The New York Times Has Always Been Evil

[green73]

Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-ny-times-has-always-been-evil/):


As in its 1878 editorial (http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/10/ny-times-warns-people-about-evils-of.html), when the Old Grey Hooker called for the lynching of Thomas Edison.

Charles Burris (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/re-the-ny-times-has-always-been-evil/):


Lew (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-ny-times-has-always-been-evil/), The New York Times has been apologists for virtually every evil genocidal regime on the planet for over 100 years. They served as the complacent and compliant mouthpiece for every presidential administration lying our nation into war (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32557.htm) since McKinley and Spain in 1898, to Obama and Syria in 2014.

The New York Times (http://www.amazon.com/Journalistic-Fraud-Distorts-Longer-Trusted/dp/0785261044/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413343013&sr=1-1&keywords=Journalistic+Fraud+Bob+Kohn) — think of:

Calling for the death by hanging of inventor Thomas Alva Edison (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140922/18035428602/moral-panics-1878-ny-times-warns-people-about-evils-thomas-edisons-aerophone.shtml);

The New York Times (http://asbarez.com/125763/the-new-york-times-revises-its-own-history-by-omitting-genocide/)revises its own history by omitting the Armenian genocide during World War I; (http://asbarez.com/125763/the-new-york-times-revises-its-own-history-by-omitting-genocide/)

Stalinist stooge Walter Duranty and the Ukrainian famine of the 1930; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor)

The Times (http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times)shameful cover-up of the Nazi Holocaust in the early 1940s (http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times); (http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times)

China, Mao Zedong, and the myth of “agrarian reformers” in the late 1940s (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/world/1464);

Herbert L. Mathews, Fidel Castro and Cuba in the 1950s (http://reason.com/archives/2007/02/28/fidels-favorite-propagandist);

The Times continues its fifty years of lies and cover-up concerning the murder of JFK and the coup d’état by Lyndon Johnson and the top echelon of the National Security State; (http://www.alternet.org/investigations/jfk-assassination-cia-and-new-york-times-are-still-lying-us)

Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin in the 1960s (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261);

The Times belated admission of Contra-Cocaine during the Reagan years; (http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/04/nyts-belated-admission-on-contra-cocaine/)

Jayson Blair and plagiarism (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/);

Judith Miller, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2005/07/18/judith-miller-hearsted-on-her-own-petard/);

As with Iraq, The New York Times propagates demonstrable lies about Syrian WMD; (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/09/08/as-with-iraq-new-york-times-propagates-demonstrable-lies-about-syrian-wmd/)

The Times lying about Putin, the Ukraine, and the New Cold War (http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/22/high-cost-of-bad-journalism-on-ukraine/).

[AZJoe]

NYT Says Congress Has ‘Duty’ to Make War–Rather Than Duty to Question or End It
http://fair.org/home/nyt-says-congress-has-duty-to-make-war-rather-than-the-right-to-reject-it/

the New York Times editorial board (3/26/17 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opinion/sunday/congresss-duty-in-the-war-with-isis.html?_r=0)), which didn’t take the wave of civilians deaths as a reason to question the wisdom of America’s various “counter-terror,” nation-building and regime-change projects in the Middle East, but instead chose to browbeat Congress into rubber-stamping a war that’s been going on for almost three years. ... :


"But as the American military is doing its job, Congress is refusing to do its duty. Nearly three years into the war against ISIS, lawmakers have ducked their constitutional responsibility for making war by not passing legislation authorizing the anti-ISIS fight." ...


http://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NYTISIS.png


The New York Times editorial board, as FAIR (2/9/17 (http://fair.org/home/nyt-unlike-russian-wars-us-wars-promote-freedom-and-democracy/)) has noted before, consistently protects and advances US national security orthodoxy. In the past 30 years—from the Persian Gulf (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/15/opinion/the-stakes-in-the-gulf.html) to Bosnia (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/31/opinion/force-and-diplomacy-in-bosnia.html) to Kosovo (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/25/opinion/air-campaign-against-yugoslavia.html) to Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/opinion/disarming-iraq.html) to Libya (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/opinion/22tue1.html)—the New York Times editorial board has never once opposed a US war. The Times’ power-serving function was starkly evidenced when in January 2016 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/opening-a-new-front-against-isis-in-libya.html), it opposed the US bombing Libya to fight ISIS without congressional approval, only to do a 180 and endorse the war effort (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/opinion/in-libya-a-new-front-in-the-war-on-isis.html) the day after President Obama began bombing in August 2016. ...

http://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NYTMosul.png


MORE (http://fair.org/home/nyt-says-congress-has-duty-to-make-war-rather-than-the-right-to-reject-it/)

[enhanced_deficit]

NYT Says Congress Has ‘Duty’ to Make War–Rather Than Duty to Question or End It
http://fair.org/home/nyt-says-congress-has-duty-to-make-war-rather-than-the-right-to-reject-it/

the New York Times editorial board (3/26/17 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opinion/sunday/congresss-duty-in-the-war-with-isis.html?_r=0)), which didn’t take the wave of civilians deaths as a reason to question the wisdom of America’s various “counter-terror,” nation-building and regime-change projects in the Middle East, but instead chose to browbeat Congress into rubber-stamping a war that’s been going on for almost three years. ... :

"But as the American military is doing its job, Congress is refusing to do its duty. Nearly three years into the war against ISIS, lawmakers have ducked their constitutional responsibility for making war by not passing legislation authorizing the anti-ISIS fight." ...


http://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NYTISIS.png


The New York Times editorial board, as FAIR (2/9/17 (http://fair.org/home/nyt-unlike-russian-wars-us-wars-promote-freedom-and-democracy/)) has noted before, consistently protects and advances US national security orthodoxy. In the past 30 years—from the Persian Gulf (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/15/opinion/the-stakes-in-the-gulf.html) to Bosnia (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/31/opinion/force-and-diplomacy-in-bosnia.html) to Kosovo (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/25/opinion/air-campaign-against-yugoslavia.html) to Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/opinion/disarming-iraq.html) to Libya (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/opinion/22tue1.html)—the New York Times editorial board has never once opposed a US war. The Times’ power-serving function was starkly evidenced when in January 2016 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/opening-a-new-front-against-isis-in-libya.html), it opposed the US bombing Libya to fight ISIS without congressional approval, only to do a 180 and endorse the war effort (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/opinion/in-libya-a-new-front-in-the-war-on-isis.html) the day after President Obama began bombing in August 2016. ...




While it's true that NYT neocons pushed bogus stories about Iraq WMds and other war mongering fakenews, this whole situation is a mess.

https://img.ifcdn.com/images/6c87325527a297b0d8512c5c828820975056962394d293a09e 1d76a65a8d857f_1.jpg

[juleswin]

The Times shameful cover-up of the Nazi Holocaust in the early 1940s;

So the New York times who we all believe to be very pro US govt and therefore very pro war is all of a sudden hiding the atrocities of the Nazis? Why in the world would the mostly Jewish editors of the New York times do this?

Then again, this is the very confused Lewrockwell.com coming up with the list. An excerpt from the book says this. Now if you believe this then you probably believe the other garbage that comes out of the website. Yes, I know the NY times is bad but its annoying when someone who is supposed to be anti establishment tries to gain acceptance by beating the "Nazis are evil" drum harder than the people in Hollywood. If anything, the NY times probably exaggerated the Nazi atrocities just like every media and govt mouthpiece in the west.


An in-depth look at how The New York Times failed in its coverage of the fate of European Jews from 1939-45. It examines how the decisions that were made at The Times ultimately resulted in the minimizing and misunderstanding of modern history's worst genocide. Laurel Leff, a veteran journalist and professor of journalism, recounts how personal relationships at the newspaper, the assimilationist tendencies of The Times' Jewish owner, and the ethos of mid-century America, all led The Times to consistently downplay news of the Holocaust. It recalls how news of Hitler's 'final solution' was hidden from readers and - because of the newspaper's influence on other media - from America at large. Buried by The Times is required reading for anyone interested in America's response to the Holocaust and for anyone curious about how journalists determine what is newsworthy.

https://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times

[AZJoe]

So the New York times who we all believe to be very pro US govt and therefore very pro war is all of a sudden hiding the atrocities of the Nazis? Why in the world would the mostly Jewish editors of the New York times do this?

Then again, this is the very confused Lewrockwell.com coming up with the list. An excerpt from the book says this. Now if you believe this then you probably believe the other garbage that comes out of the website. Yes, I know the NY times is bad but its annoying when someone who is supposed to be anti establishment tries to gain acceptance by beating the "Nazis are evil" drum harder than the people in Hollywood. If anything, the NY times probably exaggerated the Nazi atrocities just like every media and govt mouthpiece in the west.

https://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times

This misplaced emotional tirade against lewrockwell.com is interfering your ability to apply logic. Suppression of news story during the period from 1939 to 1945 is hardly "all of a sudden." Rather its nearly eighty years ago. Irrational emotional bombastic ranting against lewrockell.com (i.e. "very confused", "garbage") does not make a coherent reason based, fact supported argument to discredit the book. Nor does a blind claim of simple knee-jerk disbelief.

You did not address or analyze a single thing from the book's historic analysis of the media coverage of the holocaust during the years 1939-1945: The Times (http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times)shameful cover-up of the Nazi Holocaust in the early 1940s (http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times); (http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times) Per the book's analysis of the NYT reporting, the NYT underestimated and under-reported the mass killings. If you want to discredit the book, then present actual headlines and news stories by the NYT during that period that contradict and disprove those put forth in the book itself. Simply proclaiming "Nuh-uhhh" is not a refutation of the book's actual historical analysis of news stories during that time period.

BTW, the suppression of the atrocities at the time by the NYT as well as other media, is not new scholarship. It has been well documented for years: e.g. Beyond Belief (https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-American-Coming-Holocaust/dp/0029191610/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491167310&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+belief+the+american+press).
A TEd Talk in the NYT Suppression:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2PQCNQH2lY

There is even a well made documentary film about the NYT suppression of the atrocities during these years "Reporting on the Times (http://reportingonthetimes.com/)". Short Promo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1qgJeHYXw4):

In fact the New York Times' own editor Max Frankel has exposed the Times suppression of atrocities during that time period, referring to it's lack of coverage as a "staggering, sustained failure (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/news/150th-anniversary-1851-2001-turning-away-from-the-holocaust.html?pagewanted=all)." NYT editor Frankel readily acknowledges that during that period 1939-1945 at the NYT there was " recurring evidence of a guiding principle: do not feature the plight of Jews, and take care, when reporting it, to link their suffering to that of many other Europeans." The NYT lack of coverage is not even debatable at this point. The NYT readily admits it as a matter of indisputable fact.

As to why the paper suppressed the atrocities, no one can really know for sure at this point. Multiple possible explanations have been proffered. One is that the NYT was dutifully espousing the government lines and fervently embracing all government wartime policies prior to and throughout the war. Neither the US nor UK government wanted to put special focus on saving the Jews over other wartime objectives, and therefore one explanation is that the NYT was simply following its orders in not putting too much emphasis on the atrocities against the Jews for fear it might cause public reaction that might interfere with the direction of the government's wartime objectives.

Others have opined it was the assimilationist desires of the owner that drove the directive of the Times to avoid stressing the unique Jewish nature of the genocide. The NYTs itself reports this possible explanation for the suppression during that time period:
"the reluctance to highlight the systematic slaughter of Jews was also undoubtedly influenced by the views of the publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. He believed strongly and publicly that Judaism was a religion, not a race or nationality -- that Jews should be separate only in the way they worshiped. ... He went to great lengths to avoid having The Times branded a ''Jewish newspaper.'' He resented other publications for emphasizing the Jewishness of people in the news. ... it was his policy, on most questions, to steer The Times toward the centrist values of America's governmental and intellectual elites. Because his editorial page, like the American government and other leading media, refused to dwell on the Jews' singular victimization, it was cool to all measures that might have singled them out for rescue or even special attention."

[opal]

When I was in middle school, my social studies (who remembers that class?.. not called that now) teacher tried to require us to subscribe to at least 1 of these three publications - preferably all of them
New York times
U.S news and world report
Newsweek

He sent a letter home with this requirement. My mom did not call.. she marched in, while I was in class *cringe* and told him to his face that there was no way she'd be allowing those liberal rags at her house, he should be ashamed for only teaching biased current events and she's be happy to stay and present the conservative side of any thing he wanted to talk about. It helped that she was about 6" taller than him, before she put shoes on. That ended that shit

I was handed the local news paper when I got to home room.. he was also my home room teacher

[juleswin]

This misplaced emotional tirade against lewrockwell.com is interfering your ability to apply logic. Suppression of news story during the period from 1939 to 1945 is hardly "all of a sudden." Rather its nearly eighty years ago. Irrational emotional bombastic ranting against lewrockell.com (i.e. "very confused", "garbage") does not make a coherent reason based, fact supported argument to discredit the book. Nor does a blind claim of simple knee-jerk disbelief.

You did not address or analyze a single thing from the book's historic analysis of the media coverage of the holocaust during the years 1939-1945: The Times (http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times)shameful cover-up of the Nazi Holocaust in the early 1940s (http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times); (http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Times-Holocaust-Important-Newspaper/dp/0521812879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413341314&sr=1-1&keywords=Buried+by+the+Times) Per the book's analysis of the NYT reporting, the NYT underestimated and under-reported the mass killings. If you want to discredit the book, then present actual headlines and news stories by the NYT during that period that contradict and disprove those put forth in the book itself. Simply proclaiming "Nuh-uhhh" is not a refutation of the book's actual historical analysis of news stories during that time period.

BTW, the suppression of the atrocities at the time by the NYT as well as other media, is not new scholarship. It has been well documented for years: e.g. Beyond Belief (https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-American-Coming-Holocaust/dp/0029191610/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491167310&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+belief+the+american+press).
A TEd Talk in the NYT Suppression:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2PQCNQH2lY

There is even a well made documentary film about the NYT suppression of the atrocities during these years "Reporting on the Times (http://reportingonthetimes.com/)". Short Promo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1qgJeHYXw4):

In fact the New York Times' own editor Max Frankel has exposed the Times suppression of atrocities during that time period, referring to it's lack of coverage as a "staggering, sustained failure (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/news/150th-anniversary-1851-2001-turning-away-from-the-holocaust.html?pagewanted=all)." NYT editor Frankel readily acknowledges that during that period 1939-1945 at the NYT there was " recurring evidence of a guiding principle: do not feature the plight of Jews, and take care, when reporting it, to link their suffering to that of many other Europeans." The NYT lack of coverage is not even debatable at this point. The NYT readily admits it as a matter of indisputable fact.

As to why the paper suppressed the atrocities, no one can really know for sure at this point. Multiple possible explanations have been proffered. One is that the NYT was dutifully espousing the government lines and fervently embracing all government wartime policies prior to and throughout the war. Neither the US nor UK government wanted to put special focus on saving the Jews over other wartime objectives, and therefore one explanation is that the NYT was simply following its orders in not putting too much emphasis on the atrocities against the Jews for fear it might cause public reaction that might interfere with the direction of the government's wartime objectives.

Others have opined it was the assimilationist desires of the owner that drove the directive of the Times to avoid stressing the unique Jewish nature of the genocide. The NYTs itself reports this possible explanation for the suppression during that time period:
"the reluctance to highlight the systematic slaughter of Jews was also undoubtedly influenced by the views of the publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. He believed strongly and publicly that Judaism was a religion, not a race or nationality -- that Jews should be separate only in the way they worshiped. ... He went to great lengths to avoid having The Times branded a ''Jewish newspaper.'' He resented other publications for emphasizing the Jewishness of people in the news. ... it was his policy, on most questions, to steer The Times toward the centrist values of America's governmental and intellectual elites. Because his editorial page, like the American government and other leading media, refused to dwell on the Jews' singular victimization, it was cool to all measures that might have singled them out for rescue or even special attention."

I have been hoping for so long that someone responds to my posts on this issue in a way that I can reply and you just did. I was hoping it came from someone I did not like . Anyway, you did reply and thank you for replying. Now the problem I am facing is how I actually go about refutting the stupid lie that the New York times somehow minimized the tragedy of the holocaust when they have exaggerated just about every other atrocity story made up about every Americas enemies. My job right now would be to try and reverse the brainwashing that most Americans have been put through since 1945 and it ain't going to be easy.

I see your post and I will try and give you a well deserved reply in a couple of days. I am not in the right frame of mind to create the reply now cos I didn't expect anyone to bite ever on this website. Also, I need to brush up on my history before making my reply. Normally when one talks about holocaust, just about everybody wants nothing to do with it until you showed up :)