Bob, I also abhor the hateful, dangerous rhetoric of the far-right. However, I think The Times must also be cognizant of the hateful language of the far-left, which, in response to certain New York Times op-eds, has found its way into New York Times online comments. One such online comment, removed following my protests, also appeared to call for a "well-aimed bullet". See http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html
Although I believe my comment was not "abusive" and "on-topic", it was censored by The Times. Why should I be surprised? The Times also censored a similar comment that I submitted in response to Rich's op-ed, "The Obama Haters' Silent Enablers".
It is disappointing that The Times' op-ed writers lack subject matter for their columns, notwithstanding the earthshaking events that swirl about us, and find themselves dwelling on the same themes. Maureen Dowd, apparently still recovering from a bout of plagiarism, has lost her voice, and, without Dick Cheney to kick around, has wasted her two most recent op-eds on Obama's fries and flies.
More worrisome is the reemergence of online hatred in response to The Times' op-eds. The first comment permitted to be posted in response to Cohen's "City of Whispers" states:
Look for Israel to use the US to bomb Middle Eastern Countries and then Israel with the Sole Power will then take over the US. [Sic]
I brought this comment to the attention of Messrs. Sulzberger and Hoyt. Neither responded to my messages. The following language from comment no. 112 was also later permitted by The Times:
Obama wascompletly mute during 23 days 24/7 jewish barabrities on Gaza civilans when 1400 of them perished in that onslaught. [Sic]
Another complaint to The Times. Again, silence. Is this the readership that Sulzberger is pursuing?
Notwithstanding the assurances I received that Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times, intends to address the issues of journalistic ethics and censorship that I raised, his column today is devoted to "Putting a Price on News".
"Putting a Price on News"? If The Times doesn't wake up soon to the reasons underlying its shrinking circulation, its news will not be worth a wooden nickel.
Unfortunately, NYTimes serves the authorities, not its readers. It was the case when they advocated the war in Iraq, it is the case now. I guess, they know the inclinations and preferences of our new authorities. Anti-Semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism, is part of the package.
ReplyDelete