 |
|
|
Wednesday, November 21 2007New York Times 6 Month StudyAre there any patterns of bias in New York Times reporting? See HonestReporting's special report: New York Times 6 Month Study.
TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New York Times 6 Month Study : CommentsI am outraged at the way the NY Times I urge you, if you have not done so, to send this article to the Times editors. If you have already done that, let your readers know their response, if any. This is an EXCELLENT analysis! I was beginning to this that I was the only one who thought the NYT is a prejudicial, pro-terrorist newspaper! I received this from you - did Honest Reporting also send it to the NYT editorial staff and/or owners? A biased media monitor - in this case pro-Israel 100 percent - is critiquing reporting of the Arab-Israeli issues. That's rather funny. Most newspapers report the NEWS, hence what happens the latest. To say The Times is being unfair becauuse it reports in the second paragraph that Israel retaliated for Arab rocketfire is rather nit-picking. Of course, if you follow your argument back 60-plus years, the Arab argument would be The Jews stole the land (that crap) justifying in their minds their war against Israel. Since you don't recgonize that aspect, it doesn't count, does it? The New York Times is not perfect, but a grouo that advocates for one side 100 percent lacks credibility and the arguments in your critique shows that. It isn't only the Middle East. My friend cancelled his yearly paid-in-advance subscription to the NYTimes three or four years ago when the front page photo of the yearly June New York Parade for Israel on her Independence Day showed in the foreground -taken from behind them - a group of about TEN pro-Arab protesters with palestinian flags and anti-Israel placards while in the background TWO pro-Israeli marchers were passing. It really looked like no one showed up for the parade except for Arab protestors. The photo was credited to a Mohammed something or other. He called and cancelled on the spot and hasn't bought a NY Times since. I, myself, gradually stopped reading the NYTimes about the same time when day in and day out very pro-Arab AP and UPI articles were published with no apparent proof reading whatsoever. Even a first year journalism student could find fault and mistakes - not mere typos but ones of substance. It was apparent they were written by people very pro-PA and pro-arafat. Israel was always disparaged and any argument on behalf of Israel was inserted towards the end and stated in as dry, cold and short a manner as possible while Arab events used emotional adjectives. It was so shoddy and made a farce of the 'All The News Fit To Print' banner the Times displays on their front page. Spelling: in the sentence before the Conclusion you wrote "it's" referring to the Times instead of "its." Thank you for your analysis of the New York Times reporting. I have followed the International Herald Tribune coverage since the start of the intifada and been upset by the very same characteristics that you mention, in particular, the vague and passive versus active and specific headlines for Palestinian versus Israeli actions and the preponderance of photographs sympathetic to the Palestinians, even on some occasions when the main item in the article is an attack against Israelis. If there is such an award for propaganda, obfuscation and distortion of truth in the media, which should be called the JOSEPH GOEBBELS AWARD, it should be awarded to the NEW YORK TIMES! I would like to know: Thank you for your tireless efforts and excellent analysis and reporting vis-a-vis the "covert" bias inherent in The New York Times against Israel. I am completely stymied by The New York Times' obvious anti-Israel rhetoric and reporting, and thoroughly disgusted by its continual inaccurate depiction of the Israelis as the aggressors against the "poor down-trodden" Palestinians. I have ceased reading/purchasing The New York Times, having once been a long-time avid week-end subscriber. One has to learn to read between the lines to discover the biased sentiments espoused by The New York Times, and your organization, as always, brings to light the hidden dangers, slanted rhetoric and images published by The New York Times. Keep up the splendid work - never ever cease or desist from your mission to uncover the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you once again for your efforts, splendid and accurate reporting and perserverance. Balance - whatever that means - is one criterion for assessing reliable journalism. Awareness of the rich context of both nations/societies - historic, cultural, economic, social, political, military, religious, etc., - is another significant parameter. Great article! Thank you. Q & A: How is the Canadian "Time" magazine, produced by Time Canada Ltd., connected or associated with the New York Times? Thank you so much for this analysis of New York Times' reporting. Many of us have felt that the Times' reporting of Middle East events is biased against Israel and your careful and eloquently worded report validate that view. Good and succinct reporting. I have been noting this discrepency between the way events are reported in the New York Times for a long time. It makes it so difficult to understand the whole story when it is presented time after time with bias, and one knows it, but cannot find the extent of that reporting bias. Thank-you, Honest Reporting, for your continuing good work. Cora Gordon I am old enough to recall how, fearing to be considered as Jews, the owners of the Times relegated news about the Holocaust to inside pages, rather than putting anything on the front pages. My uncle was a war correspondent from another news media and he was with the troops that liberated the camps. He asked the reporter from the Times why the lack of coverage and was told that that was how the editors wanted it. Not changed to much in over 60 years, have they? I appreciated reading this review of the NY Times because it helped me clarify my perception of some of the subtle bias that occur in various newspapers. Well done and very thoroughly prepared. But, wouldn't your thorough work be more comprehensive, had you submitted it to NYT editors' response, which, if given, would be a part of your report, and the latter could also include your counter-remarks?. People today really don't know history --- even reporters who are reporting on subjects whose background is essential to know. Old maps called the area of modern Israel and Jordan by the name Palestine. The obvious conclusion is that there was a country named Palestine. If there had been a country named Palestine, there must have been people living there called Palestinians. Logical, perhaps --- but WRONG. We need to educate. Are you reporting this to the NY Times and does it matter to them? Are you reporting this to the major Jewish organizations. How can we get to the Times ? Considering the fact that the Times knew of the Holocaust in the 40's and An excellent report! Well done. a) The BBC (TV and website) In addition to the analysis of NYTimes reporting of Israeli- Palestinian issues, the comments posted above should be sent to the NYTimes. I know many Jews in NY who would subscribe and/or purchase the NYTimes but for the biased reporting on Israel. This is an excellent report except for one minor setback. I have heard the IDF itself censors what can come out of Israel. i.e. pictures.... I am of the opinion, pictures speak much louder than words, so why censor? Thank you for sharing your conclusions regarding NYT reporting of the Palestinian/Israeli news. It would be helpful if you would identify a newpaper of somewhat equal stature that you consider unbiased in its news reporting and one of almost equal stature that you consider biased in favor of Israel in its news reporting. I am NOT asking about editiorial bias. I would like to read all three over a period of several months and make my own decision on the subject. Marshall Foreman If you think the NY Times has an anti-Israel bias, look at the Baltimore Sun's Sunday Edition, dated 11/18/07. It has a front page story entitled "The Young Prisoners of the West Bank," which runs 2 1/2 pages! Not only are the headlines & text biased, but there are 6 photos, which are all sympathetic to the Palestinians! One of the photos is a picture only of legs in shackles. NOTE: The legs in shackles are those of a 16-year old [Hussam Abdo] who tried to blow himself up at the Hawara checkpoint in March 2004. In response to your excellent analysis, I have just sent an e-mail expressing my strong disapproval to the Times. Yasher Koach on your great work in confronting media bias. One of the reasons for this also is that Israel is terrible at PR.. The Arabs spend a lot of their defense budget on media relations and manipulation because they understand that we are fighting a media war as well. Only recently did Aish HaTorah set up a media Center in jerusalem to work with foreign media. In addition, the balance that you suggest is still biased against Israel. The world must understand the nature of the two people's we are talking about within their respective countries. How do the Palestinians treat their own children - strapping bombs to them and educating them to want to be martyrs to die, but children don't want to die and don't have the mauturity to make that decision for themselves. In any other country in the world this is gross child abuse. Imagine seeing someone tying a bomb to an animal and blowing them up crossing a border. Animal rights activists would be outraged. But the Palestinian Authority or Hamas straps a bomb to a 14 year old boy who gives himself up at the border, and not a peep from anyone about child abuse by Palestinians. Israelis value life, fmaily, children, and the rights of her citizens. Their is the issue of treatment of women, where are the women's rights activists of the world, how foriegn religions are treated in an Arab country, how Jewish refugees from Arab lands were treated etc.. How Israel responds to attacks by Lebanon, Palestinians etc., it doesn't initiate attacks. What about how Arabs are treated in Israel. Or Hezbollah casualties treated at an Israeli hospital etc.. Israel must do a better job of public relations. Maybe that fight should be made by Jews in the diaspora - Israel has enough to contend with - Jews of the diaspora start submitting articles in Western Newspapers that clearly show balance.
From the days of the first evil Arthur Sulzberger the New York Times has been an evil anti-Semitic rag published by a family of self hating scum. The excuse the first Arthur Sulzberger gave for his hatred of Israel was the tough stand the Zionist Movement took against his total lack of coverage of what was going on in Germany during the period leading up to World War II. For that time on he and his evil family have never hesitated to show their hatred for Israel and the Jewish people from which they spring. They truly are self hating Jews. The treatment they personally gave to Jews who came to America later than they did and their descendants, including those who for a time were married to them, shows them to be a sickening lot. Indeed, it drove one of them not to even recognize his own son when he was greeted by him on the street. Today the publisher, the third Arthur Sulzberger, is a disgusting leftist who takes the line that America and it allies are ALWAYS in the wrong on every international issue. He would disarm all the civilized world because his worldview is one that was formed in the 1960s antiwar era. He, his family and all his circle are to be disdained by all of good will! Congratulations on an excellent analysis of the NY Times' practices in relation to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately these practices are replicated in our own local Melbourne (Australia)paper The Age. Excellent report. So far, it seems the Times has not changed its ways I think it is horrible that such an influencial and popular newspaper such as the NYT can be so biased. This studied has to be shared with everybody we know. Your criticisms are totally valid. However, as an English teacher, I must make a comment on the text itself. Near the end of the text, the word "it's" is used instead of "its" and while this may not seem like a large error, if you really want to be taken seriously, the text you send out to others must be grammatically correct at all times. Thank you for the emails as always. I don't think it is appropriate to gauge a paper's bias in this way. I am not saying that the times is not biased against Israel. It probably is, but amount of exposure of one side or another is not necessarily a good measure of the bias. Stan As a journalist, I have noticed the subtle bias that is used by the N.Y. and L.A.Times when dealing with the Middle East. It is deadly because it imparts aggressive behavior to the Israelis while downplaying the violence of the Palestinian-Hamas attacks. People absorb prejudicial views without realizing it. S. Alpert Just as leopards will not change their spots, liberals will not choose reason over emotion, and the NY Times will not change its bias. The only defense against this sort of thing is to go on the offense by publishing the facts that the Times hid or distorted, noting specifically how and in what issue it was misreported. The insipid whining that Jews (and Honest Reporting) indulge in may be emotionally satisfying, albeit unreasonable, for which reason I do not expect anything to change. Your analysis was excellent. Incidentally, before I left for work this morning, I watch a documentary via the ALJAZEERA television on the DSTV network. Titled "Wall of Shame", it tries to convince viewers that the attempt by the Isrealis to protect their citizens from incessant snipers were wrong. While the makers of the documentary tried to show the world how the Palestinians are suffering under the so-called Walls of Shame, they did not go the extra mile of also meeting with families who have been victims of the excesses of the Palestines that provoked the walls/fences. I, am particularly pissed off by this brand of journalism that is so prejudiced. I agree that the New York Times has really been palying to the gallery.May be until a mass campaign for the boycout of its publications is begun that it will sit up.Or whose tune is it really dnacing? You do very good and important job. Anyway, thank-you for keeping the score. Ilya The N.Y Times, in my opinion, does report honestly and accurately to expose the cruelty of the occupation for the last forty years and the sufferings of the innocent Palestinians. Your criticisms are not valid to say the least. Do yourself a favour(our correct spelling),and renew your subscription to the paper. hani Well done and enlightening, although not surprising. Are you going to go to the publishers of the NY Times for a response and publish it? Taking on faith the accuracy and consistency of your measurement techniques, you are to be commended for a very powerful piece of journalistic reporting. One could claim that the 60/40 visual photo bias could be within the error of your technique; but the active/passive voice contextual bias is a much stronger, more meaningful signal. Given that the NY Times has more than a single editor or headline writer, it suggests that the bias is a matter of policy and not the personal whim of a single individual. In the commercial world, improvement is encouraged by reporting and distribution of a performance metric. You might wish to consider publishing such a weekly metric and sending it to the NY Times. Repetition in a report card format is the key to behavioral change. Extremely well-done analysis of New York Times reporting on Israel and Palestinian Territories. You get an A+ for cogency, careful wording, analytical skills and intelligent presentation! Hani cannot be contacted...and she/he must be a Muslim for they are positive they are right and the only religion and like Hani favour is the way to spell what Americans spell as favor. To dispute something as narrow minded as this, indicates ability of Hani to assimilate change. Now who else lives in the past and insists they can only be right. This of course is an opinion but answers to the questions, if honest, will lead to only one conclusion. An excellent analysis that needs to be sent not only to the NY Times but also to other major newspapers as a hint that they too might be subject to analysis. Excellent analysis - thank you so much! Has it been sent to the NY Times' editors? Best wishes for continued success in your vital work. Thanks. As Richard Perle pointed out in his visit here 2 weeks ago, the NYT more than anything else puts the lie to Walt/Mearsheimer's nonsense about there being no diversity of thought about Israel within the American Jewish community. This bias for Palestinian terrorists is a disgrace. Like this week (19th Jan 2008) for example... I have stopped reading the NY Times for at least 5 years. When I was in college and for years afterwards it had been the newspaper of my choice but its treatment of Israel became so despicable that I could no longer buy it( I was a subscriber). Now I don't bother to read it for free. Editorializing within the news articles. Giving Op-Ed page opportunities to anti-Semites. Printing AP and UPI articles right out of Gaza and obviously written by pro-arafat journalists without the slightest proof read. Tearing apart every Israeli mititary reaction to terror while refusing to even call palestinian terrorists the "T" word- although they use it for others who do exactly the same thing against non-Jewish targets. I now subscribe to the Wall Street Journal - actually a much better written paper, politics aside. A friend who used to get a pre-paid yearly subscription to the NY Times called and cancelled his subscription on the day of the NYC Israeli Independence Day parade years ago when a photo on the Page One accredited to a Mohammed someone showed three solitary marchers in the background with an animated group of 10-12 pro-palestinian demonstrators with placards and protest signs in the foreground. It was made to appear that the pro-palestinians outnumbered the marchers. For those who don't know, the Salute to Israeli Independence Day parade in NYC draws hundreds of thousands. That was about five years ago and he hasn't touched a NY Times since. The paper has become a highly sophisticated rag. It has gone the way of "radical-chic". Add to that the NY Times is so anti-Bush ( I do not like him much either) that it seems almost ready to applaud an act of terror if it can directly lead to a very public embarrassment for the President. The Times has become a sick, anti-American, self hating Jewish group of misfits. Post a comment[Comments are held for approval before appearing.]
|
| ||||||||||||
 |
