle in some of Syria’s chemical weapons?

            2f. No, Biden. Having Congress helps his political position.

          3. “For decades the approach had been to get the Palestinians and Israelis to agree to a two-state solution by getting them to agree to various incremental steps on the way to various final status questions.”
            That policy is an abject failure and it took decades for a US administration to see that. The DJT policy took a different tack of isolating the Iran-backed elements by building positive relationships between Israel and each of the major Sunni powers in the region AND by strengthening the squeeze on Iran.
            Will that work? only time will tell. But pursuing a failed policy that has been rejected time and time again is plain stubborn stupidity.
            Don’t let your hate for the Orange Clown blind you to the fact that he did a few things right.

        2. “Trump actually got peace treaties between Israel and other Arab countries. Actual…real..peace treaties. Something that hadn’t happened in decades.”

          Guess those actual…real…peace treaties weren’t of much value. The don’t seem to be producing actual…real…peace.

          1. James,
            Your comment is meaningless. Those Sunni countries with which Israel has reached accommodation are not the supporters of Hamas and Hizballah.

        3. “Peace requires that these terrorist organizations surrender or disband. Currently their charters call for the utter and entire elimination of the state of Israel. You can’t have “peace” when one side is demanding the other side’s destruction.”

          Do you not read your own words where you demand one side’s destruction as requirement for peace, which you then follow by saying you can’t have peace with such demands. Logically, you’re saying (A AND (NOT A))

          1. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are not “Palestinians”.

            There are Palestinian organizations who actually believe that shooting rockets at Israeli citizen is a bad idea. And who don’t believe in the utter destruction of Israel. Those organizations need to be in power for there to be peace.

  6. Had nothing to do with Gov Cuomo’s treatment of the Jews during lockdown, right? Nothing at all with the negative stereotypes he peddled and flippant ways he obviously discriminated against their local communities. I’m not saying it was, but if your logic is that is what happened because the big orange guy is bad and said bad things, well…..

  7. “Do the Times’ reporters read their own paper, or do they just go with the prescribed narrative?”

    No and yes.

    1. We already know they don’t read their own paper. That was their defense against Sarah Palin’s lawsuit.

  8. I had a chance to speak to NYT’s former opinion editor, James Bennett. Told him that I no longer read their editorials — they’ve become too predictable — even for someone, like myself, on the political left. Bennett seemed untroubled. I asked if they had any conservatives on the editorial board. “No, just some contrarians.”

    Not long after, Bennett himself got fired for daring to run an op-ed by a sitting Republican Senator expressing a view supported by a majority of people polled.

    NYT used to have a great “public editor” with a mandate to give voice to reader complaints, then canned him for no good reason.

    Bari Weiss put it well when she resigned from the NYT: “a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”.

    Still not “fake news” or down there with Trump’s twitter, but that’s such a low bar. Keep calling them out when they deserve it, maybe eventually they’ll take notice.

    1. One day, I hope Bari Weiss releases all of those NYT Slack messages she has.

      1. Hiring Bari Weiss was a huge mistake. She has been a malcontent and counterproductive jerk whose association ends badly at nearly every stop since high school. I hope she finds a way to become a better person and colleague.

        1. Yet, she is a huge hit on substack (where I read her articles all the time).

          1. Grifters will always find their mark.

            1. Did you ever play ‘Simon says’, SimonP?

              Simon says: Fuck off.

          2. ” Yet, she is a huge hit on substack ”

            Does she have more or fewer viewers than Stormfront?

  9. This is hardly a new phenomenon … professional ethics are a luxury of successful businesses.

    The NYT and many other newspapers appear to be fighting for their financial lives … there are no red lines.

    1. I think you are right, but it’s strategy appears ill-considered. Their stance is just turning off more and more readers.

      1. its not it’s. My 8th grade English teacher would be rebuking me right now.

      2. The media has fractured, similar to the way that it operated in the early 19th century, with every publication (print, online, etc.) having an identifiable political identity and agenda. The Times is definitely not turning off the bulk of its readers, who tend to be educated but very insular secular liberals. Readers with right-of-center views have long since migrated elsewhere. It may be that the appetite for middle-brow, long form journalism is declining across the spectrum, which will ultimately doom the Times, but it isn’t their raw partisanship that is losing readers.

    2. Except they’re not. If they were worried about profits, they’d roll more conservative. Not Fox News, but at least not firing editors for the temerity of allowing opinion pieces by elected officials of the ither party.

      Why is there even an “other party” from a newspaper’s perspective, officially?

      1. ” but at least not firing editors for the temerity of allowing opinion pieces by elected officials of the ither party ”

        If you are offering pointers on whether reputable newspapers should publish belligerently ignorant columns authored by the bigoted, backward likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Louie Gohmert, Donald Trump, and Tom Cotton . . . I doubt you will find takers.

      2. ” at least not firing editors for the temerity of allowing opinion pieces by elected officials of the ither party.”

        Not those ithers. Those guys are the absolute WORST.

    3. “NYT … appear to be fighting for their financial lives”

      Other newspapers, yes but NYT has been doing quite well, they are sucking consumers and dollars from other outlets. People drop their local subscriptions but keep or add NYT.

      1. Trump was good for NYT.

        1. He was good for anybody? Doesn’t seem likely.

            1. that sounds like something Donald Trump would say. Which makes less likely to believe that it is, or might be, true.

  10. A propos of editors, the OP could have used one–there’s a couple of typos/spelling errors in the article. Always get a second, or even a third person to read something that’s going public.
    Second, the notion that the right-wing attacks were a product of being emboldened by Donald Trump is reported as a simple fact, there is a lot of nuance involved
    is just one example.

    1. Hmm, the only change I’d make to that sentence is to turn the last comma into a semicolon.

      1. Actually as a copy editor, I find that the italicized phrase and sentence needs more correction than that.
        When one advertises oneself as a “linguist,” such criticism goes with the territory.

  11. It’s not just the NYT. We have a whole generation of journalists who think that advocacy is their job description.

    1. General denunciations of ‘journalists’ is lazy partisanship. Almost any argument that anyone makes about almost anything eventually gets to linking to,,,the work of some journalist. They keep us informed. Some of them write things you’re not going to like because of your politics and a smaller subset are going to write lazy or inaccurate things you don’t like, but most of them are doing God’s work every day.

      1. lazy partisanship

        Pot…kettle…

        1. Why did you just assume a complaint about lazy partisanship was directed at you?

          1. The only thing I assumed was that my response would lure in someone stupid enough to not understand that the pot vs kettle expression has nothing to do with the one using it. And it looks like I was right.

            1. You forgot to answer the question, which was “why did you assume a complaint about lazy partisans was directed at you?”

              Try again.

      2. “most of them are doing God’s work every day.”

        Ha, you misspelled Satan.

        1. Is it supposed to be spelled “Bob”?

      3. I said it was generational, not general.

        The ideal journalist is one whose politics is not detectable from his/her reports. One who keeps news strictly separated from commentary. One who selects which news to publish without regard to politics.

      4. I wouldn’t care about their politics if they could fathom the difference between a fact and an opinion…

        1. You still confuse your opinions for facts, despite having to keep postponing the reckoning the durn lefties are due for.

          Next time for sure.

    2. “General denunciations of ‘journalists’ is lazy partisanship.”

      Not necessarily. It’s quite reasonable to believe that the institution has some serious systemic issues. Hell, I know career journalists who denounce the current state of journalism.

      1. ” I know career journalists who denounce the current state of journalism.”

        I know some lazy partisans, too.

  12. I understand DB’s argument that Israel’s actions don’t influence anti-Semitism but how does he distinguish that from his recent argument on Somin’s post that immigration influences nativism?

  13. This is just part of a broader smear by the left, including the Biden FBI and DOJ, which spreads the narrative that anyone who supports President Trump is a white supremacist and probably a terrorist, and that (more to the point) there are no terrorists on the left, including Antifa, BLM, and these young black men who attack Jews and old ladies in New York.

    I recommend that everyone abandon major cities before they get caught up in the attacks. Preferably to pro-gun jurisdictions where they’ll at least be able to protect themselves.

    1. Not to mention some of the Conspirators, who would have you believe that the main story in Portland is oppressive federal law enforcement.

      1. Is there something new, or do you refer to the feds kidnapping people off the street, driving then around and questioning them, then leaving them by the side of the road?

        Allow me to introduce you to this site. They specialize in tracking Bill of Rights violations. And not just tracking, but getting involved, having been quoted in a number of SC cases.

    2. “This is just part of a broader smear by the left, including the Biden FBI and DOJ, which spreads the narrative that anyone who supports President Trump is a white supremacist”

      Not everyone who supports Trump is a White supremacist. But everyone who supports Trump appeases White supremacy, plenty of Trump supporters are White supremacists, and every Trump fan deserves the stomping being administered to conservatives by the American mainstream.

  14. Nary a word from the NYT on the anniversary of one of the greatest airlifts of all time: Operation Solomon. On May 24-25 1991, Israel airlifted more than 14,000 Ethiopian Jews and brought them to Israel.

    I thank God every day there is an Israel.

    1. I encourage you to improve Israel’s conduct or prepare to learn how Israel can operate without America’s military, economic, and political skirts to hide behind.

      Most Americans dislike right-wing belligerence at home. Does anyone genuinely expect them to be willing to continue to subsidize it — at enormous and varied cost — anywhere else? I would consider cutting Netanyahu and the Saudi royal family loose promptly and simultaneously, expecting their conduct to improve overnight.

      1. “expecting their conduct to improve overnight.”

        I’d expect the change in behavior to not come until after the nuclear exchange.

    2. That was, indeed, from another era in Israel. I doubt they would do anything like that now.

        1. Did you read the link?

          1. Of course. Criticism of how it was handled as well.

            Such criticism does not prove your point. “They” are in fact doing something like that now.

            1. I mean, it’s a little like saying that just because a few asylum seekers managed to run Trump’s gantlet and be admitted to the U.S., that he held up the American commitment to refugees under U.S. and international law.

              I’m happy for those 2000 individuals that the Israeli establishment deigned to admit to Israel, but let’s not pretend that it’s sufficient or even begins to address the systemic discrimination that Ethiopian Jews face in Israel. As I said, it was a different era then. Rabin’s assassination changed everything for the worse.

              1. …and the goal posts move.
                You also might want to read bit about Operation Solomon and who was in charge then. (hint: it was not Rabin)

              2. And before you climb up on that high horse of ” the systemic discrimination that Ethiopian Jews face in Israel’ , you might want to check who is the current Minister for Aliyah.

  15. Coastal liberal Jews overwhelmingly vote democratic. Coastal liberal Jews overwhelmingly support their own disarming via gun control. If that is what the Jews want, who am I do disagree? If they don’t like their dinner getting disturbed, or some asshole beating them on the head, or Senators & Representatives spewing hateful rhetoric, then perhaps they should alter their voting patterns. That’s the joy of democracy, getting what you voted for, good and hard.

    1. That’s right, and the NY Times caters to leftist Jews who would rather see Communism than Christianity.

      1. Jews who also forget that Jesus was an Observant Jew…

      2. ” the NY Times caters to leftist Jews who would rather see Communism than Christianity.”

        Review the history of the early church. They WERE communist.

      3. Communism or Christianity — what a deplorable choice.

        Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.

  16. Here’s the real question: who actually reads the Times at all anymore? Having no data whatsoever, I speculate the breakdown is something like:

    – Republicans: <1%
    – Independents: 5%
    – Moderate Dems: 10%
    – Progressive Dems: 20%
    – Leftists: 25%

    I just don't think very many people read it, even those who align with its agenda. I don't see a lot of sharing of articles from the Times. I don't see a lot of references to things people have read there.

    I think it's like CNN at this point. Audience is down significantly.

    1. A related question: Who votes Republican anymore? Other than the half-educated racists, superstitious gay-bashers, backwater xenophobes, disaffected clingers, elderly hayseeds, and other inconsequential, fading culture war losers . . . what fraction of educated, reasoning, skilled people in modern, successful communities are interested in right-wing candidates?

      Compare the list of ‘states by educational attainment’ to that of ‘states that vote Republican.’

      Being poorly educated and on the wrong sides of the culture war and bright flight have had consequences for downscale America.

      1. Actually, polls have consistently show Republican voters to be more educated than Democrat voters. On average, Republican have about a year more education.

        1. What is your source for that? According to Pew’s consolidated 2019 voter demographics surveys, among Republican & Lean Republican voters, 35% have only high-school diploma or less, 35% have some college but no degree, 19% have a college degree with no postgrad education, and 10% have a postgrad education. Among Democratic & Lean Democratic voters, those numbers are 28% HS or less, 31% have some college no degree, 22% have a college degree with no postgrad, and 19% have postgrad.

          1. Hmmm. That survey says that the situation has reversed since 1996. Maybe my info is out-of-date. I will have to research further.

            1. Yes. Under Trump the GOP has become the party of the working class.

              There is nothing wrong with that.

              1. Working class of today tends to average 14 years of education — I’m including both trade school and apprenticeships here, as both are education.

                1. the fact that it took you 14 years to learn what a normal person could have done in 9 or 10, says nothing about Republicans. Except it does.

            2. Oh my god, are you seriously saying that your previous statement that “polls have consistently show[n] Republican voters to be more educated than Democrat[ic] voters” was based on your recollection of the situation twenty-five years ago?

              The confident, ignorant audacity at all.

              But yes, please do read a goddamn book, maybe a newspaper published in the 21st century. The educational shift has been a primary story about how voters came out in 2018 and 2020 against Trump-style politics. His near-miss in 2020 was almost entirely a function of high turn-out among less-educated voters.

              1. I read the NYT regularly, and 99% of the Trump criticisms are at about a fourth-grade level. They mostly consist of mindless namecalling. The rest is fake news. Just look at the 200 stories it has published blaming Trump for 2017 Charlottesville. A simple google search will tell you that every one of them is false.

                1. A simple Google search might tell you that. but a more skilled Google search won’t.

                2. Given that you just now learned about a political shift that’s been happening for at least a couple of years now, I can’t say I find your assessment of the NYTimes’ coverage to be very credible.

                  My sense of the NYTimes critical coverage of Trump is that it might at times have been hyperbolic, superficial, or needlessly alarmist. Juvenile? No. Namecalling? I’m not even sure what you have in mind there. “Fake news”? Only in the Trumpian sense of the word (i.e., “anything I don’t like is fake news”).

                  Remember, he was president for four years, and did plenty of damage in that time. There was plenty to criticize him for, not just some off-hand remark about a white supremacist march in Charlottesville.

                  1. A Trump supporter complaining about name-calling is a highly ironic occurrence. That’s pretty much all Trump had in his favor as a newly-fledged politician, the ability to tar his opponents with labels that stuck (for his followers, at least; they’re still using them.)

          2. “What is your source for that? According to Pew’s consolidated 2019 voter demographics surveys, among Republican & Lean Republican voters, 35% have only high-school diploma or less, 35% have some college but no degree, 19% have a college degree with no postgrad education, and 10% have a postgrad education. Among Democratic & Lean Democratic voters, those numbers are 28% HS or less, 31% have some college no degree, 22% have a college degree with no postgrad, and 19% have postgrad.”

            Your analysis of this data is flawed. It doesn’t tell you anything about total numbers.

            1. The comment I replied to said nothing about total numbers, either.

              If you mean because it doesn’t specify actual average number of years, I’m not aware of any data sources that break it down that specifically, which is why I asked the other user for data sources. His response suggests he was mistaken.

        2. Actually, polls have consistently show Republican voters to be more educated than Democrat voters. On average, Republican have about a year more education.

          That used to be true, pre-Trump. The partisan alignment of the educated and the un-educated has shifted dramatically. (“I love the poorly educated.”)

      2. I love giving the Rev yet another opportunity to demonstrate how bigoted and spiteful his opinions are. Not to mention repetitive! Oof dah.

        The great thing about free speech is you can see them coming.

        1. “Oof dah.”

          Did you mean to write “Uff da”?
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uff_da

  17. Ya what this article is missing is how the claim that NYT is wrong about “most” antisemitic instances in the country being caused by right-wing extremists in “recent years” is supported by citing one cluster of attacks by black people in one city in the beginning of 2020. What this article is missing is the fact that the NYT explained the history of attacks over the past few years, not just early 2020. We had a president who refused to disclaim David Duke and the KKK’s endorsement, refused to say during a debate that white supremacy is bad, said that people chanting “Jews will replace us” are good people, and welcomed neonazis to campaign rallies, but apparently it’s a stretch to link the top leadership to implicitly promoting antisemitism.
    Don’t look too deeply into this though, the cognitive dissonance might cause your brain to explode.

    1. All of those statements are false.

      1. They are all false, but beyond that, the Times didn’t say most “instances” of anitsemitism were inspired by Trump, it said most antisemitic violence “was considered” related to Trump and the inspiration he gave to white supremacists. “Was considered,” being in the past tense, it weasely, because it doesn’t say by whom. The fact is that there were dozens of attacks on Orthodox Jews in the New York area, almost all by black men, and this constituted the bulk of *violence* against Jews in the recent past. If anyone “considered” this to be false, it’s only because they weren’t paying attention to the Times’ own reporting, and/or didn’t care about the facts but simply were dedicated to a narrative about Trump.

        1. Trump said: “I’ve said it many times, and let me be clear again: I condemn the KKK. I condemn all white supremacists. … If I say it a hundred times it won’t be enough because it’s fake news.”

          1. Condemning the KKK isn’t really an issue we should excuse flip flopping on, is it?

            From the same source as before (not yours, can’t seem to find that):

            Trump: I don’t know what group you’re talking about. You wouldn’t want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. … If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them and certainly I would disavow them if I thought there was something wrong.

            Tapper: The Ku Klux Klan?

            Trump: You may have groups in there that are totally fine and it would be very unfair. So give me a list of the groups and I’ll let you know.

            Tapper: I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here.

            Trump: Honestly, I don’t know David Duke.

            As several people swiftly pointed out on Twitter, Trump hasn’t always claimed ignorance of David Duke as he did on CNN this morning.

            In 2000, when he ended his presidential campaign, Trump cited Duke’s participation in the Reform Party as one reason he no longer wanted the party’s nomination.

            “The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. [Pat][ Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. [Lenora] Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep,” he wrote in his statement.

          2. The phenomenon of Trump’s saying one thing, only to pull it back later after it catches flak, but leaving the original thing kind of out there reverberating in the minds of his intended audience, has been so widely-observed and commented-upon that it’s kind of silly to just parrot the pullback like it means anything. You’re just kind of marking yourself out as a useful idiot.

            1. So are you siding with this NYT article? Do you really think that the major source of Anti-Semitism in the world today is that Trump does not denounce the KKK at every single opportunity?

              1. “Do you really think that the major source of Anti-Semitism in the world today is that Trump does not denounce the KKK at every single opportunity?”

                THE major source of antisemitism in the world today is stupid people. That’s the Trump audience, people who’ll buy his brand of BS.

              2. That is not what the NYTimes piece says.

                As one who claims to read it “regularly,” did you bother to read the actual piece in its entirety? Or did you just read the bit that David excerpted for you?

                Anyway, I personally wouldn’t say that Trump did anything but inspire a strain of racism and antisemitism that was already alive and well in the U.S. I don’t view him as primarily responsible for any particular attack, just not a helpful person to have in the headlines when those attacks are occurring.

      2. “All of those statements are false.”

        All of your statement is false.

      3. “All of those statements are false.”

        One was: The right-wing bigots at Charlottesville were chanting “Jews will not replace us” rather than “Jews will replace us.”

        Very fine people — those conservative bigots and the Republicans who support and appease them.

  18. “the bulk of recent antisemitic violent incidents were a series of dozens of attacks on Orthodox Jewish men in the New York area, culminating in murders in Jersey City, NJ, and Monsey, NY”

    If I’m to believe the ADL’s tracker of antisemitic incidents, this statement is wildly incorrect. You can see the mapped data here:

    https://www.adl.org/education-and-resources/resource-knowledge-base/adl-heat-map

    1. He said “antisemitic violent incidents”, that map does not filter for that, just murders or terrorist attacks. “Antisemitic incidents” could mean many things, not just violence.

      1. Indeed, the vast majority of “incidents” the ADL tracks do not involve violence, but things like slurs or graffiti or antisemitic pamphlets. Violent incidents are generally rare.

    2. If I’m to believe the ADL’s tracker of antisemitic incidents, this statement is wildly incorrect. You can see the mapped data here:

      It would help if you bothered to read and understand what that mapped data represents…which is not what you’re claiming it does.

  19. Stop reading the articles, just do the daily crossword and the acrostic every other week.

    1. Get a paper with comics in it.

  20. This “not trustworthy source” is cited here a lot more often for legitimate news scoops than, say, Fox News.

    1. The NY Times has a long history of lies and distortions. It is NOT trustworthy.

      example 1:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

      1. Cool, now do FoxNews and NewsMax.

        1. We’re not talking about those outlets here, Mr. Whataboutism.

          1. Great. Let’s talk about the Volokh Conspiracy and Instapundit.

  21. It’s truthy!

  22. A question, prof.

    Is any violence with a Jewish victim “antisemitic”, or only if the perpetrator actually knew the victim was Jewish? Either definition works, but the ramifications are different.

    1. In addition to being just generally stupid, your question is misdirected. The post is about incidents the NYT has described as “antisemitic”, so you should direct your query to them.

      1. I don’t want the NYT’s answer to the question (or your non-answer), I wanted the Prof’s answer.

        1. I don’t want you to continue wasting oxygen that could be put to better use by…well…just about anyone else. But we don’t always get what we want.

          1. Life’s a bitch and you’re still alive. alas.

  23. The attacks on jews recently, and the attacks on asians, have been mostly perpetrated by blacks. Why isn’t this a story?

  24. Treat the NY Times, WaPo, ” media ” in the same manner expressed by President Reagan towards the Soviet Union. “Trust but verify”. In addition, it never hurts to consider the business / commercial Maxum, ” Let the buyer beware “. So called journalistic standards and virtually any notion of “a” standard has deteriorated to the point where nobody should be surprised with inaccuracy, sloppy/lazy work product, or lack of shame within media/journalism. There’s no downside to inaccurate journalism. Pulitzer Prises for journalism are given to reporting that is demonstrably shown by a broad range of historians to be factually inaccurate. What would/should be expected?

  25. Many news sources are categorically unreliable. No news source is categorically reliable. The NYT maintains a reliability standard near the top of news sources attempting general coverage on a comparable scale.

  26. Professor Bernstein,

    May I ask which major publication you think is a better source for factual news (set aside the editorial side of the publication)?

    A related question, do you think that, on major news stories, WSJ gets fact reporting better than NYT? Washington Post? Fox News?

    Of course, they all make errors. Some are the result of the news cycle and moving too fast. That’s not an excuse just an observation. But I am just looking for your views on who does it better.

    1. The obvious answer is “Twitter”.

    2. The Wall Street Journal (which ironically used to have more liberal-leaning news [not editorial] pages than the Post and arguably the Times is probably the last reasonably respectable news outlet.

      1. The problem with using “respectable” as a metric is that some people do not “respect” being told things that they did not want to hear.

  27. Here’s another example. For a year they were blatantly wrong and purposely misleading about the lab leak origin possibility of COVID, along with the rest of the mainstream media. But now, they’re all acting like they are doing their jobs and reporting the opposite, of course without admitting they were lying for political purposes for a year.

    With that as a background,

    1. Now we have NYT’s David Leonhardt offering an “explainer” on the subject.

    Wouldn’t it be great to read the sanitized, spun up and dumbed down version of information that has mostly been floating around for a year, from a source that purposely misleads about the subject or is so dumb they just figured it out, or both? I guess NYT reading liberals love that.

    Anyway, here’s a quote: “Some coverage exaggerated Cotton’s comments to suggest he was claiming that China had deliberately released the virus as a biological weapon. (Cotton called that “very unlikely.”)”

    “Some coverage” indeed . . . like that of the NEW YORK TIMES, including right in its subheadline from 2/17/21.

    2. Just a couple months ago, the New York Times was calling the lab leak theory a “baseless” conspiracy theory which was to blame for the Asian sex work spa shooting in Atlanta! “How Anti-Asian Activity Online Set the Stage for Real-World Violence.” Of course, in reality the shooting had nothing at all to do with racial sentiments, online or otherwise.

    Incredibly, the same NYT reporter who wrote that story just tweeted, “I’ve resisted saying anything about the lab leak hypothesis because the *discourse* around it has been so toxic . . . The whole arc of discussion of the lab leak theory just makes me sad. Because it’s so predictable. And it’s a pattern we saw over and over last year with people politicizing incomplete pieces of information about [whatever placeholder topic] just because it serves their interests.”

    3. Illustrative of the mindset behind countless (yes countless) examples of this same sort of thing, the NYT’s COVID reporter tweeted “Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here.”

    Whoo. No comment needed, but as Glenn Greenwald points out, if one of the explanations of COVID origins is going to be racist, it would be the alternative explanation, a Chinese wet market that supposedly had bats and pangolins. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1397623499888463872

    1. It takes a particularly virulent conspiracy-theorist level of paranoia to assume that China attacked the United States by releasing a biological weapon in Wuhan.

      1. It takes a particularly mendacious tool to claim that someone is assuming that when they expressly are not.

        You either did not read, or failed to understand, my comment.

Please to post comments