Reading the piece further below by THE WRAP (without viewing the video) reminded me of how the New York Times used to cover the Lebanese War of 1975-1990.
The NYT faithfully and disgustingly regurgitated the US government's official line. What the idiot Ronald Reagan, the dumbass George HW Bush and his lackey James Baker THE TURD, then the imbecile George W Bush did or said were like scriptures. The New York Times with its coterie of charlatan soothsayer experts - I remember Ali Hijazi (A shiite pro-Syrian, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Iran reporter for the NYT), Thomas Friedman, the greatest newsspinner with a predilection for prophesizing, and others - always told the story as if State Department wrote the piece.
The following is the opening paragraphs of Thomas Friedman's report of September 26, 1982 regarding the Sabra-Shatila massacre. Please note the self-centeredness of this self-absorbed Jewish reporter for the NYT: In his ruminations, the massacre is not really about the killer Lebanese Christians or the Muslim Palestinian victims; these are secondary and passive actors of no interest. What is of primary and active interest is the Jews - soldiers observing the event, world Jewry, relations between Jews and other Jews, etc. and that is a prototype of how the NYT covered Lebanon for several decades:
The massacre of more than 300 Palestinian and Lebanese men, women and children at the Shatila refugee camp by Christian militiamen has left many unanswered questions.
The slayings, which began Wednesday, Sept. 15, and continued until Saturday, Sept. 18, raise questions that focus particularly on the role played by the Israeli Army in what is certain to be regarded as one of the most important events in the modern history of the Middle East.
Much is at stake in the answers to these questions. The relations between the Israeli people and their Government, the relations between world Jewry and Israel, the relations between Washington and Jerusalem and the relations between Israelis and Palestinians will all be affected by the truth of what happened in Shatila.
For many years, while the jewel of the Middle East, Lebanon, was succumbing to the PLO of Yasser Arafat's terror, to Syria's Assad butcher regime, to Israel's Zionist barbarity and their regional and local proxies, not once did the Times speak for the Lebanese people resisting the Syrian and Israeli invasions or succumbing to their bombs, or recovering from one of many Muslim-Palestinian-Syrian massacres of Lebanese villages and towns. The endless coverage of the Sabra-Shatila massacre by Lebanese Christian militias never - not once - said that it was preceded by a similar massacre of Christian Lebanese in the isolated and defenseless town of Damour.
From the perspective of the Jewish - i.e. superior - NYT, Arabs are barbarians and it didn't matter who killed whom and for what reason, as long as Israel was not involved. But once Israel became involved - as an observer and not an actor in the Sabra-Shatila massacre - then the matter took on importance far beyond the human suffering: Apparently Israelis have a conscience, and Israel's watching Arab Christians (Lebanese) massacre Arab Muslims (Palestinians) caused so much fake pain in Israel that academia got involved, inquiries were conducted, movied were made, dissertations were written and the New York Times could not dry out its drivel on the matter. But when Arab Christians are murdered by Muslim Palestinians without any Israeli watching, that is of no interest.
You see, for snotty New York Jews, all Arabs are animals, and as such they are incapable of moral judgment, and therefore it is of no interest to wallow in the why and how. It's like you never ask a tiger whether it feels guilty or remorseful for mauling a spectator in a zoo. But you should blame the zookeeper for having witnessed the mauling. No one, particularly the NYT, asked the Lebanese Christian militiamen or their Palestinian victims about their opinions and feelings, but everyone was on all fours listening to the fake angst of the Israeli soldiers. You see, for cold-blooded murderers seeking deniability, killing ten thousand people from a distance (from a jet, a cannon or a tank) is more morally acceptable and less problematic than slicing someone's neck with a knife. Just as people who say they love animals don't have a problem eating meat as long as they don't watch the slaughter.
But when an Israeli watches - without participating in - the gruesome acts, then the floodgates of fake moral trauma open up and to this day, the West - thanks to the garbage of the likes of the New York Times - commemorates Sabra-Shatila as if it were the Hiroshima of Israel, when the Israelis had nothing to do with it. In contrast, not one of them mentions the Damour massacre. The pernicious coverage by the NYT of the Lebanese War - always siding with the enemies of Lebanon because that was the policy of the US government - no longer matters.
When an opposition member in Lebanon back in the 1980s and 1990s - when Syria and Israel together controlled 90% of Lebanese territory - stood for free elections, for the withdrawal of foreign forces, for abiding by the constitution, for respecting UNSC resolutions, etc. - the NYT called him "a renegade rebel" because, just like James Baker the Turd, kissing the oily asses of the Arabs was more a priority than human rights, self-determination, sovereignty and such other other "collateral damage" of treasonous realpolitik. That Lebanese "renegade rebel" might as well have been the Alexei Navalny of Lebanon who could not subscribe to surrendering his country to the barbarity of its puppet rulers, the NYT would still have labeled him a "suicidal rebel". The NYT was the mouthpiece of the US government: its editorials backed the US government's backstabbing of Lebanon to the benefit of Syria's Assad whose vulgar occupation army it praised as a "factor of stability". Even when the Lebanese became fed up with Syria's brutal occupation and its assassination of political opponents, journalist critics and human rights advocates, and drove the Syrian army out in 2005, the NYT remained nostalgic of the Syrian occupation. Even when Hezbollah, at the behest of Syria and Iran, kidnapped dozens of western hostages to be exchanged for concessions the Bush-Baker criminal gang was too eager to make, the NYT continued to blame Lebanon's Christians who had nothing to do with the crime, and continued to call Assad of Syria a "cunning" ruler who "kept his word".
Never were principle and international law the foundations of NYT editorializing. It merely towed the official State Department line which at the time wanted to please the Syrian dictatorship without displeasing the Israeli barbarians. So the easy way out of standing for principle was to blame the victims of the dual and colluding Syrian-Israeli occupation of Lebanon: The Lebanese people themselves.
Today, Israel is the barbarian killer of children and the starver of 2.3 innocent million people, and dumbass Thomas Friedman finds that his smart-ass prophecies flush down the toilet every time he moves his bowels, so he is constantly making corrections to his asinine prophecies. Like a Tarot card reader, he's been bullshitting his credulous readers with grandiose drivel for more than four decades; perhaps a rehab stint in the Sun Sailor would ensure him a smooth transition into a retirement of oblivion and safe dementia, and away from further dumbing down American readers.
The conservative Jewish New York Times is the American cognate of the English toilet paper, The Telegraph: Parrotting Zionist lies and falsehoods ad libitum. I am glad that the October 7 attacks against Israel have unraveled the prefect world of mortal Jewish lies, barbaric supremacist colonialism and cultural brutality. The whole world can now see who was the brute, the criminal and the suicidal rebel. Under its fake venerability, the NYT is a wholesome rag for people with only one opinion, and that is why in this age of supersonic information, the NYT is being ignored. It deserves it. To survive as a lamentable archeological ruin of a long extinct species, the NYT should switch its slogan from "all the news that's fit to print" to "all the lies that are fit for clay tablets".
Bill Maher and John Cleese Say New York Times Is No Longer ‘Reliable’
Bill Maher and guest John Cleese took aim at a few predictable targets in Sunday’s episode of “Club Random,” including kids on TikTok, American universities and anything “woke” — but they were particularly barbed about The New York Times.
“The New York Times on Sunday very often has on the back page of the weekend review a focus group with people — like 12 people. And I’m reading this, like, thinking, ‘Oh, we’re so f–ked.’ They’re just saying the dumbest s–t, and it’s printed in The New York Times.”
“I used to think that’s a great newspaper, and I don’t anymore,” Cleese responded.
“I don’t either. And I mean, it’s sad because it was, like, on my breakfast table when I was a kid,” Maher lamented. “It was in my parents’ house.”
The political commentator and comedian added that the paper has “great” columnists and “they cover the places in the world that no one else has a reporter.”
“But what’s annoying about it is that it’s not just ‘give me the facts,'” Maher continued. “There’s way too much editorializing on the front page, the way the articles that are just supposed to be the facts are slanted one way. And I’m not even necessarily for the other side.”
Maher added, “I just want someone to tell me the whole truth, not just your version of it, because you can lie by what you omit. And both sides do.”
“Trying to get a really accurate picture of something has got harder and harder and harder,” Cleese replied. “The hard thing is getting any reliable information.”
Cleese observed that inaccurate information goes all the way back to the Shakespearean age and that King Richard III wasn’t really hunchbacked, as he is portrayed by the famed playwright. “That was Lancasteran propaganda,” the comedian posed.
“You mean Shakespeare just gave him that hunchback?” Maher asked. “Well, it worked, we’re still talking about it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment