Your average conscientious citizen sits down to read The New York Times today and, leafing through the first section, arrives at page 9 and a short article titled, “Palestinian Found Dead After Standoff With Israelis.”
The reader glances at the first paragraph or two, which rely on the Israeli military as the source.
A Palestinian man was found dead in his home in the West Bank town of Bir Zeit on Thursday after a standoff with Israeli forces that had come to arrest him, according to the Israeli military.
The military said in a statement that the man, identified as Mutaz Washaha, 25, was “suspected of terror activity,” without elaborating.
Maybe the conscientious reader makes it to the third paragraph, quoting the other side– “The Palestinian Authority government condemned the killing, calling it an assassination–” and shrugs, a little depressed, reflects, and turns the page.
If our reader had continued, in the fourth paragraph he or she would have found the real news:
The killing came as Amnesty International published a report on Thursday accusing Israeli forces of being “trigger happy” and using excessive force in the West Bank. The human rights organization said it had documented the killings of 22 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank in 2013, a sharp rise from the previous two years.
Let alone to the end of the fifth paragraph, in which the Times buried this nugget:
[Amnesty International] called on world powers to suspend all transfers of munitions, weapons and other equipment to Israel.
Can anyone blame your average conscientious citizen for being misinformed about the reality in Israel and Palestine?
Or maybe the Times should modify its famous slogan: “All the News That’s Fit to Hide.”
The latest release from Amnesty International is about how Nigeria is being too rough on civilians with loose associations with Boko Haram. Nigeria is a larger country than Israel. Where did this press release appear in today’s New York Times? I just don’t see it on the front page?
One thing Israel doesn’t suffer from is lack of coverage. It is like an obsession of our media.
LOL. CAMERA has nothing on you guys for finding bias where it does not exist.
The Times may boast they provide “all the news that fit to print”, yet the Times also reserves the right to officially determine “how fit” the news agrees with its understanding of American priorities. The fact that Amnesty Intl. believes the primary beneficiary of U.S. economic, military and diplomatic assistance is possibly guilty of committing war crimes against Palestinian demonstrators just isn’t that important a matter for the American public to be concerned with, according to the Times sensibilities, and therefore is a story that deserves to be buried.
“Or maybe the Times should modify its famous slogan: “All the News That’s Fit to Hide.””
I find this logic immensely frustrating. If the NY Times was trying to hide something, *they wouldn’t run the story.*
Giving it space in the physical paper is an acknowledgement. That it’s not front page, above the fold is because the Times’ editorial doesn’t think it’s very big news. If this does become major news, or the Times decides it’s more important than initially considered, they’ll give it more space.
Three of the first four comments suggest Hasbara Central is worried about this post.