How can a ‘New York Times’ reader possibly know what is truly happening in Israel/Palestine?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/possibly-happening-israelpalestine

Let’s say you are a typical New York Times reader. You have a job, a family, and a busy life. You trust the Times to give you an accurate daily overview of the world. You don’t, for instance, feel that you have to check alternate news sources to make sure that the paper is honestly reporting whether Hurricane Joaquin is a threat or not.

So you open your Times this morning, to “Anger Rises to West Bank After Deaths.” The article is devoted to Eitam and Naama Henkin, the Jewish settlers who were killed in the occupied West Bank on Thursday, apparently by Palestinian gunmen. You learn at some length what the president of Israel said at their funeral, what the prime minister of Israel said, and what one of the couple’s neighbors said. The article is accompanied by a photograph of a mourner at the graveside of the couple. The article links to an earlier Times article that describes “photographs of the parents and their bloodied car on Twitter” — a link that takes you to the Israeli army spokesman’s extremely graphic pictures of the murder scene (deep inside Palestinian territory). You finish the article with a feeling of sadness and resignation, “Why can’t those Palestinians stop their endless terrorism?” you may ask yourself.

Nine days earlier, Israeli soldiers killed the Palestinian teenager Hadil al-Hashlamoun at a checkpoint in Palestine. Your newspaper has had nothing at all to say about her since its first, somewhat confusing report. The Times made no effort to talk to her neighbors or her family, (even though this site had no trouble interviewing them). There are striking photographs of the Israeli soldier in uniform pointing his automatic weapon at her just before he killed her, but you have never seen those photos in your daily newspaper.

The circumstances of Hadil al-Hashlamoun’s death are suspicious to say the least, but none of the three Times reporters in the area have looked into it. In today’s article, she is not even mentioned.

To all the victims of violence.

[brush]

1. Thanks for the opposite perspective

Many seem to lose their capacity for fair, unbiased thinking when it comes to Israel v Palestine — and that includes the Times reporters and editors.

[achsadu]

2. different perspective

I read the Times every morning and I disagree with your claim of unbalanced coverage. They have plenty of other articles dealing with the other phenomenon of Israelis attacking Palestinians quite harshly and for no "obvious" reason. When it comes to violence in that part of the world there are no innocents.

Achsa.

[King_David]

3. This article comes from Mondoweiss

A publication many consider a hate site.

Mondoweiss have trashed Bernie Sanders

and Mondoweiss have praised Anne Coulter.

Mondoweiss is a vanity site and not a publication you you should get any perspective from and doesn't really belong
on DU.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. When you can't refute the article, attempt to kill the messenger.

Right, king?

But as a policy it is a bad one you should give up.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. "This article comes from Mondoweiss" Sure does.

A publication many consider a hate site.

No, just you and a few others. Not many. A handful at best.

Mondoweiss have trashed Bernie Sanders

Mondoweiss criticizes a lot of US politicians for not doing enough WRT Israel Palestine.

and Mondoweiss have praised Anne Coulter.

Find the word "praise" dave. You won't, but you already knew that, my dubious friend.
Mondoweiss pointed out, IMHO, that Anne Coulter says what republicans are thinking; very much in the same way that Donald Trump says what republicans are thinking.

Mondoweiss is a vanity site and not a publication you you should get any perspective from and doesn't really belong
on DU.

You're not really a judge or expert on anything...IMHO.

[Little Tich]

7. Do you have anything to share about the OP itself?

I don't agree with everything on Mondoweiss, but a it's not "vanity" site or a "hate" site. Methinks your dislike of Mondoweiss is based on ideological differences...

[King_David]

8. I don't participate in Mondoweiss posts because as I said many consider it a hate site :

Mondoweiss & Is Anti-Semitism Dead?

Lately I have been struck by the raw anti-semitism evinced on anti-Israel websites (most egregious example, Mondoweiss). http://mondoweiss.net/

There is nothing novel about it. It’s not “the new anti-semitism” that the Anti-Defamation League likes to talk about. But the old kind, masquerading as anti-Zionism but manifesting itself as support or, at least, sympathy for every group or individual hostile to Jews: from Pat Buchanan to Hizbullah.

The only difference between this anti-semitism and the old-fashioned kind is that it has no impact. If you don’t visit Mondoweiss or other websites like it, you won’t know it exists. It threatens no one. It is just ugly. But ugly and irrelevant.

Still we would all be better off without


http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2014/03/16/is-anti-semitism-dead/


The vanity site trashed Bernie Sanders here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=113241



Mondoweiss praises Anne Coulter and her antisemetism here:


http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/republicans-donors-coulters


“Mondoweiss” is a hate site "


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/mondoweiss-is-a-hate-site/

[Scootaloo]

10. Yet here you are.

[King_David]

11. Good point.

You would make a good lawyer.

[Scootaloo]

15. I prefer my grilling to involve charcoal n/t

[Little Tich]

16. Your argument isn't very convincing.

I would need a very large dose of "I want to believe" in order to accept it. If these examples are the worst of what's been posted on Mondoweiss, it really can't be that bad, or even bad at all.

Being critical of Israel isn't anti-Semitism.

BTW, the Volokh Conspiracy shouldn't be trusted, I remember reading its "“Resolution 242 Revisited”: new research on Security Council’s approach to Israel-Arab conflict" article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/07/resolution-242-revisited-new-research-on-security-councils-approach-to-israel-arab-conflict/), and the paper it referred to was one of the most intentionally misleading law papers I've ever read.

[larkrake]

6. parroting from Fox ya know

[oberliner]

9. Article shows what a piece of garbage Mondoweiss is

Let’s say you are a typical Mondoweiss reader. You have a job, a family, and a busy life. You trust Mondoweiss to give you an accurate daily overview of the I/P conflict.

The only article you would find about the murder of Eitam and Naama Henkin in that source would be one questioning whether such killings such actually be condemned and emphasizing that these murder victims were "colonists" and perhaps, therefore, legitimate targets for attack, which this news source says was "allegedly" committed by Palestinians. Funny how they never use allegedly when they think Israelis committed an act, but that's just the way things go at Mondoweiss.

There is no interview with the families of the victims (whom the NY Times was easily able to contact). The only focal point is that these people were part of an evil colonial enterprise and so their murders ought to be seen in that context.

That Mondoweiss can possibly level charges of bias and lack of objectivity against any news source while pretending to be a news source itself is absolutely ludicrous.

[King_David]

12. Agree 100%

[aranthus]

13. You trust Mondoweiss to give you an accurate daily overview of the I/P conflict?

Who does that? What Mondoweiss reader turns to that rag for accurate reporting? It isn't the purpose of Mondoweiss to be accurate. Or fair. It exists to give antisemites some Jews to quote.

[King_David]

14. Yes agreed but Mondoweiss is not only anti Zionist

Or anti Israel ... He's become antisemitic too.


http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/forgiving-anti-semites