« Debunking al-Dura |
| The IDF's "Public-Relations Burden" »
New York Times 6 Month Study
Are there any patterns of bias in New York Times reporting? See HonestReporting's special report: New York Times 6 Month Study.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New York Times 6 Month Study :
I am outraged at the way the NY Times
discriminates against Israeli actions
of retaliation, by not placing the blame for the actions on prior Palestinian attacks against Sderot.
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.
As always, Israel Chai!
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!
This type of analysis needs to be done repeatedly and disseminated widely.
I would like to know:
Who conducted this study?
What methods were used?
Was there any statistical test(s) performed on the data?
If so, which one(s)?
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.
Palestine & Israel, Palestinians & Israelis, can hardly be compared in a balanced or symmetrical way. Their essential differences, as I see it, need to be acknowledged/taken into account, with dignity & honesty, in journalistic reports.
My sense is that The NY Times and The Int. Herald Tribune, to name 2 prominent Western papers, generally combine context with balance.
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.
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
Purposly did not report what was going on, they should want to be more aware of their role in anti semitism. I think this fact should be presented to them as well.
An excellent report! Well done.
Can we have similar reports on:
a) The BBC (TV and website)
b) SKY News (TV and website)
c) The Guardian (newspaper and Website)
d) The Independent (newspaper)
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?
Super important work. Bravo to you.
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.
P.S. - I canceled my subscription to the Baltimore Sun.