Sodom and Gomorrah: Plagiarism and Prevarication Go Unpunished at The New York Times and The Washington Post

Then the Lord said, 'How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin!'

- Genesis 18:20

No, I'm not religious in a traditional sense, but I can say with certainty that my religious perspective, which is a bit amorphous, differs vastly from that of Jill Abramson, executive editor of The New York Times, whose theological upbringing is described in her Times blurb (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/jill_abramson/index.html):

"Ms. Abramson said that as a born-and-raised New Yorker, she considered being named editor of The Times to be like 'ascending to Valhalla.'

'In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,' she said. 'If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.'"

Abramson has "ascended to Valhalla," where truth reigns supreme? In fact, given my own recent experience with the anti-Semitism and outright lies of The Times, I consider her being named editor of the The Times to be more akin to descending into Helheim (hell in Nordic mythology).

Let's ignore the recent manifestations of anti-Semitism at The Times, e.g., Kristof's retweet of a controversial message that referred to AIPAC as one of "the 2 most pig like lobbies" in America (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-retweets-obama-told-2.html) and Friedman's op-ed assertion that Netanyahu's standing ovation after speaking before Congress was "bought and paid for by the Israel lobby" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=0). Yup, as advanced by both "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and The New York Times, Jews pull all the strings.

Instead let's concentrate on Maureen Dowd's inadvertent lifting of language, i.e. plagiarism (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/17/maureen-dowd-admits-inadv_n_204418.html), which went unpunished by The Times.

Let's also focus on Thomas Friedman's recent December 4, 2012 flagrantly mistaken op-ed contention (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/opinion/iron-empires-iron-fists-iron-domes.html) that Israel's planned E1 construction "would sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state." This was followed by a December 20, 2012 editorial entitled "The Fading Mideast Peace Dream" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/the-fading-mideast-peace-dream.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1&), in which The Times went on record as stating:

"So far this week, Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line government, defying the Western powers, has approved construction of more than 6,000 new housing units. The approvals follow an announcement late last month that Israel would continue planning for new development in the E1 area — a project northeast of Jerusalem that would split the West Bank and prevent the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state."

Unfortunately for both Friedman and the editorial board of The Times, E1 construction by Israel, if it ever happens, will not sever the West Bank. This is a fact.

As provided by Section 15 of "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" (italics added)  (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf), which puportedly guides the ethical conduct of The Times:

"The Times treats is 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."

As further provided Section 16 of the "Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" of The Times:

"Simple courtesy suggests that we not alienate our readers by ignoring their letters and e-mails that warrant reply."

The New York Times did not bother to correct Friedman's op-ed piece or its editorial, notwithstanding my e-mails to Andrew Rosenthal, its editorial page editor, and Margaret Sullivan, its public editor. Moreover, both Rosenthal and Sullivan didn't bother to reply.

But not to worry, Jill, Andy and Margaret. The Times is in "good company."

Notwithstanding Fareed Zakaria's plagiarism scandal and his resignation from Yale University's governing board (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/fareed-zakaria-resigns-yale-board_n_1814199.html), The Washington Post continues to publish his opinion pieces.

Worse still, The Washington Post has now demonstrated that it is indifferent to prevarication penned by its opinion writing staff. Earlier this month, in a WaPo opinion piece entitled "Obama appeals to Israel's conscience" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-obama-appeals-to-israels-conscience/2013/03/27/a4365b18-96f5-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html?hpid=z2), Zakaria claimed:

"After all, Israel has ruled millions of Palestinians without offering them citizenship or a state for 40 years."

Of course, as well known to Zakaria, Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert offered Arafat and Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps, and Olmert even offered Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. Arafat and Abbas refused. I alerted WaPo to this lie, and Martin Baron, executive editor of the newspaper, sent me an e-mail saying that he was passing my complaint to Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor. Has Hiatt gotten back to me? Not yet, and I'm no longer holding my breath.

And so, we have reached a time when plagiarism and prevarication go unpunished by two of America's leading newspapers. Is it any wonder that their readership and finances are in a death spiral?

We all know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, despite Abraham's best efforts at bargaining with God. Can ten righteous persons be found at The  New York Times and The Washington Post? I am beginning to have my doubts.