Good points. But even you did not notice the mischaracterization of Hamas: they are not engaged in an armed struggle against occupation. They are engaged in a campaign of murder against the existence of Israel.
Just the kind of wording you'd expect from frustrated Communist sympathizers
Keep up the great work. But even you fail to note that Hamas' dedication to the 'armed struggle against Israeli occupation' is code language, for extermination of all Jews in 'Palestine' (what we would call Israel)and the destruction of the state of Israel (the same goal recently enunciated by the President of Iran). By the NYT's coding 'against the occupation', it
seeks to sanitize the genocide sought to be wrought by the 'palis'against Israelis in general and Jews in particular,
into just a West Bank sovereignty issue, which it is not.
Thanks again, and keep up the great work.
Also:
Erlanger begins, as he has before, by glamorizing the terror group Hamas, thusly: "Legislative elections on Jan. 25 are expected to bring the radical Islamic group Hamas, dedicated to a continuing armed struggle against Israeli occupation, into a significant share of power in the authority."
If by "Israeli occupation" he means "Israeli existence" then his euphemism isn't too far from the mark. Otherwise, it's existential whitewash.
Why don't you post Erlanger's and Calame's e-mail addresses so we can do the same?
Has Erlanger been threatened by the PA, Hamas, or any other group if he does not write sympathetic dispatches? Do we have another Eason Jordan story here?
chsw
Thanks for this. You know, over here in Old Europe, people tend to think that in the United States the Jews control all the media, as they control the government. Therefore, the "unfree" american media are all pro-Israel and pro-Bush...
Your site is very intersting.
Chaya, it is public@nytimes.com for Barney and erlanger@nytimes.com for Stevie.
It's indeed easy to manipulate stories by substituting a few words here and here, with the result that readers, unless they are knowledgeable, become easily tricked into believing what they see in print.
Orwell knew this back during his time, and so does the advertising world. Elite and mainstream media ought to know the distinction. But I'm no longer surprised by the infinite capacity of the NY Times and other liberal papers to sell us hogwash. It happens daily.
Commenting by HaloScan
