When the New York Times Is Against
Translated by Viktoria Lymar
Edited by Steven Stenzler
24 March 2012
Even if the New York Times’ editors believe that an Israeli attack
About three years ago, when the economic situation of the New
York Times arrived at a nadir that endangered the continuation of the publication,
the newspaper editor Bill Keller was invited to lecture the students of
Keller took his place behind the podium, and declared without
blinking: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving
The journalist with a rich media experience, all in all he wanted to draw attention to the predicament of the newspaper he headed losing readers; however, inadvertently, he exposed another important reason, besides the Internet revolution, that brought the Times to the abyss – an elitist disconnection bordering on blindness, and a sense of self-importance so arrogant that it could come up with such a distorted equation.
For some reason, even despite the readership of the Times being
today less than one percent of Americans, it seems that in Israel, it enjoys a
circulation of almost a hundred percent – so that each hiccup produced by the
newspaper’s analyst or reporter immediately makes major headlines in the Hebrew
press – most of whose editors and correspondents share the New York Times’
leftist agenda. So it happens also in the recent weeks, with the orchestrated
campaign the Times promotes against an Israeli action in
Every few days, the newspaper publishes a scary new report
regarding a probable impending attack. The climax came last week, when the
Times claimed, on the basis of unnamed sources in Pentagon: it stands to reason
that Israeli operation in
Whether this scenario is logical or exaggerated – it is part of a cynical publicity campaign of the Obama administration that uses the friendly newspaper as a mouthpiece of propaganda which the President and his officials cannot voice themselves.
Obama, as all know, has one key objective in these days: it is not
to be found in Bushehr or Natanz,
but rather way closer to the house – in practice, inside of the White House
itself. The President is interested in continued residence at
[For] should the labor market show signs of recovery – that would be the main thing able to jeopardize his winning the second term; and if Israel strikes Iran, the fuel price is expected to soar.
The Secret Keepers
Even if the editors of the New York Times sincerely believe that an Israeli offensive on Iran is not a commendable thing (and they could surely be given this credit), their enthusiasm to offer its pages for the sake of the campaign navigated directly from the White House and driven largely by political considerations, throws a stain on the newspaper that since its foundation has been proud of uncompromising journalistic standards.
The argument according to which it’s important to highlight the
Times’ publications, since even if its readers are few – indeed, they include
the designers of American policy, does not apply to the current campaign,
where it’s the administration that operates the newspaper like a string doll
willingly giving in to it, and not the other way round. Therefore, any
justification for over-coverage in the Israeli mass media of the NYT stuff on
the issue of the assault on
However, this influence is much less than it’s commonly thought
The Times goes on having an effect on a small group of policy makers – nonetheless, only in those cases when it’s leading an independent position rather than setting itself as a bulletin board for the administration’s posts.
Thus, the next time the newspaper’s commentator on duty reports to you, through its admirers in the Israeli media, about the near Apocalypse that our government prepares for us – you could puff out your chest with pride and feel that you are exclusive top-secret confidants – for except you, almost no one reads the New York Times any more.
Original Hebrew article: