How the New York Times cov­ers evil

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - By Dennis Prager

The way in which the New York Times re­ports good vs. evil is one of the most im­por­tant sto­ries of our time.

Take the war be­tween Is­rael and Ha­mas that is tak­ing place right now.

This war is as morally clear as wars get.

Ha­mas is a ter­ror­ist or­ga­ni­za­tion ded­i­cated to an­ni­hi­lat­ing the Jewish state.

It runs a theo­cratic to­tal­i­tar­ian state in Gaza, with no in­di­vid­ual lib­erty and no free­dom of speech or press. In a nut­shell, Ha­mas is a vi­o­lent, fas­cist or­ga­ni­za­tion.

Is­rael, mean­while, is one the world’s most hu­mane states, not to men­tion a democ­racy that is so tol­er­ant that Arab mem­bers of its par­lia­ment are free to ex­press ad­mi­ra­tion for Ha­mas.

Over the past decade, Ha­mas had launched thou­sands of rock­ets into Is­rael with one aim: to kill and maim as many Is­raeli ci­ti­zens as pos­si­ble — Is­raelis at work, at play, asleep in their homes, in their cars. Fi­nally, Is­rael re­sponded by killing Ahmed al-Jabari, the chief or­ga­nizer of Ha­mas vi­o­lence, the Ha­mas “mil­i­tary com­man­der” as he was known among Pales­tini­ans.

The next day, three more Is­raelis were killed by rock­ets.

Then Ha­mas tar­geted Tel Aviv, Is­rael’s most densely pop­u­lated re­gion, and Is­rael shelled Ha­mas rocket launch­ing sites.

In other words, an evil en­tity made war on a peace­ful, de­cent en­tity, and the lat­ter re­sponded.

How has the New York Times re­ported this?

On Nov. 16, on its front page, the Times fea­tured two three­col­umn wide pho­tos.

The top one was of Gaza Mus­lim mourn­ers along­side the dead body of al-Jabari.

The photo be­low was of Is­raeli Jews mourn­ing along­side the dead body of Mira Scharf, a 27-year-old mother of three.

What pos­si­ble rea­son could there be for the New York Times to give iden­ti­cal space to th­ese two pic­tures? One of the dead, af­ter all, was a mur­derer, and the other was one of his vic­tims.

The most plau­si­ble rea­son is that the Times wanted to de­pict through pic­tures a sort of mo­ral equiv­a­lence: Look, so­phis­ti­cated Times read­ers, vir­tu­ally iden­ti­cal scenes of death and mourn­ing on both sides of the con­flict. How tragic.

If one had no idea what had trig­gered this war, one would read and see the Times cov­er­age and con­clude that two sides killing each other were both equally at fault.

This is the main­stream (i.e., lib­eral) me­dia’s ap­proach. The Los An­ge­les Times head­line on the same day was: “Is­rael and Gaza veer­ing down fa­mil­iar, bit­ter path,”

Same pre­sen­ta­tion: two scor­pi­ons fight­ing in a bot­tle.

Ex­am­ples are end­less. Here is one more:

In 2002, there was wide­spread Nige­rian Mus­lim op­po­si­tion to the Miss World pageant sched­uled to take place that year in Nigeria.

De­fend­ing the pageant, a Nige­rian fe­male re­porter wrote a col­umn in which she said that not only were the con­tes­tants not “whores,” as al­leged by the Mus­lim pro­tes­tors, but they were such fine women that “Muham­mad would prob­a­bly have taken one of the con­tes­tants for a wife.”

That one sen­tence led to Mus­lim ri­ot­ing, the beat­ing and killing of Chris­tians, the burn­ing of churches and the raz­ing of her news­pa­per’s of­fices.

How did the New York Times report the events?

“Fiery Zealotry Leaves Nigeria in Ashes Again.”

No group is iden­ti­fied as re­spon­si­ble. “Fiery zealotry,” not Mus­lim vi­o­lence, was re­spon­si­ble.

The ar­ti­cle then be­gins: “The beauty queens are gone now, chased from Nigeria by the chaos in Kaduna.”

Again, Mus­lim ri­ot­ers weren’t re­spon­si­ble for chas­ing the beauty queens out of Nigeria; it was “chaos.”

The ar­ti­cle con­cludes that what hap­pened in Kaduna was an­other ex­am­ple of Africa’s “dif­fi­culty in rec­on­cil­ing peo­ple who wor­ship sep­a­rately.”

In other words, Chris­tians and Mus­lims were equally guilty.

As the flag­ship news source of the left, the New York Times re­veals the great mo­ral fail­ing in­her­ent to left­ism — its com­bi­na­tion of mo­ral rel­a­tivism and the di­vi­sion of the world be­tween strong and weak, West­ern and non-West­ern, and rich and poor, rather than be­tween good and evil. Dennis Prager is the au­thor of “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs Amer­i­can Val­ues to Tri­umph”.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.