Can you possibly imagine a
New York Times "moderator" posting a reader's comment saying, "Pakistanis are the most stupid people on the face of the earth"? No way would this ever happen: this is absurd, racist and abusive in the extreme. If it were posted, the "moderator" would instantly lose his position and the editors of
The Times would react in a heartbeat to remove the offending comment and apologize for the error in judgment.
Why, then, when a
New York Times "moderator" actually posts a comment saying that Jews are the "most arrogant tribe on the face of the earth" (see:
http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/07/anti-semitism-still-awaiting-response.html) is the comment not removed, the "moderator" not fired, and
The Times's staff of editors indifferent? My belief is that "risqué" expressions of anti-Semitism, which titillate both Left and Right, increase Web hits and enhance advertising revenues.
How dangerous can this be, if we are only talking about readers' comments ("Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me . . ."). Answer:
The Times tells us that comments are reviewed by its "moderators" and "generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive," i.e. a leading national U.S. news organization has concluded that anti-Semitism is "not abusive", or equally offensive, has determined that labeling Jews as the "most arrogant tribe on the face of the earth" is not anti-Semitic.
Furthermore, we're not talking about an isolated incident. As you all know by now, over the past year the posting of vulgar anti-Semitic readers' comments has occurred regularly at
The Times (see:
http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/anti-Semitism), and
The Times is not alone.
So how alarmed should we be by these racist rumblings? Allow me to pose the question differently: Are we so removed from the Holocaust that we can rest assured that a similar set of atrocities will never happen again? Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, answered this question by observing, "If [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," and meanwhile no one has prevented Hezbollah from accumulating 40,000 rockets and missiles in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Concurrently, Nasrallah's overlord, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose quest for nuclear weapons goes unimpeded, declared, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
And in the face of these threats of annihilation, how did
The New York Times respond? It began by commending President Obama, who "set a constructive new tone for trying to engage Iran" (
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09mon1.html) and facilitated Roger Cohen's six-month harangue alleging that Iran is "not totalitarian", throughout which Cohen never missed an opportunity to fling darts at Israel. In addition,
The Times played host to a several guest op-eds written by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett calling for "rapprochement" with Iran as it is presently constituted. The Leveretts contended, "On its present course, the White House's approach will not stop Tehran's development of a nuclear fuel program" (
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html).
A conspiracy between
The Times and the Islamic Republic of Iran? I don't think so. Rather, additional evidence of an unholy alliance between a naïve anti-Semitic Left and radical Islam, but no less dangerous for that.
What to do?
I am in awe, for example, of Elliott Abrams and Alan Dershowitz. I can never hope to approach their written and verbal finesse, and they are a moral compass for me. Commentary Magazine and Professor Richard Landes's "Augean Stables" (
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/) are also invaluable resources to me and a source of inspiration. However, I also believe that words, both written and verbal, also have their limitations. Sometimes there is a need for something more. Sometimes, indeed, there is a need to yell, as in that famous line from "Network", "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
And sometimes even yelling is not enough. Sometimes you need to find other ways to show
The New York Times and its ilk that you are not going to be victimized.
I have written now to more than 20 online
New York Times advertisers and explained that their advertisements appear above and beside the aforesaid anti-Semitic comment, which was never removed. Although I have not yet heard back from even one of them (What do you expect?), there will be follow-up letters, and ultimately someone will be forced to respond and react, which will cause others to do the same.
I should add that I sought to enlist the assistance of a certain organization, which shall go unnamed, in disseminating my message to their mailing list in order to seek support from persons of like mind. Their response:
1. This was a unique incident, given that this was a comment in response to a Times news article, as opposed to an editorial or op-ed, and I need more information before embarking on this campaign.
2. They would want more evidence that anti-Semitic comments are being posted because of the moderators' bias and malice as opposed to their inability to review adequately all comments.
I, of course, was enraged, notwithstanding my respect for the written materials appearing on their website.
Enough said. I am nauseous from the outpouring of hatred on the Web and might well need a Bathurst-Norman Bag for Internet sickness.
