Nicholas Kristof’s Crocodile Tears

On August 29, 2017, Nicholas Kristof penned an opinion piece in the New York Times called “The Photos the U.S. and Saudi Arabia Don’t Want You to See.” The article relayed the terrible suffering of the people of Yemen due to a civil war that has been exacerbated by competing interests of the Iranians and Saudis. The United States has supported the Saudi effort, and as such, held partial blame for the killing of hundreds of civilians in Yemen.

Children have suffered terribly, both from Saudi bombing campaigns and from malnutrition, as the Saudis have been effective at blocking aid relief to the country.

And all of this is unquestionably horrible, as Kristof relates.

However, what was somewhat maddening was Kristof’s take that the Saudis (and Americans) had effectively blocked the world from highlighting the suffering in Yemen. In paragraph after paragraph, Kristof described a deliberate campaign of censorship:

“Yet victims like Buthaina aren’t on our television screens and rarely make the news pages, in part because Saudi Arabia is successfully blocking foreign journalists from the rebel-held areas. I know, because I’ve been trying for almost a year to get there and thought I had arranged a visit for this week — and then Saudi Arabia shut me down.

With commercial flights banned, the way into rebel areas is on charter flights arranged by the United Nations and aid groups. But Saudi military jets control this airspace and ban any flight if there’s a journalist onboard. I don’t think the Saudis would actually shoot down a plane just because I was on it, but the U.N. isn’t taking chances.

This is maddening: Saudi Arabia successfully blackmails the United Nations to bar journalists so as to prevent coverage of Saudi atrocities.

The Saudis don’t want you to see children like this one, Alaa, severely malnourished and photographed by a World Food Program team. Two days later, Alaa died.”

Kristof claimed that the government of Saudi Arabia actively stopped journalists from covering stories, which was why the media – like him – did not show pictures of innocent victims in Yemen.

But what about the actions of his own paper, the New York Times?

I have no doubt that Saudi Arabia impedes reporting of its war crimes and that Kristof is upset both at his access to the stories as well as for the fate of the war’s victims. But his crocodile tears over the media being unable to show the world the suffering of victims is pathetic when he has long written for a paper that refused to show Israeli victims of Palestinian Arab terrorism.

Why didn’t Kristof care to write such an article when Barack Obama was president supporting the Saudis in their campaign? Is his newfound concern simply because it would show President Trump in a bad light?

Mr. Kristof: the failure to show pictures of innocent victims does not simply lie with the Saudis or the Trump administration. Your paper is part of the problem.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Every Picture Tells a Story, Don’t It?

Every Picture Tells a Story: Anti-Semitism

Every Picture Tells a Story, the Bibi Monster

The New York Times’ Buried Pictures

Every Picture Tells a Story: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

Every Picture Tells A Story: Only Palestinians are Victims

Every Picture Tells a Story: The Invisible Murdered Israelis

Every Picture Tells a Story- Whitewashing the World (except Israel)

Every Picture Tells a Story: Goodbye Peres

In Inversion, New York Times Admits “The Truth is Hard to Find”

Social Media’s “Fake News” and Mainstream Media’s Half-Truths

Israel’s Freedom of the Press; New York Times “Nonsense”

New York Times Confusion on Free Speech

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

 

Advertisements

The New York Times’ Select Defense of a Civilian

The New York Times often decries bankers and the excesses of Wall Street. But only when associated with Republicans.

On April 26, 2017, the Times ran an article about Hungary’s anger with billionaire George Soros. The Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban was upset with the various left-wing institutions funded in Hungary by Soros including NGOs and a university.

The Times came to the billionaire’s defense.

“It was an exceptional attack by a head of government against a private citizen, albeit a wealthy and powerful one. Mr. Soros has been a frequent target of criticism from right-wing news media organizations like Breitbart and Infowars, which deplore his affinity for Democratic and liberal causes. Supporters of Mr. Soros, who is 86, a native of Hungary and a Holocaust survivor, have detected a whiff of anti-Semitism in the attacks in the United States.”

Wow.

George Soros spent more money on US lobbyists than Goldman Sachs and the National Rifle Association COMBINED. But the Times made light of the powerful global lobbyist by stating that he had an “affinity for Democratic and liberal causes,” as if he were simply an observer and not the master puppeteer. It slandered those opposed to Soros’s agenda by suggesting that the opposition was driven by anti-Semitism (as if a huge percentage of Jews weren’t also appalled by Soros’s behavior and causes).

And the Times was of course shocked that a head of a government would attack a private citizen. In this case.

Joe Biden Attacked Israeli Citizen

In November 2015, the Union of Reform Judaism invited Vice President Joe Biden to speak at its biennial. During his public address, the Vice President chose to berate a private Israeli citizen for remarks that he had made about the Obama administration’s handling of the Iranian nuclear deal. Biden yelled as he stabbed his finger at the crowd:

There is no excuse, there should be no tolerance for any member or employee of the Israeli administration referring to the president of United States in derogatory terms. Period, period, period, period!

The crowd of Reform Jews applauded Biden’s rebuke of the Israeli (who was not employed by the Israeli government.) The New York Times decided not to cover the attack at all.

When the liberal head of the US government attacked a right-leaning Israeli citizen, there was no sound of alarm. But the Times came to the quick defense of the liberal billionaire.


George Soros
(photo: Niccolo Caranti)

Woe unto anyone criticizing a liberal – even a billionaire capitalist. The New York Times has ink for you.


Related First.One.Through articles:

New York Times Lies about the Gentleness of Zionism

New York Times’ Tales of Israeli Messianic War-Mongering

The New York Times Major anti-Netanyahu Propaganda Piece

Social Media’s “Fake News” and Mainstream Media’s Half-Truths

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Social Media’s “Fake News” and Mainstream Media’s Half-Truths

Liberals have taken to the streets to protest the loss of the Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Some (like Clinton) blamed the loss on a late breaking notice by the FBI about more emails surfacing from Clinton’s email server, while others blamed the Russians for interfering in the US elections. The latest scapegoat from US President Barack Obama was that “fake news” that spread on Facebook, Twitter and Google, undermined Clinton.

Obama claimed that the “active misinformation” that spread on social media continues to threaten the “democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we’ve come to take for granted.

If only the president were as concerned about the active use of half-truths that are told routinely in the left-wing media and the United Nations. Those “credible” sources deliberately tell a fraction of the story and lead people to focus on the wrong targets through vicious alt-left editing. Those half-truths are just as lethal and the authors are just as guilty of spreading lies.

Consider the liberal media source, NPR. On November 15, 2016 it wrote about President-elect Donald Trump consideration of moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In giving background to the story, NPR wrote: The western part of Jerusalem is almost entirely Jewish. The eastern part of the city was entirely Arab when Israel captured it in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Many Israeli Jews have moved into the eastern part of the city, and Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital, though no other country recognizes this.”

The NPR background made it sound like Israel took over the eastern half of Jerusalem in a war, and then asserted its control over the area, even though no country recognizes Israel’s positions. NPR deliberately omitted that:

  • Jews had always lived in Jerusalem, and have constituted a majority of the city since 1870
  • The Arabs initiated a war against Israel in 1948-9 and took control of the eastern half of the city and then EVICTED ALL OF THE JEWS from that part of the city, that’s why there were no Jews there in 1967.
  • When Jordan annexed the “West Bank” and eastern part of Jerusalem in 1950, no country recognized Jordan’s claim on the land.
  • Israel took the eastern half of Jerusalem in a DEFENSIVE WAR, after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967.

These facts are never shared in the liberal media, and by doing so, the liberal press provides the public with a biased half-truth narrative that Israel was an aggressor in seizing land that belonged to Arabs by history and right. It is simply not true.

Consider the beacon of the left-wing media, The New York Times.  It covered anti-Semitic riots in Europe in 2014 with a passing comment that there may have been a “tinge” of antisemitism when mobs called out that “Hitler was Right.” It did this repeatedly.

The Times also actively shielded its liberal champion, President Obama from criticism. Consider that when the Times wrote about Israel during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, it chose to include pictures of Israeli soldiers, Palestinian Arab victims and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu throughout the conflict. The paper never showed the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, of Hamas or of Israeli victims. These pictures were also in sharp contrast to articles about US drone attacks that kill civilians, that NEVER show pictures of Obama alongside the story. Ever wonder why?

Regarding racism in the United States, the Times continued to suggest that racism was rising from the right-wing against blacks and Muslims in various articles.  They did this, even though the number of hate crimes committed by whites dropped significantly, from 63% in 2007, to 29% in 2015.

The liberal papers have company at the United Nations.

The UN media center is a frequent peddler of half-truths. It is seemingly not sufficient for the global body to be extremely prejudiced against Israel; its media center deliberately omits comments made on the world stage that could be construed as sympathetic towards Israel. Consider:

  • When world leaders spoke about the alarming attacks against Israelis in October 2015, the press corps only mentioned attacks against Arabs, and completely deleted “Israel” from the summary comments, as detailed in “UN Press Corps Expunges Israel.” The media center refused to publish the comments made by the UN Assistant Secretary General complimenting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for trying to calm the situation.
  • On December 15, 2015, the High Commissioner for Human Rights gave a press briefing where she spoke about violence in Israel which killed dozens, including 21 Israelis. The UN media centre deliberately deleted any mention of Israelis, and only spoke of Palestinians and foreigners that were killed.

The list of disturbing “half-truths” which relay a false narrative is long.


Fake news is indeed a problem, but arguably a smaller one than the half-truths peddled by the mainstream media.  The fake news sites will ultimately earn a reputation for doing so, such as magazines that tout that Elvis is alive and that Hollywood stars are having babies with aliens. The flash of news is rapidly revealed as entertainment.

However, the persistent and dangerous problem of lies, stems from the “accepted” mainstream media that distort reality to fit their liberal agenda.

Christiane Amanpour, a journalist for CNN received a Press Freedom Award in November 2016. In her remarks she attacked Donald Trump as a demagogue who would stifle free speech. She stated that “journalists… need to recommit to robust fact-based reporting without fear.” As she made such comments, her smugness masked her complicity in feeding the world half-truths. Her fellow journalists have spent years feeding a feast of delicious liberal fabrications, at the expense of unvarnished accuracy.

amanpour-freedom-press-burton-benjamin-award-full-speech-00080106-large-169
Christiane Amanpour Receiving Press Freedom Award November 2016

Amanpour added that “I learned a long, long time ago – when I was covering the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Bosnia – never to equate victim and aggressor.  Never to create a false moral or factual equivalence, because then, if you do,… you are party and accomplice to the most unspeakable crimes and consequences.” Perhaps she was criticizing the New York Times which gave a glowing review of the opera “Death of Klinghoffer,” about Palestinian Arab terrorists that threw an elderly Jew in a wheelchair off of a ship to his death, which it called a “masterpiece” as “the opera gives voice to all sides.

Amanpour called for advertisers to stop advertising on the “fake news sites,” a call for action that seemed a bit cheeky, considering she makes her living from those same advertisers.

In short, Amanpour has still not internalized that she is a part of a biased-and-bought media industry that is the core of the problem.

It has therefore become an unfortunate necessity for blogs such as FirstOneThrough to do a critical and factual analysis of the world affairs, because of the failures of mainstream media, not the fake news sites. It does the original analysis without any advertising, and is not beholden to any purchaser’s point of view.  The digital revolution that cares about truth will ultimately abandon today’s popular press in favor of such sites, and use fake news sites as entertainment, much as they view The Onion.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Israel’s Freedom of the Press; New York Times “Nonsense”

New York Times Confusion on Free Speech

Thomas Friedman Thinks Palestinians are Crazy in the Margins, While Israel is Crazy in the Mainstream

The New York Times Wrote About Computer Hackers Charged by the US and Israel. Differently.

The New York Times Refuses to Label Hamas a Terrorist Group

What’s “Left” for The New York Times?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Political pundits have been calling out White, uneducated old men as racists and the sole fringe backers of Republican candidates.  They suggest that women, minorities and the young are much more balanced and thoughtful in their choice of political preference and affiliation.

They are lying to you.

Look at the actual numbers from the 2012 election:

By Gender:  Men split for Romney by 52%/45% (7 point difference), while women voted for Obama by 55/44 (11 point difference). Men were more balanced than women in considering their candidate.

By Race: Whites voted for Romney by a 59%/39% margin (20% difference), while blacks voted for Obama 93/6 (87% difference), Hispanics for Obama 71/27 (44% difference) and Asians 73/26 (47% difference). Whites voted in a more balanced way than minority groups.

By Age: The young were the most unbalanced in their support for Obama. People aged 18-29 chose Obama 60%/37% (23% difference), while the other groups, 30-44 picked Obama 52/45 (7% apart), 45-64 year-olds chose Romney 51/47 (4% difference) and 65 and over chose Romney by 56/44 (12% difference). The older working class (aged 45-64) were the most balanced in their votes for the candidates.

Education: The most uneducated people picked Obama by the widest margin. Those with some high school picked Obama 64%/35% (29% difference), compared to high school graduates picking Obama 51/48 (3% difference), those with some college chose Obama 49/48 (1% difference), college graduates picked Romney (51%/47% (4% differential), while those postgraduate work picked Obama 55/42 (13% difference).

Marital Status: Married people voted for Romney by 54/39 (15% split), versus singles for Obama by 56/35 (21% difference). Interestingly, white non-married people were perfectly balanced (45%/45%), but non-white non-married people almost exclusively voted for Obama (80%/11%).  Married people, and non-married white people were more evenly divided.

Religion: Catholics were the most balanced group, voting for Obama by 50/48 (2% spread). Protestants chose Romney 57/42 (15% spread), Jews chose Obama 69/30 (39% spread), other faiths picked Obama 74/23 (51% spread) and the unaffiliated picked Obama 70/26 (44% spread). Mormons chose Romney (who was Mormon) by 78/21 (67% spread).

The most unbalanced group in the 2012 election were uneducated, young, single black women, who almost exclusively voted for Obama.  The most evenly split group were older, working, married Catholic white men with some college education, who split very evenly for the two candidates.

But the liberal press continued along a narrative that old racist white men are the last holdouts for the Republican party.  They made it sound that there aren’t real and legitimate policy differences between Democrats and Republicans – just people that are progressive-thinking and those that are racists.

This characterization started in earnest in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for president.  He said that some people “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” In July 2016, Democrat Nancy Pelosi continued the same white male-bashing theme that “non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose.

pelosi-2
Nancy Pelosi at the Democratic National Convention
(photo: Chad Rachman)

Liberals paint all white men in a monolithic camp, even though they are actually the only demographic that doesn’t have a knee-jerk reaction to vote in a simplified and unified manner.  If Republicans would speak about single African-Americans in such a fashion (and there is statistical reason to do so), there would be a loud uproar.

Liberals biased treatment of white men is a gross disservice to genuine debate about how to govern and put in place policies that serve all Americans. In the 2016 election, where the candidates have only exchanged barbs about being “fit to serve,” the American people have truly been robbed of thoughtful discussion of important issues.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Liberal Hypocrisy on Foreign Government Intervention

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

 

 

Eyal Gilad Naftali Klinghoffer. The new Blood Libel.

A troublesome series of reports in major “liberal” media outfits like the New York Times and BBC have shown a pattern of “blame the victim” uniquely when it comes to Jews and Israel.

Consider the BBC’s Nicky Campbell’s coverage of the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers, Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaer and Naftali Frankel, in Judea & Samaria arguing that “Palestinians would say perhaps these people were in the West Bank illegally.” He then continued to discuss Arabs in Israeli jails to “give [the kidnapping] some perspective” as if the comments provided any justifications for the kidnapping of teenagers trying to get home from school. (I suppose Nicky would support Iraqis kidnapping his daughters because of the UK involvement in the Iraqi war.)

The New York Times followed on June 16 when it posed several questions regarding “the cavalier practice of hitchhiking” in the West Bank. Was the NYT suggesting that these boys were responsible for their own kidnapping?

The hitchhiking abduction coverage was not unique. The New York Times ran an editorial on 6/19/14 bemoaning that the New York Metropolitan Opera, “bowing to the wishes of Leon Klinghoffer’s daughters and other Jewish critics,” decided to not globally telecast an opera about the murder of a 69-year old American Jew by Palestinian terrorists. The Times thought that “the opera gives voice to all sides” as if the rationale of the murder of an elderly American confined to a wheelchair was worthy of serious consideration. The general manager of the Met, Peter Gelb, said that the composer “John Adams said that in composing ‘The Death of Klinghoffer’ he tried to understand the hijackers and their motivations, and to look for humanity in the terrorists.” Gelb and the Times have called the opera “a masterpiece”. I am considering the right term for the Met and the Times.

Somehow, these outlets believe that Jews bare at least partial responsibility for the crimes committed against them: Jews are not victims; they are vehicles to voice displeasure of the state of the Palestinian Arabs.

To illustrate and contrast the vileness of this targeting of Jews and Israel by these media outlets, consider the coverage of other crimes during this same time period.

The New York Times covered the sexual assaults of women in Egypt during the celebrations for new President Abdul Fattah al Sisi with appropriate disgust. It ran articles, editorials and op-eds that condemned the attacks. The Times did not run articles questioning why the women were out late among so many men. The paper did not suggest that the women were dressed inappropriately. It did not post articles by Egyptian clerics who describe the value of modesty for women and the inappropriateness of their being out among men. Because if the paper had done so, it would have served to validate the disgraceful attack and place blame on the victim.

Similarly when a young man, Elliot Rodger, went on a shooting rampage in California because he felt rejected by girls in his school, the papers did not post opinions that girls should be nicer to young men and consider their feelings. As is clearly obvious, doing so would be an insult to all of the innocent victims of the rampage.

The daughters of Leon Klinghoffer, Lisa and Ilsa, put it best in their letter to the editor of the New York Times on June 21: “Our 69 year-old father was singled out and killed by Palestinian terrorists on his wedding anniversary cruise in 1985 solely because he was Jewish. His memory is trivialized in an opera that rationalizes terrorism and tries to find moral equivalence between murderers and the murdered. Imagine if Mr. Adams had written an opera about the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks, and sought to balance their worldview with that of those who perished in the twin towers. The outcry would be immediate and overwhelming. But ‘Klinghoffer’ is justified as ‘a work of art’ and an opportunity to ‘debate’ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an outrage.”

The media’s blind spot for Jewish victims in its visual field have left Jews in the dark ages of history once again. The “progressives” are developing a new Blood Libel, in which every Jew has a hand soaked in the misfortune of Arabs. They have turned the State of Israel into a new blood matzah, conceived and living in sin.  During the Dark Ages, Jews were accused of taking missing Christian children.  At present, the progressive press blames Jews for their own missing and felled Jews – sacrifices that must be made to uphold the evil Jewish State.

Can anything right the “left”? If the Royal Ballet were to perform “The Untimely Fall of Lee Rigby” with beautiful arias about the sorrowful tale of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, the two people who were sentenced to life in prison for Rigby’s murder, would the press react? Would the British press cheer the “work of art” and celebrate the “humanity in the terrorists” who hacked a soldier to death on the streets of England to avenge the killing of Muslims by British forces? The Klinghoffer daughters believe the “outcry would be immediate and overwhelming,” from the press and public. While I agree, I fear that it would not cause progressives to rethink their attitude towards Jews. The new Blood Libel has caught hold.


Related FirstOneThrough articles:

The Death of Civilians; the Three Shades of Sorrow

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Itamar and Duma