Roger Cohen Lectures on Journalism

In his New York Times op-ed of today's date, "New Tweets, Old Needs", Roger Cohen lectures us on the meaning of journalism. My response:

"[Journalism] is a choice of material, whether in words or image, made in pursuit of presenting the truest and fairest, most vivid and complete representation of a situation."

Oh, really? Don't you think, Roger, that you should have told your New York Times readership over the course of your series of Iran op-eds:

- You don't speak Farsi.
- As admitted by you at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles this past March, you were accompanied in Iran by a translator hired, as required by Iran, from a government "agency".
- The translator, who accompanied you to your meetings with several Jews from Esfahan, acknowledged that he was reporting back to the "agency" concerning these meetings.
- The persons being interviewed could well have been intimidated by the presence of this translator.

You didn't tell us whether these meetings were prearranged by the Iranian government "agency". At a minimum, you should have informed your readership in your op-ed, "What Iran's Jews Say", of the presence of the translator and his "affiliation".

Perhaps "What Iran's Jews Say" was "vivid", but was it "true", "fair" and a "complete representation of a situation"?

Worth noting that although I was promised an answer from the office of the Public Editor of The New York Times concerning whether Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" was in keeping with The Times' ethical guidelines (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-roger-cohens-what-irans-jews-say-in_17.html), I have yet to hear back, after six months, from Clark Hoyt.

Are things always so slow in your department, Clark, or is it just something you prefer not to touch?

The New York Times: Censorship and Apathy to Jewish Sensitivities, Again

My comment submitted online in response to The New York Times' article, "Israel Rejects U.S. Call on East Jerusalem Development", was censored by The Times' "moderators". I again protested to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times, who claimed in an earlier e-mail to me that he advocates "robust debate":

Dear Clark,

I would like to provide you with another real time example of New York Times' censorship of a comment submitted in response to The Times' article, "Israel Rejects U.S. Call on East Jerusalem Development", of today's date:

"Demonstrators in Tehran are bludgeoned into submission, yet Obama remains silent. Obama can't be bothered with genocide in Darfur. But when the tiny Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarah neighborhood is designated for housing units, which, heaven forbid, might be inhabited by Jews, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren is summoned to the State Department.

Never mind that Arab residents of Jerusalem are free to purchase housing anywhere in the city, and hundreds have done so. Where is the perspective of the Obama administration? Dare we ask?"

Abusive? Not on topic?

And once again, where is The Time's sensitivity to anti-Semitism? Is no one at The Times aware of the anti-Semitic connotations pertaining to the title of Maureen Dowd's op-ed, "Pharisees on the Potomac", of today's date? See, for example:

"Because of the New Testament's frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers, the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has changed in meaning and has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit. Jews today (who subscribe to Pharisaic Judaism) typically find this insulting if not anti-Semitic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

Unintended by Ms. Dowd? Probably, but why was the matter not given sufficient thought by those who proofread this op-ed? If there was any question at all, as there should have been, why was the title not amended?

Clark, months ago I was promised answers by your staff, which never came. If you don't care to discuss candidly these topics, i.e. censorship and material that is offensive to The Times' Jewish readership, just let me know.

I later sent a second e-mail to Mr. Hoyt:

Dear Clark,

Further to my comment of yesterday's date, I would like to note the single comment chosen as an "Editors' Selection" among all readers' comments submitted in response to The Times' article, "Israel Rejects U.S. Call on East Jerusalem Development":

"The US needs to have a broader concept of its interests and realize that by continuing to subsidize Israel, it is complicit in what Israel does.

Let Israel exercise its sovereignty, but if, in doing so, Israel acts immorally, short-sightedly and contrary to the interests of the United States, we need to distance ourselves from them. We should have done so long ago.

Cut them off financially and militarily. As a sovereign state, they can find help elsewhere."

Given the tone of this single "Editors' Selection", it is little wonder that my comment was censored.

I kindly request to know the names of The New York Times' "editors" who made this "selection" and who censored my comment.

Once again, I await Clark Hoyt's response with bated breath. A pity that the Times' "wedding pages", the subject of his July 12 column, "Love and Marriage, New York Times Style", apparently are more important than censorship and anti-Semitism.

What Happens at The Times Stays at The Times: Hands Off Maureen

Saturday and censored for picking on Maureen. My protest to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times, concerning my "rejected" comment in response to Gail Collins' op-ed, "What Happened in Vegas", of today's date:

Dear Clark,

I would like to provide you with another real time example of New York Times' censorship of a comment submitted in response to Gail Collins' op-ed, "What Happened in Vegas", of today's date.

But first let's look at what is permissible (purportedly "on-topic and not abusive") as determined by The Times. Comment No. 1, approved by The Times' "moderators", states:

Let's not be so hard on these bozos, Gail! After all, Republican and social conservatives are putting the "FUN" back into "DYSFUNCTIONAL"! We cynical Obama supporters are beside ourselves with glee, and are just waiting to hear that a few of the "C Street" boys are closet Muslims! And I am sure that more than a few wear their wives' pantyhose under their flag-patterned boxers! These guys really know how to party!!!

Are we to understand that The Times deems it in the interest of "robust debate" (your words, see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/clark-hoyt-responds-has-new-york-times.html) to allow persons to label Republicans "bozos" and to allege that they are cross dressers?

My horrifying comment that required censorship:

Gail, thanks for the marvelous column. Those lascivious, duplicitous Republicans!

Now how about an expose concerning the recently revealed "foibles" of certain New York Times op-ed writers? Dowd continues to churn out op-eds demeaning Palin; however, I would love to be provided with all the details vis-a-vis Dowd's "inadvertant lifting of language".

My complaint to The Times' Public Editor concerning Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" has also gone unanswered, notwithstanding the commitment made many months ago by The Times' Public Editor's staff: "I am looking into this further, and doing some homework right now. I also have Mr. Hoyt looking into it, and I will report our findings to you as soon as they are ready." http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/clark-hoyt-responds-has-new-york-times.html

Or does what happen at The Times also stay at The Times?

Once again it is clear that The Times is unwilling to brook criticism.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey

As you can well imagine, I await Clark's response with bated breath.

Clark Hoyt Responds; Has The New York Times Filed for Moral Bankruptcy?

In response to my second open letter to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times, entitled "Why Is Anti-Semitism Permitted in Online Comments 'Moderated' by The Times?"
(http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html), I received on June 23, 2009 the following e-mail from Mr. Hoyt:

Dear Jeffrey Grossman:

As my assistant, ________ has told you, I am considering a public editor column on the subject of comments on the Web site of The Times. I have inquired about why your comments have not been posted and have been told that those that were rejected were considered off the topic.

Times editors agreed that some of the comments you objected to should not have been posted, and it is my understanding that they were taken down. Others were within the bounds of robust debate.

I appreciate hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Clark Hoyt

Public Editor

The New York Times

This message caused me no small amount of anguish. Allow me to explain:

As a student I always believed that there was something sacrosanct about The New York Times, a higher wisdom, an indubitable font of fact and learning. Later in life, I had the privilege to guide, interpret for and protect several of The Times' more fabled reporters during periods of strife, and I was inspired by their professionalism. Now, with one short e-mail from The Times' Public Editor, all of this has gone up in smoke.

Although extremely terse, let's examine Mr. Hoyt's e-mail line by line:

As my assistant _______ has told you, I am considering a public editor column on the subject of comments on the Web site of The Times.

Yes, your assistant, ________ indeed sent me an e-mail dated July 7, 2008, i.e. one year ago, stating:

Mr. Hoyt is thinking about addressing the issue of comment moderation in an upcoming column. Do you have a record of the comment you tried to post but was rejected? He would need to have the specifics.

I immediately provided the materials requested by Mr. Hoyt's assistant and continued to send him comments as they were rejected. i.e. censored, by The Times' moderators. Mr. Hoyt is still "considering" a public editor column on the subject of comments on the Web site of The Times? Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

I have inquired about why your comments have not been posted and have been told that those that were rejected were considered off the topic.

If Mr. Hoyt "inquired" about my comments, whom did he ask? If he was "told" that my comments were not on-topic, who told him? The "moderators" themselves?

Why didn't Mr. Hoyt take a minute to read one of the censored comments in my first open letter to him ("Why Are Non-Abusive, On-Topic, Online Comments Censored by The Times? Open Letter to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times, http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-1-to-clark-hoyt-public.html). Go ahead, Mr. Hoyt, read the comment concerning Qaddafi, then tell me it was not "on-topic".

My most recent comment to be censored, in response to Bob Herbert's June 20, 2009 op-ed, "A Threat We Can't Ignore" ("Don't count out the connection between the right-wing hate-mongers and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams'), stated:

Bob, I also abhor the hateful, dangerous language of the far-right. However, I think you 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 comment, which was 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

Not on-topic?

Yes, I know: when there are so many other important matters at The Times, why should Mr. Hoyt concern himself with censorship, and if it makes Mr. Hoyt feel any better, I informed Mr. Herbert of this censored comment, and Mr. Herbert did not bother to respond.

Times editors agreed that some of the comments you objected to should not have been posted, and it is my understanding that they were taken down.

Questions:

Why were these comments permitted by The Times' "moderators" in the first place and not removed until I brought them to the attention of The Times? Why did Mr. Hoyt not respond immediately to my e-mail objecting to this phenomenon (it was another editor of The Times, who finally acted on my complaint)? Why was there a proliferation of such racist online comments? What changes have been made to ensure that this phenomenon is corrected?

Mr. Hoyt doesn't say the ugly word in his e-mail, so let me say it again: anti-Semitism. Has it become politically correct? Are Jews the one minority whom today it is permissible to target?

Others were within the bounds of robust debate.

Notwithstanding my entreaties, anti-Semitism continues to find its way into New York Times online comments. Recently, I brought the following language to Mr. Hoyt's attention from a comment, the first posted by The Times' "moderators", in response to Roger Cohen's June 20, 2009 op-ed, "City of Whispers":

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]

Is Mr. Hoyt claiming that this comment, which was not removed, falls within the bounds of "robust debate"? A subsequent comment posted in response to this same op-ed stated:

Obama wascompletly mute during 23 days 24/7 of jewish barabrities on Gaza civilians when 1400 of them perished in that onslaught. [Sic]

Okay, so The Times permits outright falsehoods, but is The Times also willing to allow a free interchange between the words "Jewish" and "Israeli"?

I appreciate hearing from you.

Mr. Hoyt appreciates so much hearing from me that it has taken him more than a year, since my first e-mail, to answer personally.

Yours sincerely,

Forgive me if I question Mr. Hoyt's sincerity. Meanwhile, notwithstanding the promise made by Mr. Hoyt's department to review Roger Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" from the standpoint of journalistic ethics, no one has gotten back to me.

*********

So, are we back to square one? If The Times is willing to permit anti-Semitism in "moderated" online comments, do we merely cancel our subscriptions? The Times doesn't care.

Imagine, however, if we inform The Times' advertisers, one at a time, about this "moderated" hatred.

More about this in a future post.

The New York Times Circles Its Wagons

Yesterday, The Times published Bob Herbert's op-ed, "A Threat We Can't Ignore", very similar in content to Rich's recent "The Obama Haters' Silent Enablers" and Krugman's recent "The Big Hate". In response to Mr. Herbert, I submitted the following online comment:

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.

Was Roger Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" in Keeping with The Times' Ethical Guidelines? Open Letter No. 3 to Clark Hoyt

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

As you well know, three months ago I sent you, in your capacity as Public Editor of The New York Times, an e-mail, inquiring whether Roger Cohen's op-ed, "What Iran's Jews Say", dated February 23, 2009, adhered to your newspaper's ethical guidelines. I received the following response, dated March 20, 2009, from one of your staffers:

I am looking into this further, and doing some homework on the case right now. I also have Mr. Hoyt looking into it, and I will report our findings to you as soon as they are ready.

Well, it is almost three months since your staffer began his "homework", and I have yet to hear back from him or you. Is this the pace at which your department works, or has something else happened?

Just in case your "examination" is still active, allow me to jump-start matters. First, listen to Cohen's question and answer session at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles on March 12, 2009 (I already provided you with the Internet link), then kindly answer a few easy questions. Shall we begin?

As acknowledged by Cohen and known to all, most of the Iranian Jewish community has fled Iran, and Cohen's op-ed did not account for Iran's angry expatriate Jews, e.g., those at Sinai Temple, some of whom are no longer afraid to express their contrary opinions. So, at a minimum, Cohen's op-ed should have been entitled:

"What Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Say"

But let's take this a step further. Cohen never spoke with all of Iran's remaining Jews; in fact, he spoke with only several of them, and it cannot possibly be the case that they all think alike. For transparency's sake, surely you agree that the title should have read:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Said to Me"

But wait, there's more. At Sinai Temple Cohen acknowledged that he doesn't speak Farsi and that his conversations were conducted via an interpreter. As such, maybe the correct name for this op-ed should have been:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Said to Me Via an Interpreter"

Is that all? Sorry, but I'm afraid there's something else. Cohen acknowledged that the interpreter was assigned to him by an agency of the Iranian government and was reporting back to the Iranian government concerning Cohen's conversations. Given the need for transparency, the more appropriate appellation for this op-ed might have been:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Said to Me Via an Interpreter, Who Was Assigned to Me and Reporting Back to the Iranian Government"

But we're not finished yet. Yes, I know the title is already long, but for the sake of "truth in advertising", how can we possibly avoid observing, as acknowledged by Cohen himself, that those Persian Jews with whom he met were exercising self-censorship for fear of retribution. Hence, how about:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Said to Me, While Exercising Self-Censorship for Fear of Retribution, Via an Interpreter, Who Was Assigned to Me and Reporting Back to the Iranian Government"

Now forgive me for being petty and tiresome, but I fear there is one last, crucial detail that also needs to be included: I understand that Cohen's interviews with the Iranian Jews, whose names were cited in the op-ed, were arranged in advance by the Iranian government. Accordingly, wouldn't it make sense to call this op-ed:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled and Who Were Vetted in Advance by the Iranian Government, Said to Me, While Exercising Self-Censorship for Fear of Retribution, Via an Interpreter, Who Was Assigned to Me and Reporting Back to the Iranian Government"

Yes, I know that's a mouthful, but section 15 of The Times' "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" (the link appears on your web page, i.e. that of the Public Editor) specifically provides:

The Times treats its readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them.

An absurd title for an op-ed? Indeed, but no more absurd than the op-ed itself.

Given The Times' obligation to correct errors "large and small, as soon as we become aware of them", is it your position, Mr. Hoyt, that there was no need to inform The Times' readers of any of the above concerning the basis for and background of "What Iran's Jews Say"? If indeed this is your conclusion, just say it. A few readers may chuckle; however, I don't think any of this should be swept under the carpet, Persian or otherwise.

I have already expressed my horror and indignation at the anti-Semitic online comments that were posted in response to Cohen's series of op-eds concerning Iran. Now, following Cohen's admission that he "erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the use of ruthlessness," it remains for Cohen and The Times to apologize for the cynical use of Iran's fragile, frightened Jewish community in a myopic media campaign.

Why Is Antisemitism Permitted in Online Comments "Moderated" by The Times? Open Letter No. 2 to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

In my prior open letter to you, I asked why non-abusive, on-topic, online comments are censored by The Times. Now, I would like to ask why antisemitism has been permitted in online comments "moderated" by The Times.

On March 3, 2009 I sent you an e-mail, informing you that my online comment submission in response to Roger Cohen's March 1, 2009 op-ed, "Iran, the Jews and Germany", had been censored. I also sent you an example of another comment in response to that same op-ed, which was permitted to be posted by The Times' "moderators":

The general Jewish reaction to Cohen's article about Iran Jews demonstrates to a good extent that most recent, and presently overriding, Jewish "malady".

The term "malady" used here refers to two and only two things:

- Total unwillingness to see things any differently from their own perception

- Over sensitivity to any thing BUT complete, verbatim, repetition and duplication of their own outlook to things related to or "affecting them.

With Israel's establishment over the ruins of Palestine, the Palestinian people and Palestinian society, an act unparalleled in modern history, caused by that very act Israel, and the Jews in general, have come to expect total submission from ALL in the West in all matters related or affecting them.

The syndrome is understandable: having had their way in an unprecedented act of dislocation, dispossession, subjugation and sup plantation of one people by another "people" to the endless general support and acclamation of the West they are, rightly (?), puzzled if what are relatively other "minor" points related or affecting them are disputed or not echoing their own outlook as they should!

Israel in particular and most of the Jews in general have come to expect total kowtow and unflinching support to their outlook, perceptions and advocacies and, with Israel, designs and plans for the future.

What the world in general and the West in particular is witnessing now is the reversal of the Jewish "persecution" complex of yore into its perverted/inverted mirror image: Jewish "untouchability" complex.

This development is neither good to the world nor to the Jews. [Sic]

You did not answer this e-mail, and not surprisingly, antisemitism continued to appear in New York Times' online comments. In response to Roger Cohen's April 7, 2009 op-ed, "Turkey Wants U.S. 'Balance'", the following comment, for example, was posted:

There is no country called Israel, just the squatting of tribal criminals from the Eastern Bloc.

And in response to Cohen's April 15, 2009 op-ed, "Realpolitik for Iran", the following comment, which received many "Readers' Recommendations", was posted:

Israel was smart to place people in all areas of the US Govenment and Schools to make sure they were able to use the United States for their needs. . . . Over the pass 8 years Israel had control of US Policy and still today Law Makers are working for Israel not the American people. President Bush was behind every request Israel had even the Palestine (Shaoh) Holocaust attack. . . . Israel has broken the 1948 settlement deal ordered by the United Nations. Greed has taken over Israel as it is run by corrupt Leaders. [Sic]

My persistent protests were finally reviewed by a senior editor of The Times, and these and other comments were removed. Problem solved? No. In response to Cohen's May 28, 2009 op-ed, "Obama in Netanyahu's Web", the following comment was permitted to be posted:

Seeing the destruction and misery that the current Jewish Israeli population is capable of, and willing to commit, against poor and defenseless people leaves one to wonder what they would do had the Holocaust never taken place and there were twice as many of them as there are now. . . .

After additional e-mails, this comment was also ultimately removed.

Questions naturally arise: Who are these "moderators" who permit this antisemitic abuse? Are they the same persons responsible for "Editors' Selections"? Why was my initial e-mail to the Public Editor simply ignored? And why are these abusive comments particularly prevalent in response to Cohen's op-eds (I would like to discuss this issue in my third and final open letter to you)?

I have seen "abuse" approaching what I have delineated above, albeit of a different kind, in only one other instance, i.e. in response to Maureen Dowd's April 29, 2009 op-ed, "Vice's Secret Vices", where one comment stated:

I think writing about Dick Cheney is at bottom passe Maureen. If you can't get the balls to put a material bullet between his eyes,,go away. [Sic]

I dashed off another e-mail to an editor of The Times, and this comment was instantly removed. It is a pity that the antisemitic comments were not removed with the same alacrity.

My question to you, Mr. Hoyt, is why has the authorization and publication of this vile extremism in The Times' online comments, which I have painstakingly brought to your attention, not been examined in one of your columns? I would like to believe that such an examination needs to be done openly, candidly and urgently. I think such an examination takes precedence, for example, over "the logic of The Times' slow-to-change style manual", which was the subject of one of your recent columns.

Max Frankel, Pulitzer Prize Winner and former Executive Editor of The New York Times, wrote concerning The Times' coverage of the Holocaust (www.racematters.org/turningawayfromholocaust.htm):

AND then there was failure: none greater than the staggering, staining failure of The New York Times to depict Hitler's methodical extermination of the Jews of Europe as a horror beyond all other horrors in World War II - a Nazi war within the war crying out for illumination.
. . . .
Why, then, were the terrifying tales almost hidden in the back pages? Like most - though not all - American media, and most of official Washington, The Times drowned its reports about the fate of the Jews in the flood of wartime news. Its neglect was far from unique and its reach was not then fully national, but as the premier American source of wartime news, it surely influenced the judgment of other news purveyors.
. . . .
After the Nazi's slaughter of Jews was fully exposed at war's end, Iphigene Ochs Sulzberger, the influential daugher, wife and mother of Times publishers, changed her mind about the need for a Jewish state and helped her husband, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, accept the idea of Israel and befriend its leaders. Later, led by their son, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, and their grandson Arthur Sulzberger Jr., The Times shed its sensitivity about its Jewish roots, allowed Jews to ascend to the editor's chair and warmly supported Israel in many editorials.

And to this day the failure of America's media to fasten upon Hitler's atrocities stirs the conscience of succeeding generations of reporters and editors. It has made them acute to ethnic barbarities in far-off places like Uganda, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. It leaves them obviously resolved that in the face of genocide, journalism shall not have failed in vain.

Given all of the above, I wonder how Mr. Frankel would react if he were to read the above online comments permitted by The Times' "moderators". I would also be curious to know Mr. Frankel's thoughts concerning the title of Roger Cohen's op-ed, "Obama in Netanyahu's Web".

Mr. Sulzberger did not respond to my request that The Times apologize for the title of Cohen's op-ed.

The years pass, but notwithstanding Mr. Frankel's optimism, nothing really changes.

Why Are Non-Abusive, On-Topic, Online Comments Censored by The Times? Open Letter No. 1 to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times

Dear Mr. Hoyt,


Although you have never personally responded to any of my e-mails, you are surely aware of the various issues I have sought to bring to your attention, inasmuch as members of your staff have requested information from me and provided assurances that these issues are under review. However, the months go by, and your column relating to these issues has yet to appear.


My work teaches me that when a problem goes untreated, it grows larger, and the original problem that I sought to bring to your attention has indeed grown larger, so large, that I will divide the problem into three "open letters". I would add that there are many other readers of The Times who are asking the same questions and avidly await your answers.


Of course, it could well be that these questions cannot be answered by you and must be taken "upstairs". That's okay. Just say so, and I will leave you in peace.


A little history: Back a year ago, I noticed that several of my online comments critical of "candidate" Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright were being "rejected", i.e. censored, by The Times' online "moderators". I sent you e-mails asking the reason, and lo and behold, one of your staffers wrote back:

Mr. Hoyt is thinking about addressing the issue of comment moderation in an upcoming column. Do you have a record of the comment that you tried to post but was rejected? He would need to have the specifics.

I was happy to provide you with the "goods". In fact, I was so happy, I continued to send you my comments as they continued to be censored. Censorship of intelligent dissent at The New York Times, that shining beacon of free speech? Surely a fluke. I was confident that the problem was being addressed and that it was only a matter of time until it would be resolved.

An example of a comment censored by The Times? Here's one I submitted in response to Qaddafi's January 2009 op-ed:

The author of Lockerbie is provided an op-ed pulpit by The New York Times to proselytize his newly discovered moderation. A New York Times scoop? Not.

As already reported by Reuters, Muammar Qaddafi spoke yesterday via satellite with Georgetown University students, and in addition to recommending a conciliatory dialogue between President Obama and Osama bin Laden, Qaddafi called for the establishment of a single state to be called "Isratine" to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What does not appear in the NYT op-ed, however, is Qaddafi's recommendation to the students of Georgetown that if the Jews did not accept a one-state solution, they should move to Hawaii, Alaska or an island in the Pacific, where "they could live peacefully in an isolated setting."

What does Mr. Qaddafi have in mind? Much can be learned from his speech broadcast by Al Jazeera on April 10, 2006:

"Some people believe that Muhammad is the prophet of the Arabs or the Muslims alone. This is a mistake. Muhammad is the Prophet of all people. He superseded all previous religions. If Jesus were alive when Muhammad was sent, he would have followed him. All people must be Muslims. . . . We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. . . Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey and adds it to the European Union. That's another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. Fifty percent of its citizens are Muslims."

In his January 14 op-ed, "Magic and Realism", Roger Cohen wrote: "The world view shaped in the Middle East by Al Jazeera is not amenable to Western logic." My guess is that Mr. Cohen does not speak Arabic, but what is reported above by Al Jazeera is amenable to almost any one's logic, Eastern or Western, and leaves little question as to the future Qaddafi foresees for Europe and "Isratine".

It might also be worth noting that following Qaddafi's 1969 coup, Qaddafi confiscated all Jewish property in Libya and cancelled all debts owed to Jews.

But let bygones be bygones. I would like to invite Mr. Qaddafi for coffee and cake at my Caesarea, Israel residence on Saturday at noon, and Roger Cohen is invited to write the exclusive report of this historic meeting. Rest assured, I am already polishing the silverware and dusting the cupboards in avid anticipation of our "sulkha". ("Sulkha"? Sorry, Roger, if you ever want to breach the logic of Al Jezeera, you will need to learn the lingua franca of the region.)

According to The Times: "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive." This rejected comment attempted to provide critical information to New York Times' readers concerning the underlying intentions of Qaddafi. There was nothing "abusive" about the comment; it was on-topic, and there was no reason for it to be censored.

I sent you this and other censored comments, but you did not answer. And then the rabidly anti-Semitic and violent comments started to appear, but this is the subject of my next open letter to you.

I asked for information concerning the educational background and experience of The Times' moderators, who were censoring my comments. It was never provided.

I asked whether these same moderators were responsible for choosing "Editors' Selections". I was never answered.

I asked whether truthful content was a prerequisite for "Editors' Selections" (I remember one Editors' Selection claiming that Israel stood behind the Pakistani atomic bomb effort). No one responded.

Last week one of your staffers wrote to me:

I have written to you many times telling you that Mr. Hoyt is planning a column on comment approval. He is planning to and will write one. I imagine that he will get into your claims. But, it is one of many he is planning.

Mr. Hoyt, I understand from your staffer that you do not view the censorship of online comments and the suppression of intelligent dissent as critically important. I disagree.

As mentioned above, when you do not deal with small problems they grow larger, and in my next open letter to you, I would like to discuss the rabid anti-Semitism and a particularly revolting call for violence against a former Vice President that found their way into New York Times online comments.