Take Yes for an Answer

O
ver the course of many years, I’ve written repeatedly about the biases and mendacity of the New York Times. In a 2011 column, for example, I wrote that “the New York Times’ track record for bias against Israel and Jews, especially the religious kind, is, sadly, quite well-established. From its morally contemptible silence during the Holocaust to as recently as this month, when it referred to the victims of the Itamar horror as ‘settlers’ — yes, even the little ones, a four-year-old and a three-month old — there’s a palpable coldheartedness, or worse, in its writing about us.”

And in 2016, I penned the following: “A terrifying image from earlier in Jewish history is that of the Eastern European priests who would use their Sunday sermons to rile up the church-going faithful against the Jews. But even here, we’re apparently not entirely free of clerics seeking to whip up frenzies against the Jews. The clerics to whom I refer are those who populate the New York Times editorial board. Former top Times editor, Jill Abramson, after all, spoke for many of its staff and readers when she confided that “in her house growing up, the Times substituted for religion,” which would make its board the analog of a council of church elders. Last week, that council issued an ecclesiastic pronouncement, otherwise known as an “editorial,” regarding a terrible, horrible, no-good near-crime that is set to take place in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn this summer. Four times a week, for a total of six hours, a municipal swimming pool there will be open to women only…. .”

So I’m far from a milquetoast when it comes to leveling piercing critique of the New York Times. But I also try to keep in mind that I need to be factually accurate and fair-minded and have a constructive purpose in mind: Sometimes we need to put the Gray Lady on notice that its bias is showing and its charges will not go unanswered.

With this in mind, I feel moved to comment on the recent firestorm surrounding the blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon that appeared on the op-ed page of the Times’ international edition. Universal condemnation followed, and the newspaper’s initial response was tepid, an editor’s note stating that “it was an error of judgment to publish” an “offensive” image that “included anti-Semitic tropes.” This was followed by a stronger but still inadequate apology expressing that it was “deeply sorry” for the cartoon and promising significant internal changes.