NY Times coverage of the Goldstone report has been surprising. Basically the paper of record can’t wait for it to go away. The Times did an initial story on the report–evidence of war crimes on both sides–that was OK.
And then the next day the Times ran a piece on the Op-Ed piece by the South African justice himself. Goldstone was somewhat apologetic and lukewarm: "in many cases Israel could have done much more to spare civilians without sacrificing its stated and legitimate military aims." Nothing about persecution and wanton destruction.
The next day the Times ran two letters attacking Goldstone. One from the American Jewish Committee. The Times surely got a million letters, many favorable; but the next day it printed two more letters attacking Goldstone.
And today here is a small story buried in the paper to say the Obama administration considers the report unfair.
And that’s been the end of it. The Times has missed the most important angle: the huge black eye the Goldstone report has given Israel, and Israel’s vigorous effort to counteract the damage by propagandizing. Here for instance is the Financial Times with a piece about Israel stepping up its counteroffensive. Or Ynet‘s analysis: "The Goldstone Report is a grave blow to the State of Israel on three significant international fronts: The diplomatic theater, the media front, and the military-legal arena. The Israeli government and mostly the Foreign Ministry must engage in a difficult battle in order to minimize the report’s damage."
All true. And it is amazing that the Times just can’t seem to wrap its head around the report. Where is the editorial about the report? This is a newspaper that editorializes on spring and fall, to say that the change of season is a good thing. Here, silence.
Where am I going? I suspect the reason for silence is that the report is a giant blow to Israel, and the Times is uncomfortable with the idea of giving it ink. It doesn’t want to be in the position of pushing the report on to the nation’s agenda. The Times has a Jerusalem-focused idea of what Israel is. Both its correspondents in I/P are married to Israelis. A stunning statement about Palestinian "persecution"– and it looks the other way.
One bright spot: online coverage by Eric Etheridge in the Times’ opinionator blog. Etheridge knows this thing is a big deal.
Thanks to James North for all the thinking on this post.
