New York Times Public Editor Admits to NYT’s Bias
In his farewell New York Times column (Sunday Review section, Aug. 26), Public Editor Arthur Brisbane admitted to the open secret of The Times’ “progressivism” that makes news developments look “more like causes than news subjects”:
Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this world view virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
Although Brisbane doesn’t mention the newspaper’s reporting on Israel, it’s clear that the prevailing bias has colored Times’ coverage of Israel as has been repeatedly reported by CAMERA.
Hopefully, Brisbane’s replacement will also have the courage of his convictions to write the truth and editors will listen and promote objective coverage.
The Brisbane column is online.
More from SNAPSHOTS
CNN’s Amanpour Condemns “power grab” By Israel’s Prime Minister and Others
April 1, 2020
We’ve said it often, but it’s worth repeating: Anyone interested in reasonably unbiased information about Israel (at least) should avoid the broadcasts of CNN’s Chief International Correspondent and Anchor, Christiane Amanpour. In characterizing responses to [...]
Seattle Media Oblivious To Imam’s Hateful Indoctrination Condemning Jews
January 7, 2020
The Masjid Ar-Rahmah mosque teaching – that Allah transformed Jews into apes and pigs for disobeying him – delivered by Imam (prayer leader) Mohamad Joban – was posted online by mosque personnel. This December 2019 [...]
AP Distorts: Bethlehem ‘Almost Completely Surrounded’
December 10, 2019
Over two years after improving inaccurate language falsely citing Israel's security "barrier surrounding the biblical city" of Bethlehem, the Associated Press once again misrepresents. AP's Joseph Krauss and Mohammad Daraghmeh wrote yesterday ("Palestinians in Bethlehem [...]
Reuters Errs on Administrative Detention For ‘Anti-Israel Activity’
November 5, 2019
The Ofer Prison, near Ramallah (Photo by Tamar Sternthal) A Reuters article today egregiously misrepresents administrative detention, erroneously asserting that it is mainly applied to "Palestinians suspected of anti-Israeli activities," when in fact the Israeli [...]