RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quillette.com/2024/01/05/the-lights-are-going-out-all-over-america/

Cancellations of people and events are most damaging when authorities surrender to the demands of the cancellers without a fight. When a university fails to insist that a “controversial” speaker be assured of a hearing in the teeth of noisy protests, it does more than cede victory to the protesters in return for a (temporarily) quiet life. This kind of capitulation tears another hole in the fabric of civil society, the free existence of which demands respect for a rule of free speech and publication, however unwelcome some speech and some publishing may be. Should the observation of this rule be replaced by a claim that speech on selected themes can cause fear and “pain,” public debate—especially in universities—will find itself at the mercy of self-appointed commissars tasked with sparing people psychological and emotional damage.

The US media enjoys the world’s strongest protections of speech and publication, so it might have been counted on to oppose this movement in the name of those freedoms. But instances of journalists being fired or forced to resign for writing or saying the wrong thing have been growing, and these cases tend to follow a similar pattern. First, a writer or editor publishes a piece that is deemed offensive to one or more groups of “marginalised” individuals. Second, activists, influencers, celebrities, and not infrequently the writer’s/editor’s own colleagues informally collaborate in a sustained social-media mobbing of the publication in question and any staffers unwise enough to defend the article at issue. Third, following a period of agonised indecision, the writer/editor is pushed out and the publication releases a craven apology detailing the hurt caused and the lessons learned. Upshot? The mob is greatly empowered and the spectrum of permissible opinion shrinks.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/max-blumenthal-hamas-apologist/

One of the most loyal and longest-serving members of the Clinton Mafia is the former Beltway reporter Sidney Blumenthal, now 75, whom even the New York Times, in its review of his 2003 book The Clinton Wars, described as a “courtier” for Bill and Hillary,  and whose many nefarious activities include an intimate involvement in the psychopathically mendacious Clintonista propaganda operation known as Media Matters for America.

Our topic today, however, is not the diabolical Sidney but his equally odious offspring Max, now 46 – who, as it happens, also started out as a more than typically partisan journalist. From the get-go, as I wrote in a 2019 profile of him for Commentary, Max’s approach to his ideological opponents was to try “to discredit them, to tar them with guilt by association, to paint them (however decent, independent, and mainstream they might be) as extremists, bigots, and tools of nefarious interests, and, not infrequently, to mount extremely personal assaults, complete with unfounded rumors and even outright lies.” Like father, like son.

Max’s first book, Republican Gomorrah (2009), was a takedown of the GOP; his second and third, Goliath (2013) and The 51-Day War (2014), were all-out attacks on Israel and whitewashes of Hamas. Even for legendary Israel-haters, the Israel-bashing was too much: lefty commentator Eric Alterman quipped that Goliath “could have been published by the Hamas Book-of-the-Month Club.” In my Commentary piece, I noted that after a still-mysterious Kremlin-fund trip to Moscow, Max reversed his position on Bashar al-Assad completely; a month later, he founded his website, Grayzone, where, when not championing the likes of Putin, Assad, and Maduro – or denying that China is committing genocide against the Uyghars – he’s busy arguing that events like the 2016 Pulse nightclub massacre and the 2017 Manchester bombing don’t count as acts of jihad.

https://freebeacon.com/media/the-new-york-timess-israel-problem/

There was a time when liberal journalists said the New York Times was too nice to Israel. They can’t make that mistake anymore.

Since Hamas attacked the Jewish state on October 7, the Times has committed to running false and demeaning coverage about Israel. Hours after terrorists began the siege that left 1,200 dead, the Times rushed to humanize the terrorists with a puff piece.

“Gaza Has Suffered Under 16-Year Blockade” aimed to educate readers about why some Gazans saw Hamas’s rapes, murders, and kidnappings as a “justified response” against Israel:

The Palestinian territory of Gaza has been under a suffocating Israeli blockade, backed by Egypt, since Hamas seized control of the coastal strip in 2007. The blockade restricts the import of goods, including electronic and computer equipment, that could be used to make weapons and prevents most people from leaving the territory.

More than two million Palestinians live in Gaza. The tiny, crowded coastal enclave has a nearly 50 percent unemployment rate, and Gaza’s living conditions, health system and infrastructure have all deteriorated under the blockade.

Rather than feature pictures and stories about the innocents killed and taken hostage, the front pages of the Times on October 8 and 9 featured Hamas fighters bulldozing a border fence and firing rockets into Israel.

When a hospital explosion rocked Gaza City, the Times was one of several mainstream media outlets that rushed to blame Israel for the explosion. But the Gray Lady didn’t just echo the false claim: It relied on Hamas as its primary source.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/remembering-the-worst-media-misses-of-2023/

Media Drop the Ball on Israel–Hamas War –- Again and Again

The New York Times published an editor’s note acknowledging that its editors “should have taken more care with the initial presentation” of the coverage of an explosion outside a Gaza hospital; the paper had been quick to run with the Hamas-backed Gaza Health Ministry’s claims that the blast was caused by an Israeli air strike that killed hundreds.

President Biden has since made clear that Israel was not to blame for the blast, which U.S. officials say killed between 100 and 300 people. The Israel Defense Forces have said the explosion was caused by a rocket misfire launched by Islamic Jihad, a conclusion that’s since been confirmed by video analyses conducted by the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, and CNN.

“The Times’s initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. However, the early versions of the coverage — and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels — relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was,” the editor’s note said.

The editor’s note concluded: “Given the sensitive nature of the news during a widening conflict, and the prominent promotion it received, Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified. Newsroom leaders continue to examine procedures around the biggest breaking news events — including for the use of the largest headlines in the digital report — to determine what additional safeguards may be warranted.”

But when other news outlets issued a mea culpa for their overreliance on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry in reporting on the al-Ahli Arab hospital blast, the Washington Post doubled down and defended its decision to uncritically parrot the agency’s false claims that an Israeli airstrike hit a hospital, killing 500 civilians.

The Post then led its site with the health ministry’s claim that the Gaza death toll in the Israel–Hamas war has surpassed 10,000.

“Gaza Health Ministry: Death toll in Gaza surpasses 10,000 after four weeks of war,” a headline at the top of the site read.

The headline and underlying report ignore the fact that the health ministry is run by Hamas, but the paper’s editors did include a cursory disclaimer alongside the article to explain “Where we get our data about the Israel-Gaza war.”

“When we’re reporting on issues such as the death toll in the Israel-Gaza war, we use information provided from the Gaza Health Ministry (an agency of the Hamas-controlled government), the Israeli government, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the U.S. State Department and other international agencies,” the disclaimer read in part.

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2023/12/25/hitler-wasnt-available-new-york-times-runs-article-by-hamas-official-n4925006

The New York Times wants you to weep for the people of Gaza, and for what Hamas’ massacre of 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, which Gazans cheered in large numbers, has brought upon them. In service of that goal, on Christmas Eve the Paper of Record ran a weepy piece by a prominent Gazan, someone who has witnessed the Israeli incursion firsthand. Did the Times give this plumb editorial space to a “moderate” Gazan, a known foe of the Hamas regime, one of those “innocent Palestinians” who have nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with Hamas? Uh, not quite.

“I Am Gaza City’s Mayor. Our Lives and Culture Are in Rubble,” was written by Yahya R. Sarraj and published in the Times on Sunday. The Times identifies the author in terms that make him sound like an airy, inoffensive intellectual: “Dr. Sarraj is the mayor of Gaza City and a former rector of the University College of Applied Sciences there. He wrote from Gaza City.” 

Yahya R. Sarraj, you see, is no terrorist, he’s a mild-mannered professor. But what the Times doesn’t bother to remind its hapless readers about is the fact that Hamas controls Gaza, and no one can hold the position of being mayor of the largest city in the Gaza Strip without being either an active Hamas member or entirely sympathetic with the terror group’s outlook and goals. Sarraj even alludes to this matter-of-factly in his piece, writing: “One of my major goals after the Hamas administration appointed me mayor in 2019 was to improve the city’s seafront and foster the opening of small businesses along it to create jobs.”

Sarraj spends the bulk of his article doing his best to move the reader to rage against Israel. “As a teenager in the 1980s,” he says, “I watched the construction of the intricately designed Rashad al-Shawa Cultural Center in Gaza City, named after one of Gaza’s greatest public figures, and its theater, grand hall, public library, printing press and cultural salon.”