You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
N.Y. Times' Terror Bias
2004-09-28
Letter Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

To the Editor:

In today's article reporting the decapitation by terrorists in Iraq of American civilian Eugene Armstrong, The Times reporter wrote:

"In the video of the beheading, an insurgent wearing a ski mask and surrounded by four men with assault rifles says the group is killing Mr. Armstrong because the American occupiers and the interim Iraqi government failed to meet the deadline. Much of the man's long speech is addressed to President Bush, who is called a dog at one point."

Please note that the news article omitted an important part of the story, which was the exact phrase uttered by the executioner at the time he cut Armstrong's throat and severed his head from his body. That phrase was "Oh you Christian dog, Bush, stop your arrogance."

The reference to President Bush by the terrorist strengthens the belief of many that we are involved in a war of civilizations. Fanatic Islamists believe that Christians and Jews who do not recognize the supremacy of Islam should die. That awful message is part of the story and The Times erred in not carrying that quote, which many other papers did.

Lee Hamilton, Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, has said in describing Muslim terrorists, "They want to kill us." Why? Because those making up western civilization and its ideas which Jihad is bent on destroying are overwhelmingly Christians and Jews. I believe it is President Bush's faith that gives him the strength to stay with and implement the Bush Doctrine, which is "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

Your reporter refers to the spokesman for the murderers as an "insurgent." What would it take for The Times to call someone who has just participated in the beheading of an innocent civilian a terrorist? I am sure the public would like to know.

All the best.

Sincerely,
Edward I. Koch
Posted by:tipper

#20  Whoa - dat be a smack-down! :-)
Posted by: .com   2004-09-28 8:08:57 PM  

#19  Oh and lotsa lotsa gay stuff in the Times. My urban single friends in Manhattan LA Chicago and San Fran tell me it's very important to be able to make oddly self-deprecating jokes involving comparisons to gays as a convincing demonstration of hipness. Here the Times once again shows itself as an indispensable guide to the urbanite Who Would Be Sophisticated.
Posted by: lex   2004-09-28 8:08:55 PM  

#18  Who still reads the NY Times for news?

The NYT is fast becoming little more than a lifestyle guide: lots of fashion, lotsa articles on entertainment real estate sex and porn and restaurants and shopping shopping shopping.

Even the OpEd page serves mainly to offer intellectual style pointers and dinner party talking points to paper's core readership of Childless Bicoastal Urbanites. MoDo supplies little on-liners you can use at dinner parties; Krugman helps you feel as if you actually learned something twenty years ago in Econ 101; Kristof gives you your daily dose of earnestness; Bob the Blackdude you don't read but no one else does either. Even the token conservative, David Brooks, is catty and wry and talks as much about consumer goods, Walmart and taste badges as about anything else.

Smash the MSM. Let a thousand blogs contend.
Posted by: lex   2004-09-28 8:05:34 PM  

#17  Ship - Heh, I'm cool. ;-)
Posted by: .com   2004-09-28 7:32:35 PM  

#16  How else would you explain the extreme bias?

The same way one can explains the penchant for the 'right people' to advocate other extreme ideologies over the years. It's a way to poke a sharp stick in the eye of Western culture, which they find decadent and 'not their way'.

Not that they'd live under such an ideology, mind you. The same people that thinks it's chic to wear a kaffiyah (however badly), cheer on or mute criticism of Islamic radicals because they're fighting the West, would be the first ones drinking Drano should the same Islamists came to power. But it's the abstract protest that's important.
Posted by: Pappy   2004-09-28 7:28:38 PM  

#15  LOL!
PD, PR is having a Z moment. Let it happen. LOL.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-09-28 4:02:30 PM  

#14  Yes, NYT 'journalism' should be made a criminal offence. I'm thinking about a suitable punishment. Maybe writing out a million times "I will do my best in future to think for myself."

Now I have to go to work. Much as I'd like to contribute further to this debate.......
Posted by: Bryan   2004-09-28 3:56:23 PM  

#13  IN fact I'll bet the NYT has their template all set for how they will report the Debate. Kerry 100-Bush 0. Hell, Senator Horseface could have laryngitis and they will come up with something to make hima appear the "winner". AT least it will be predictable.
Posted by: Bill Nelson   2004-09-28 3:23:13 PM  

#12  Spot-on, Bryan. They're terrorists if, and only if, the NYT can find a way to blame America.
Posted by: .com   2004-09-28 3:17:50 PM  

#11  Good letter.

I don’t have access to the New York Times online articles because I’m not prepared to go through their registration process. But I do get the New York Times headlines sent to my inbox. You could have knocked me down with a feather when I saw the following headline and snippet of text from today’s paper:

WAREHOUSES FOR REFUGEES
It is time to rethink refugee warehousing, which can lead to generations of poverty and the kind of idleness that breeds terrorism.

The word ‘terrorism’ in the New York Times? It cannot be, I thought at first, but then of course I saw the context. The same tired old cliched bleeding-heart context of lets-be-intrepid-left-wing-journalists-and-explore-the-roots-of-terrorism-so-that-our-readership-will-cheer-and-our-editors-will-be-delighted-and-we’ll-keep-our-jobs.

Except, of course, that they are looking for the roots of terrorism in the wrong place and with blinkers on.

Idleness breeds terrorism? And I always thought it bred masturbation. Oh, silly me. Of course, now I get it! It’s a special KIND of idleness that’s required. The kind that results from people being shunted to warehouses and stored like so many cardboard cartons on identical rows of shelving. And I always thought that terrorism stems from an unholy mix of hatred inculcated in the young by the old and a radical deficiency in the character of young and old that causes them to embrace terrorism as a solution to that deficiency.

Again, silly me. I obviously haven’t evolved to the point where I can grasp the erudite brilliance of the New York Times.


Posted by: Bryan   2004-09-28 3:11:22 PM  

#10  .com
Here is what I meant. NYT will learn their lesson one day, when their own reporter is under the knife. NYT and CNN will reap what they sow. Now, do you get it.
Posted by: Poison Reverse   2004-09-28 2:46:58 PM  

#9  BE / bad - H'okay. *deep breath* *cough cough*

;-)
Posted by: .com   2004-09-28 1:49:08 PM  

#8  .com - Take a deep breath. Don't take all this stuff so personal. The Poisoned one is spewing the panic of a typical Kerryite who knows that on Nov 2, the Botox party is over, and we can get back to the business of sending as many Jihadi Terrorist Animals to the 72 virgins as possible.

PS - Ol' Koch really nailed it!
Posted by: BigEd   2004-09-28 1:47:48 PM  

#7  Sooo,

How 'bout them Trojans?
Posted by: badanov   2004-09-28 1:46:20 PM  

#6  And yet again, you fail to answer. You really are a pussy. Your comment makes no sense, as per usual.
Posted by: .com   2004-09-28 1:42:55 PM  

#5  .com
Who is the troll now? That's right, you need to look in the mirror.
Posted by: Poison Reverse   2004-09-28 1:36:57 PM  

#4  This all makes sense once you realize that the NYT is not just an 'observer' in this but a hand-in-hand ally and a knowing partner of the terrorists organization.

Their articles are written with the express purpose of spreading the terrorist's message ('Submit or Die' or 'Convert or Die') and furthering their cause -- and this explains the way they are written.

How else would you explain the extreme bias?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-09-28 11:44:11 AM  

#3  Pussy Retard - Is that supposed to make sense?

The server's not the only thing that's hosed.
Posted by: .com   2004-09-28 11:33:51 AM  

#2  "Much of the man’s long speech is addressed to President Bush, who is called a dog at one point."

Does this mean, when a NY Times reporter is getting his throat cut. He won't ask Bush to save him. A promise is a promise.
Posted by: Poison Reverse   2004-09-28 10:55:03 AM  

#1  New York has produced some great mayors, Koch and Giuliani being tow prime examples. May Blomburg grow into the office.
Posted by: Anonymous6695   2004-09-28 10:42:58 AM  

00:00