View in: Mobile
A six month study of the New York Times shows a bias toward the Palestinian narrative. See HonestReporting's special report: New York Times: Just the Facts?
Thoughts On My 1st Twitter Anniversary
I'm celebrating my first anniversary on Twitter today. I've been "on" Twitter for longer actually, but for the first ...
Jan Bastiaan
11:51 am
Aug 07, 2009
Good study,I will spread this analysis in The Netherlands.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
CHRISTIAN VAN NIEKERK
12:32 pm
Aug 07, 2009
WHEN WILL ISRAEL STOP USING THE TERM “SETTLEMENTS”?
THIS GIVES THE IMPRESSION OF A FEW CARAVANS WITH MOBILE TOILETS.
NO WONDER THE WORLD THINKS THAT ISRAEL IS PLACING “SETTLEMENTS” IN aRAB TERRITORY.
tHIS IS WRONG.
ISRAEL HAS BUILT CITIES IN AREAS WHICH WERE ONCE JEWISH AREAS, BUT IN THE 1947/8 WAR, LOST TO JORDAN.
THESE AREAS WERE RECAPTURED FROM JORDAN IN 1967. THIS MEANS THAT ISRAEL HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BUILD CITIES IN THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL. MAALE ADUMIM FOR INSTANCE, IS NOT A SETTLEMENT. IT IS A CITY.
BIBI, PLEASE TELL OBAMA TO RATHER FOCUS ON IRAN, SUDAN, LEBANON, AND ALL OTHER AREAS WHERE THE MUSLIMS ARE SLAUGHTERING CHRISTIANS.
THE MUSLIMS HAVE SAID TIME AND AGAIN, THAT THERE WILL BE NO RECOGNITION OF A JEWISH STATE,, THAT ISRAEL MUST ALLOW A FEW MILLION MUSILMS INTO IT’S COUNTRY, BUT NO JEWS ALLOWED IN THE PA TERRIRTORY.
PA WANTS TO HAVE A MILITARIZED STATE. WHY DO THEY NEED A MILITARY IF THEY HAVE PEACE? WHO ARE THEY GOING TO FIGHT?
THEY WANT TO ACTUALLY “WIN A WAR WITHOUT FIGHTING”, BY OVER POPULATING ISRAEL WITH MUSLIMS AND HAVE A “SOUTH AFRICAN” TYPE TAKE OVER.
MAJORITY RULES.
THE MUSLIMS WILL OUTNUMBER THE JEWS IN A MATTER OF A FEW YEARS, AND DESTROY ISRAEL PASSIVLY
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Tomer
2:20 pm
Aug 07, 2009
I’m privileged to be a citizen of the State of Israel, and am always distressed to see my country wrongly accused of various misdeeds. I’m equally distressed when those responding (usually what I call “armchair Zionists”) overegg or blur the truth in an effort to rebut the original articles. Your advocacy would be more effective if you yourselves were more honest sometimes:
Two examples:
“Many of these communities are built on land that is subject to legitimate Jewish historical claims.”
And many are not. Many are built on private land owned by Arabs. Nobody seems interested in addressing this.
And…
“In fact, Israel sees these outposts as unlawful and has pledged to remove them.” And has been pledging since Ariel Sharon’s period in office (as far as I recall, maybe even earlier), but very little has happened on the ground. A couple of shacks get torn down, the inhabitants abuse the IDF, call them Nazis and start rebuilding the next day.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Irwin Stelzer
2:30 pm
Aug 07, 2009
This is why I have not purchased a NY Times in 35 Years. Others must do the same
Irwin
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
edith claman
4:02 pm
Aug 07, 2009
We are NY Times subscribers.
However, we are constantly dismayed at the biased reporting re: Israel and the Palestinians.
It is always one sided on the Arab position and never fully explains or records the Israeli position,
The pictures are always of suffering Arabs; what about killed and wounded Israelis?
What about all the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries after 1948? They had to flee with nothing: the Israelis took them in?
None of the Arab countries would take in Arabs but walled them up in refugee camps?
NY Times reporting is highly one sided and should be corrected immediately or the Times will lose more and more Jewish readers,
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
David Kanareck
4:44 pm
Aug 07, 2009
I have followed the NYT’s reporting on Israel and the Gaza campaign in particular. I am not one of those Jews who see Israel through rose coloured glasses. It is a country and society like any other in the developed world and has its own inherent faults and problems, and if the media choose to highlight these, then so be it. But when it comes to the general reporting on Israel and especially that on the Gaza campaign, the NYT seems to have taken leave of its senses. Israel has an obligation to protect its civilians from terrorist attacks and if this meant going into Gaza from where the bulk of the attacks were mounted, then so be it. But in reporting this campaign, the NYT has an obligation to report it fairly and not to take every unfounded and unverified utterance by a Palestinian as gospel. I used to think theUK paper “The Guardian” was bad, but the NYT’s really takes the biscuit. If I had a subscription, I would certainly cancel it.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
barney wainer
10:36 pm
Aug 07, 2009
1] Today al Jazira commented/reminded viewers that 83% of the dead were in civilian clothes. “were” should read “wore”; hamas doesn’t wear uniforms except those in some sort of authority who have some sort of uniform.
2] Let’s hope the BBC will also be brought to book with it’s innuendos in picture as well as words.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Sandra Ezersky
1:00 am
Aug 08, 2009
It is HIGHLY disappointing when a newspaper such as the New York Times presents a totally biased account of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the media cannot present both sides fairly than it is doing a disservice to the public. I suggest that fairminded reporters be hired who are able to do their jobs in a professional manner.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Irene Sopher
1:55 am
Aug 08, 2009
It’s quite apparent that the N.Y. Times reports in a very biased way when any story appears about the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Let’s see more balanced reporting.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
KR.Baltimore
6:11 am
Aug 08, 2009
The New York Times has not changed its need to not appear to be too Jewish a paper at least since its choice not to report the ongoing atrocities in Nazi Germany on its front pages.
The Palestinians have learned well from the Nazis about the importance of propaganda: if you repeat some lie often enough, it is accepted as the truth. One would think that NYT reporters could see beyond that, but maybe the truth does not sell as many papers?
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
gail mayerson
7:03 am
Aug 08, 2009
i cancelled my subscription to the n.y.times because of their pro palistinean view.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
jean mallin
6:33 pm
Aug 08, 2009
The New York Times – THE prestigious paper – BUT – the NYT does not tell the whole story.
The “prestigious” NYT often prints articles, pictures, and quotations that lean toward the Palestian perspective.
Are these the new standards for the NYT?
My question is why?
Do newspapers sell better if a small country surrounded by enemies and suffering years of bombardment is wrong?
Jean
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Joel
12:38 am
Aug 14, 2009
How much money are the media receiving from Palestinian sources to withhold not printing the entire story? This seems to me this may be the under-lying reason.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0