The New York Times has announced that Peter Baker will “very likely” be its next bureau chief in Jerusalem in a few months time. Baker is currently White House correspondent; and in an article about the US-Iranian prisoner swap yesterday he wrote the following in the 13th paragraph:
Other countries have traded as well. Israel has routinely exchanged imprisoned Palestinians for its own people. In 2011, Israel freed 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, including some it deemed terrorists, for Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who had been held by the militant group Hamas for five years.
This is the second time I’ve seen him do this. Last week he wrote a story about how the US has to deal with terrorism; and this was in paragraph three:
Given how hard it is for intelligence and law enforcement agencies to detect people who have become radicalized, like those who opened fire at a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif., a certain number of relatively low-level terrorist attacks may be inevitable, and Americans may have to learn to adapt the way Israel has.
So Israel is twice offered as a model for how the US should act.
Never mind what the US does: we are of course totally innocent. But while writing about our injured innocence he then brings in Israel as another example of a country that faces the same problems we face. It seems to be how he thinks. The US and Israel, innocent parties, dealing with terrorists as best they can.
It’s just two examples so far, but if this guy is Jodi Rudoren’s replacement in Jerusalem then I have a bad feeling about how the coverage is likely to be. I hope I’m wrong, but the NYT already reports every Palestinian death at Israel hands as though it were justified. Having a reporter who can speak Arabic hasn’t made any difference at all in the bias. The only question for me is whether they consciously choose to be biased or if it is just reflexive, something so deeply embedded in them they write like this by instinct.
“…if this guy is Jodi Rudoren’s replacement in Jerusalem then I have a bad feeling about how the coverage is likely to be.”
Fearless prediction: it will continue to be horrible in that totally clueless way the Times specializes in. Just remember, only Jewish lives matter.
The serial rapist and the sadistic wife-beater, innocent parties, dealing with unco-operative women as best they can.
Luckily for them, they have staunch supporters to defend them against people who advocate the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality.
“These guys are upstanding citizens!”
“Ummm…one rapes women and the other brutally beats his wife.”
“Oh, yeah? Well at least they’re not murderers!”
Thanks for this early eye on Baker. I think it’s safe to say, he will be the usual propaganda hack for Zionism. If there were any other likelihood, he would never have gotten the job. If any other scenario unfolds, he won’t keep it for long. Plus, you gotta know that anyone who has been a White House correspondent is already a bought and paid for toady. Again, otherwise they wouldn’t be White House correspondents.
He appears to have spoken some truths which were best left unspoken last year in an article in the NYT about the Republican Party and its support for Israel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/politics/republicans-criticize-james-baker-for-speech-on-benjamin-netanyahu.html?_r=0
Also see:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2015/03/28/republicans-show-unquestionedlockstep-support-israel-claims-hostile-ny
So it may be that he was being naively honest which is a dangerous trait in someone who has ambitions to prosper in the Zionist controlled US media.
Likelihood is that a few of the “Elders” will have a word in his shell like and he will prosper as a fully in lockstep with Israel ” pioneering ” journalist
If this is true, Haaretz should hire him.