‘NY Times: From ‘Terrorists’ to ‘Gunmen’ – Holy S***’
The New York Times’s Bias Against Israel
The New York Times, known for its history of biased reporting against Israel, recently made a controversial change in one of its stories. Initially, the newspaper referred to the murderers of Hamas as “terrorists,” but later revised it to “gunmen.”
🚨Holy shit you can’t make this up.
The New York Times published a story referring to Hamas as “terrorists” and then changed it to “gunmen.” pic.twitter.com/zp7vQUrHn3
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 11, 2023
After facing backlash on social media, the Times eventually reverted back to using the term “terrorists.”
This is not the first time the Times has displayed bias against Israel. In the past, the newspaper downplayed the Holocaust and published a controversial cartoon depicting former President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in a derogatory manner.
Accusations of Bias
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs conducted research on the Times’ editorials related to Israel and Jews since 2016. David Bernstein, president and CEO of the organization, accused the Times of having a clear bias against Israel. Similarly, a decade ago, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) published a pamphlet highlighting the Times’ consistent bias against Israel.
In December 2022, when Benjamin Netanyahu was set to become prime minister again, the Times’ editorial board published an opinion piece criticizing the rise of religious and nationalist parties in Israel. Netanyahu strongly condemned the article, accusing the Times of undermining Israel’s elected government.
After burying the Holocaust for years on its back pages and demonizing Israel for decades on its front pages, the New York Times now shamefully calls for undermining Israel’s elected incoming government. pic.twitter.com/CqqAoN7lSX
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) December 18, 2022
It is not just The New York Times; other media outlets have also been criticized for downplaying the actions of radical Islamists. The Washington Post, for example, faced backlash for initially referring to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as a “terrorist-in-chief” before settling on “extremist leader.”
In what ways does the New York Times’s biased reporting on Israel contribute to a distorted narrative and the demonization of Israel in the eyes of the international community
S issued a statement defending their decision to change the terminology. They claimed that they made the change to ensure objectivity in reporting and to avoid taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, many critics argue that this adjustment is just another example of the New York Times’s bias against Israel.
The New York Times has long been accused of having a biased stance towards Israel. The newspaper’s coverage often portrays Israel negatively and fails to provide balanced reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This bias is evident in their choice of language when referring to incidents involving Israel and Hamas.
By initially referring to Hamas as “terrorists,” the New York Times accurately described the group’s activities. Hamas is recognized internationally as a terrorist organization and has been responsible for countless acts of violence against innocent civilians, including suicide bombings and rocket attacks. However, by changing the term to “gunmen,” the Times has downplayed the severity of Hamas’s actions and shifted the focus away from their acts of terrorism.
This change in terminology is not an isolated incident. The New York Times has a history of employing language that minimizes and normalizes the actions of Hamas while exaggerating and demonizing Israel’s response to terrorism. This biased reporting creates a distorted narrative that portrays Israel as the aggressor and undermines its right to defend itself.
Furthermore, the New York Times often fails to provide proper context when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They frequently omit important details that would shed light on the complexity of the situation and offer a more balanced perspective. This selective reporting serves to further perpetuate a negative portrayal of Israel.
The biased reporting of the New York Times has serious implications. It influences public opinion and shapes the narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By presenting a one-sided view, the newspaper contributes to the demonization of Israel and undermines its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.
Media outlets have a responsibility to provide fair and accurate reporting. They should strive to present all sides of a story and avoid taking sides in conflicts. Unfortunately, the New York Times has failed to uphold these principles when it comes to its coverage of Israel.
It is important for readers to be critical of the information they consume and to seek out alternative sources of news to gain a more balanced understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The New York Times’s bias against Israel is just one example of how media outlets can shape public perception through selective reporting.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
