 |
| What's wrong with this picture? (JTA) |
So what about it? Did that political cartoon published in the New York Times resonate with you? At least a little bit? Come on… admit it. At some level you must have actually agreed with it. Because if some of the past rhetoric from the left I have heard about these two leaders doesn’t match - or come close to that cartoon, I don’t know what does.
You might even be wondering what all the fuss is about.
OK, maybe you’re not. I’m sure that you realize that a cartoon universally condemned as antisemitic by people on both sides of the political aisle is in fact deeply offensive. The Times eventually admitted as much and condemned it! But if one were to be honest - a cartoon showing an unethical and ill informed American President following a clever and devious prime minister - is a pretty accurate portrayal of the truth as you see it. Trump is a blind fool being misled by a clever but devious ‘guide dog’ in the person of a Jewish Netanyahu - and does his bidding. He even blindly wears a Kipa!
As noted, the Times has apologized for it – blaming it on a single editor that downloaded it and published it in its international print edition without any oversight.
The problem with this apology is that it happened only after the above-mentioned criticism. Had they not gotten so much of it, I can hear them explaining it away with comments like ‘cartoons have always been biting’ ‘…depicting in pictures far better than anything expressed in words. They believe that the President’s policies with respect to Israel is a blind implementation of the Israeli prime minister’s wishes. What better way to make that point than with a political cartoon like that?
That is kind of how the cartoon’s creator, Portuguese cartoonist Antonio Moreira Antunes explains his cartoon. He too apologized for not realizing how antisemitic it was and should have. His claim was that it was not intended in any way to be antisemitic. It was intended only as a criticism of American and Israeli policies. (Where have I heard that one before?!)
As noted in a JTA article - he did not explain why the President was depicted wearing a Kipa. For me - that was an antisemitic component. Which leads me to believe that despite his ‘apology’ and excuse, deep down there are vestiges of antisemitism. Whether he realizes it or not.
The New York Times has always set itself up as the ‘paper of record’ for the American people. They hold themselves to be paragons of ethical journalism – printing ‘all the news that is fit to print’ (…their slogan).
For many people, among them many Jews, the Times has long ago lost any pretense of objectivity. When it comes to Israel and the Palestinians their reportage on any issue almost always takes the Palestinian view of things. Israel is almost always characterized as the aggressor. Palestinians as the victim. Sometimes the bias is so thick a child can see it.
But they always managed to cover themselves by saying that they have reported the truth. That may be true in terms of the plain facts. But the way they present those facts by always blaming one side is no less a lie than distorting the actual facts.
And yet I have always tried to defend the Times. Not because I agree with their politically liberal biases. But because I think they actually do believe they are objective. An objectivity based on the liberal ideals that always sees things in terms of the oppressed and the oppressors. For a liberal whose values are based on equalizing the playing field - they will always side with the underdog. There is little if any consideration for context or history. A liberal will always look at the moment. And that will bias how they report things.
For example, if a Palestinian is shot by an Israeli soldier, that will be the title of the article and how the first few lines of it will be written. Regardless of whether it was in self defense or to prevent an innocent Israeli from being attacked. It is true that they will explain the circumstances somewhere deep into the article. But the title and first few lines imply that an Israeli just shot an innocent Palestinian. That is what registers with the reader. Many of whom do not even get past the title!
Bearing that in their liberal view of all things, I can understand that kind of bias. The fact that they do eventually report the circumstances is why I have defended them. I understand why they have sympathy for Palestinians. They see an underdog being oppressed by what they believe to be an unsympathetic powerful military occupier. But the bias is right there on the page. They are just oblivious to it. They still believe they are objective. Which is why they have come out with such a strong repudiation of that cartoon.
But I am not buying it. They no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. I will no longer defend them. An apology that comes after universal criticism is not all that credible. No matter how profuse it was or how sincere it sounded.
By virtue of their long history and prestige their biases become ‘truths’ to a readership that believes in their historic (but long gone) integrity. That will no doubt still be the case for many of its readers. But it shouldn’t be.
If I were a reporter for the Times right now, I would have to think long and hard about whether I wanted to continue working for them.
Unless I see a change in how they report future stories about Israel and the Palestinians - not just an occasional pro Israel op-ed for purposes of showing their (non-existent) objectivity - I will never again give them the benefit of the doubt. For me, it is on them to re-establish their former credentials as the paper of record that prints all the news that’s fit to print.