Why won’t the ‘Times’ let readers comment on Goldberg’s piece?

by on May 17, 2009 19
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

Are readers chopped liver? A friend points out that the Times, in addition to affording a soapbox to Jeffrey Goldberg's religious piece about Iran's threat to Israel today, has not permitted readers to Comment. See where you can comment on Frank Rich here? My friend says, "Comments to articles about Israel have of late not been running in
support of the Israeli agenda; and, to boot, they've been smart and
very informed. My guess is the Times preferred to avoid the vision of
500 negative comments about Goldberg's op-ed against only 50 or fewer
in support."

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, Israel/Palestine

{ 19 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. US Objector says:
    May 17, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    There is no doubt that this was a precondition of Goldberg's when he submitted this chunk of hasbara to the "newspaper of record." Goldberg often locks out commenters on The Atlnatic website when he takes a controversial position. I've sent a note to the Times' public editor/ombudsman Clark Hoyt (publiceditor@nytimes.com) complaining that the Times cannot selectively block comments on its opinion pieces.

  2. JES49 says:
    May 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    In fact, a majority of the opinion/op-ed pieces in the times do not have comments any more.

  3. Jaffr says:
    May 17, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    Israel claims to be existentially threatened by the new Amalekites, but its adoption of the biblical language actually implies a genocidal threat against its Iranian enemies: "… strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

  4. jdva says:
    May 17, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Great. Amalek is being invoked by a bunch of Zionist nutjobs with nukes. How dandy for us.

  5. Grumpy Old Man says:
    May 17, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    King Saul lost his crown because he was insufficiently thorough in his treatment of "Amalekites." The Sulzbergers used to be anti-Zionist, but as the new Bible of suburban reform Judaism and Upper West Side secular Judaism, they have to be careful.

  6. geof gray says:
    May 17, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    netanyahu needs a therapist for his PTSD (pre traumatic stress disorder). israel's problem is they don't realize that to make it in the hood you need to be a good neighbor, not just a bully with a punch. look at that other theocratic state, the vatican. a few swiss guards in costume but they lead with the glad handing. israel's basic problem they failed the basic test of the hood: to be a good neighbor.

  7. JES49 says:
    May 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Yes, but if you look at the other "theocratic states" in the hood – Iran and Saudi Arabia – they don't exactly "lead with the glad handing"!

  8. tommy says:
    May 17, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    Goldberg's 'blog' at The Atlantic always has comments closed, too. Goldberg is a coward. Prison guards can only demonstrate their bravado when they have their victims in shackles, and Goldberg writes as if his audience was captive. The Times does not allow comments on Israel opinion articles because they are cowards who will not allow dissent on the prevailing platitude that Israel is an oasis of democratic freedom in the Middle East.

  9. jdva says:
    May 17, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    Not to defend theocracies, but I don't recall Iran or Saudi Arabia ever claiming to be democracies as Israel does.

  10. jaime1007 says:
    May 17, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    If the Times does not allow comment this is an excellent opportunity to use this site to comment and link, twiter it and disseminate how propaganda works. Let's start. To begin go http://tinyurl.com/qyyqzw, Writing about Netanyahu and how he possible interpret his fixation on Iran Goldberg said— he told me in a recent conversation that it is ruled by a “messianic apocalyptic cult” But a sentence bellow Goldberg admits that Netanyahu "In his first term, he betrayed the principles of the Greater Israel movement by relinquishing part of Judaism’s second-holiest city, Hebron, Which begs the question In which side is the “messianic apocalyptic cult”? To wit check this http://tinyurl.com/qyyqzw, strange enough Goldberg has an article in the Atlantic by the same title I wonder if he is just doing one of those calls of duty to the far right wingers that happens to read the Times.

  11. dalybean says:
    May 17, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    It's time we got it straight that a Jewish State is the textbook definition of a theocracy.

  12. JES49 says:
    May 17, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    Let's see, looking at today's NYT online, it seems that none of the three Op-Ed Contributor pieces from today's edition allow comments, and only Goldberg's is about Israel. Strange, huh Tommy. And by the way, you should check out the online edition of Counterpunch sometime. They don't allow comments at all!

  13. JES49 says:
    May 17, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    How perceptive jdva. And I don't recall the Vatican claiming to be a democracy either.

  14. jdva says:
    May 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    A military theocracy at that.

  15. jdva says:
    May 17, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    Congrats on winning the coveted "Lamest Attempt To Obfuscate" award for May 17, 2009.

  16. tommy says:
    May 17, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    The Atlantic calls Goldberg's spot a blog, but it does not allow comments. He is clearly a coward. Since the Times is selective with their comment policy, they manipulate its placement to ensure dissent and controversy do not intrude upon their institutional opinions. Since Counterpunch does not accept comments on any of its articles, no possible manipulation of it can take place.

  17. JES49 says:
    May 18, 2009 at 5:31 am

    Congratulations Tommy! You managed to wiggle out of that one just fine. So tell me, how do they "manipulate… placeent to ensure dissent and controversy do not intrude upon their institutional [sic] opinions"? And what would those editorial positions be?

  18. tommy says:
    May 18, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    Wiggle dual loyalty Americans out of their settlements in Palestine, and then put them in prison for being enemy combatants.

  19. JES49 says:
    May 18, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    Wow tommy, your a combative wiggler aren't you?

Leave a Reply