"Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona": Shame on the Editorial Board of The New York Times (and Shame on Paul Krugman, Too)!

Today, in an editorial entitled "Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html), the editorial board of The New York Times writes:

"But [Loughner] is very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery."

It's a pity the editorial board does not take the time to examine the conduct of its own newspaper. On April 29, 2009, in response to Maureen Dowd's "Vice's Secret Vices", the following comment, no. 8, was posted by The New York Times, notwithstanding it policy that "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive":

"I think writing about Dick Cheney is at bottom passe Maurine. If you can't get the balls to but a material bullet between his eyes,,go away." [sic, in more ways than one]

I immediately contacted a very senior editor of The New York Times, and ultimately this purportedly "moderated" comment was removed.

The editorial board also ignores the fact that Ms. Giffords is Jewish and that Loughner had listed "Mein Kampf" as one of his favorite books (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/shooter-of-jewish-congresswoman-listed-mein-kampf-as-favorite-book-1.336025). Over the past two years The New York Times has posted despicably vile anti-Semitic comments in response to various op-eds, notwithstanding its policy regarding the moderation of comments. Again, I have regularly written to the same very senior editor of The New York Times, who removed many of these comments, and also to its public editor; however, in my opinion, the problem at The New York Times persists. See, for example, http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html, then wade through http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/anti-Semitism for further examples.

Perhaps The New York Times should begin to address the "widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance" by first examining its own extremely politicized behavior.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Climate of Hate" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?hp), Krugman writes in the same vein:

"So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders."

It's a pity Krugman also does not take the time to examine the conduct of his own newspaper and ignores the possible anti-Semitic dimension of this abominable crime. Krugman fails to realize that the polarization of the United States is not just a "Republican problem" and that the space for moderate voices is steadily shrinking.