NY Times Sides with Syria

The New York Times must have taken an editorial decision to side with Syria over Israel’s air strike there, because, as its headline, it reports that Israel Attacks What It Calls a Terrorist Camp in Syria.
Why Syria’s side? Because the Times then tries to back up its headline by running a sidebar saying that the Camp Is Said to Be Long Abandoned. Now, if the sidebar proved there was a reason to accept Syria’s side of the story, that would be one thing. I, personally, like to decide based on hearing out both sides. The only problem is that the sidebar, once you read through it, is no more than a half-hearted attempt to cover up the NY Times’ own bias which blames Israel no-matter the facts.
How could I make such an accusation? After reading about how children used to play in the abandoned area, check out the fourth paragraph, a quote by a villager named Talal: “After the explosion, I saw lots of ambulances and fire engines heading to the area.” Does the New York Times really think that ambulances and fire engines rush to a long abandoned complex?
The fact is that the Times did not seize upon this fact and investigate the story further–possibly to find that Israel might have been correct in its assessment–and instead let the quote lie buried at the end of its article, comfortably secure in its anti-Israel prejudices. Too bad, we might have just learned something.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Comments are closed.