Guardian

The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman and the Guardian’s increasing notoriety


Isi Leibler recently commented on the increasingly shrill, arrogant and remarkably naive New York Times correspondent, Thomas Friedman.

[Friedman] accused Netanyahu of choosing to protect the Pharaoh rather than support Obama who aided the “democratization” of Egypt. He went so far as to say that Netanyahu was “on the way to becoming the Hosni Mubarak of the peace process“.

Last February, after being in Tahrir Square, Friedman exulted that the “people” had achieved “freedom” and were heading towards democracy. He dismissed concerns that the Moslem Brotherhood would become a dominant party.

In his latest column he wrote: “I sure hope that Israel’s Prime Minister understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That motivation was bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby”.

For a Jew, purporting to be a friend of Israel, to effectively endorse the distorted thesis relating to the Israeli lobby promoted by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is unconscionable. Friedman is effectively parroting a hoary anti-Semitic libel asserting that Congress has been “bought” by American Jews who represent 2% of the population and that the vast majority of the American public supporting Israel and Congress are simply stooges, manipulated or bribed by the Israeli lobby.

It places him on a par with the anti-Semitic attitudes promoted by Pat Buchanan and one may rest assured that Israel’s enemies will fully exploit his remarks as a means of discrediting American support for the Jewish State.

Added Leibler:

[Freidman’s commentary] highlights the [NYT’s] increasing hostility against Israel. Today, it would not be an exaggeration to state that the editorial policy of the NYT towards the Jewish state is virtually indistinguishable from the blatant anti-Israel hostility promoted by the UK based Guardian or the BBC.

While I don’t necessarily think that the NYT’s bias is quite egregious enough to make such a comparison, it’s always refreshing when the Guardian is accepted as representing the nadir of bias and dishonest reporting about Israel. 

17 replies »

  1. The list of papers off-message as far as CifWatch is concerned grows longer. Now we can add the New York Times to the Washington Post and the Guardian. I’m sure if Adam read a little more widely the list would be longer still. The independent tends to be unsympathetic to rightwing Zionists; give it a try Adam. Many Haaretz columnists also seem to fit the bill. You’ll be stuck for supporters in the serious English language press soon.

    • Doesn’t the trend worry you at all sencar? It should worry anyone even with half a brain between his ears.

      And you may even be right about CiFWatch being stuck for supporters within the serious English language press as you describe them.

      Just as CiFWatch’s name and shame list grows longer the list of those gets shorter and shorter, so far have standards plummeted.

    • Oh shut up asshole “sencar”. I’m not Jewish, but any fair-minded person with even half a brain (which apparently excludes yourself) who examines the facts and history of the Mideast has to realize how distorted and fundamentally dishonest the narrative from the Left has become–and unfortunately the previously respected Friedman for unfathomable reasons felt obliged to join the relentless antiIsrael nonsense bleated out by Leftie chorus pencilheads who come to dominate the NYTimes.

      The single biggest political mystery of my (fairly long) lifetime is how the current crop of Liberals, who profess to be all about human rights and dignity, equality for women, gays and minorities, eschewing violence, religious and political freedom, etc., etc., have come to embrace the often primitively brutal radical Islamists, who of course violate essentially every 1 of the Left’s “values”!

      Can someone out there possibly explain this incredible hypocrisy to me?

      Thank you.

    • Shh, Peter. Didn’t you know that sencar is a social scientist and researcher along the lines of Greg Philo although even worse than him?

      • Sencar knows that the Independent is unsympathetic to “rightwing Zionists” (the codeword for Israel in sencarspeak) but calls it a serious newspaper. Maybe he doesn’t know who is its star opinion writer. Sencar go and google Johann Hari and learn about his unsuccessful training in journalistic ethics.

  2. Interesting that Brian our resident statistician believes the serious English press, in the UK, consists of ‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Independent’.
    Yet neglects to mention ‘The Daily Telegraph’, or ‘The Times’ or ‘The Financial Times’.
    I wonder why? Surely it wouldn’t be due to political bias on his part, in as much as only the ‘progressive’ Guardian and Independent are serious papers in his view?
    Perhaps it’s due to the circulation figures?
    Well according to the ABC figures for November,
    ‘The Guardian’ 226,473
    ‘Independent’ 127,873

    ‘Telegraph’ 594,644
    ‘The Times’ 413,233
    ‘Financial Times’ 337,239

    So if it’s not the circulation figures to qualify for inclusion as ‘serious newspaper’ it must be that you have to conform to the warped World view of a Guardian-groupie.

    Interesting but, not surprising.

    • Ah, Gerald, how you manage to put your foot in it. In the last fortnight the Financial Times has published one lengthy column highly critical of the state of Israeli democracy and an editorial on a similar theme. The FT is a pay site so I’ll give extracts rather than URLs. You could look them up though.

      1) “Israel’s eroding democracy: A shadow is cast
      By Tobias Buck
      The Jewish state appears to be shackling some of the freedoms that are central to its standing abroad”. This on 8 December.

      2) “Three new laws are particularly objectionable. The Nakba Law and the Boycott Law blatantly curtail freedom of speech: the first bans state-funded bodies from commemorating the expulsion of Palestinians from their lands in 1948; the second allows the penalisation of any Israeli calling for a boycott of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. A third lets rural communities reject potential residents whom they deem unsuitable: it could easily be abused to discriminate against Arab Israelis.”. And this is an extract from an editorial on 11 Decemb

      • Ah Brian, I only noted that you left the three papers with a higher circulation off your list of ‘serious’ papers.
        I am aware, as are most people, that there have been pieces critical of Israel in all the papers.
        However only The Guardian has sunk to the depths that are beyond fair or accurate journalism and is motivated by its desperate desire to attack Israel.

  3. “…While I don’t necessarily think that the NYT’s bias is quite egregious enough to make such a comparison, it’s always refreshing when the Guardian is accepted as representing the nadir of bias and dishonest reporting about Israel.”

    I have been a reader of the New York Times for my entire life, and I am sorry to say that the paper’s editorial policy is inching ever closer to that of the Guardian, the Independent and other Israel-hating UK newspapers. For anyone who doubts this, read Netanyahu’s senior adviser Ron Dermer’s letter to the Times explaining why the PM “respectfully declined” to write an op-ed piece:

    http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=249724

    For the NYT, as for the others, it’s who writes for them, what they say, what they choose to report and what they choose to omit. And the comments from readers, at least the ones they don’t censor, are just slightly less ignorant and offensive than the ones from Guardian readers.

  4. Another arrogant, self-hating Jew. What people like Friedman, deeply insecure in their own Jewishness and therefore totally lacking in identification with admirable little Israel is “Look world, i’m OK, i’m really not (tha) Jewish, really–now will you like me?”

    Pathetic and disgusting and also shows how the Liberal left in this country has increasingly lost their grip on truth and reality in pursuit of their agenda

  5. Thomas Friedbrain and the Times’ “fact-checkers” are woefully ignorant and incompetent; AIPAC is the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, not the American-Israel Political Action Committee. Not being a Political Action Committee, it legally cannot and does not give money to any candidate.

  6. Thomas Friedman thinks and would like to run Israel,when Bibi told him that his unsolicited advice to Israel was not needed and to eff off he spat the dummy.And has been sulking since…..

    Thomas Friedman has an inflated ego,and is full of himself,it’s a wonder that he hasn’t self imploded yet.

    He envies us,we are free,we don’t suck up to anyone,we bow to no one (not to Turkey or anyone else except to GOD) we hold our heads high,we enjoy great weather, and have a reasonable standard of living.

    And we are happy despite all the shit that is happening around us.

    Not like the miserable sods that have to work for The New York Times we enjoy life………….

  7. It is indeed pathetic how a once great newspaper like The NYTimes has deteriorated into a pile of predictable, formulaically liberal unbalanced and at times dishonest, rag. Unfortunately Friedman has joined the “Amen chorus” of his Lefty colleagues and jumped on the incomprehensibly biased antiIsrael bandwagon.

    Pathetic really, but certainly helps explain The Times severe drop off in circulation (while they continue to criticize and complain about Fox news, growing by leaps and bounds). Think they’re so blinded by their Groupthink @ The Slimes–oops–The Times that they just can’t understand why all this is happening to them!

    And BTW, I’m a (former) lifelong NYTimes subscriber and reader.