Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    How The NY Times Shapes The Narrative It Wants

    How The NY Times Shapes The Narrative It Wants

    There is a devastating article at The Jewish Weekly by a former NY Times reporter Ari Goldman, who was on the scene as a primary source reporter for The Times during the Crown Heights riots in New York City in 1991.

    Al Sharpton sought to take advantage of the riots, proclaiming “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”  A little more than a decade later Sharpton would be a featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention.

    Goldman observed the one-sided violence which was overtly anti-Semitic, and reported that information back to The Times, but was shocked when The Times sought to portray the violence as both racially (not religiously) motivated and directed equally by each community against the other:

    In all my reporting during the riots I never saw — or heard of — any violence by Jews against blacks. But the Times was dedicated to this version of events: blacks and Jews clashing amid racial tensions. To show Jewish culpability in the riots, the paper even ran a picture — laughable even at the time — of a chasidic man brandishing an open umbrella before a police officer in riot gear. The caption read: “A police officer scuffling with a Hasidic man yesterday on President Street.”

    I was outraged but I held my tongue. I was a loyal Times employee and deferred to my editors. I figured that other reporters on the streets were witnessing parts of the story I was not seeing.

    But then I reached my breaking point. On Aug. 21, as I stood in a group of chasidic men in front of the Lubavitch headquarters, a group of demonstrators were coming down Eastern Parkway. “Heil Hitler,” they chanted. “Death to the Jews.”

    Suddenly rocks and bottles started to fly toward us and a chasidic man just a few feet away from me was hit in the throat and fell to the ground. Some ran to help the injured man but most of us ran for cover. I ran for a payphone and, my hands shaking with rage, dialed my editor. I spoke in a way that I never had before or since when talking to a boss.

    “You don’t know what’s happening here!” I yelled. “I am on the streets getting attacked. Someone next to me just got hit. I am writing memos and what comes out in the paper? ‘Hasidim and blacks clashed’? That’s not what is happening here. Jews are being attacked! You’ve got this story all wrong. All wrong.”

    Read the whole article by Goldman.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    idontgetit | August 12, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Sorry, the previous was in reply to VetHusbandFather’s cpmment @7pm yesterday:

    Actually I think this is a good indicator of what is happening in liberal Jewish communities. Up until now liberal Jews seem to have overlooked some of the antisemitism of the leftist movement because they agreed with most of the liberal platform. But recently, the left is becoming so blatantly antisemitic that liberal Jews cannot ignore that piece of the liberal identity any longer. I don’t think this means that they were flock to the Right, but at the least it means they won’t look the other way anymore, and will start calling out the extreme left for what they are.

    […] Legal Insurrection: There is a devastating article at The Jewish Weekly by a former NY Times reporter Ari Goldman, who was on the scene as a primary source reporter for The Times during the Crown Heights riots in New York City in 1991. […]

    Alex Bensky | August 12, 2011 at 10:32 am

    I lived in Detroit for nearly two decades and spent several years working for the city government. Both here and generally, one of the more distressing and dismaying things I have noticed about the black community’s leadership is that even among those who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be termed anti-Semitic, actual anti-Semitism is not considered a disqualification or even anything to be chided for.

    Louis Farrakhan, for example, sold out the local arena not long ago and apparently got a very warm welcome. In our two local black newspapers I saw nothing in the coverage that even mentioned his vile and overt hatred for Jews. And of course, Al Sharpton is still considered respectable company.

    Yet the least expression of anything that might possibly be termed racism is greeted by calls that the person involved be drummed out of whatever position he happens to hold and forever more be excluded from the company of the decent.

    Are we against bigotry per se or just certain kinds of bigotry? The answer, alas, is obvious, and you don’t need to look at the Holder DoJ to find it.

      Alan Kellogg in reply to Alex Bensky. | August 12, 2011 at 10:58 pm

      It’s a thoughtless adherence to racial unity, especially when such adherence supports racism and bigotry of the worst possible sort. One black man is accused for doing wrong, you’ve as good as accused all black man of the one man’s crime.

    […] “How The NY Times Shapes The Narrative It Wants.” […]

    Alan Kellogg | August 12, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    Once the late John W. Campbell Jr. (then editor of Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact) observed that rarely is there ever two sides to a story. More often there are as many sides to a story as there are people involved, and sometimes there is one side, the right side.

    Journalists have been poorly served by this short sighted insistence on telling both sides, when journalism would be better served by an insistence on getting the facts. Regardless of who they serve and support. Journalism is ripe for a revolution, and the sooner it happens the better off everyone will be.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend