After working for The New York Times for 35 years, and now, almost 20 years after I retired as managing director for creative services, this and a related post on Facebook is my first public criticism of the work of my former colleagues. In the past, I’ve confined my comments to a private Facebook group of about 2,500 Times alumni and staff, as well as to personal discussions with friends and former co-workers.
What we are seeing today is not just bad journalism. It is an appalling twisting of the facts and a mindful, heartless concealment of the truth. Last Saturday, rather than running a photo of hostage Evyatar David, 24, being forced to dig his own grave by Hamas terrorists and writing about the actual reaction of millions of Israelis who had seen it, the video desk and foreign desk ran an article leading with a photo of a relative handful of protesters in Tel Aviv, with the following headline and subhead:
“Hundreds Protest in Tel Aviv After Hostage Videos Surface From Gaza”: The circulation of videos created by Hamas showing Israeli hostages living in dire conditions incited families to protest in Tel Aviv on Saturday to demand a cease-fire and the return of their loved ones.
If the Times still had a Jerusalem bureau that reported the thoughts, communications and actions of the vast majority of Israelis, as it once did, it would have told readers that the reaction of millions to this and other photos and videos of the physical and psychological torture of our children is neither fear nor protest. It is horror, rage and resolve.
The symbolism of the photo is so apt, since this is exactly what most current Times news, editorial and op-ed page writers and editors—and those justifiably fearful of the Islamic street in the West—are arguing daily that the people of Israel should do: Dig our own graves.
I’m not sure it would have bothered me as much if it hadn’t followed an article published in the Times a few days earlier, and noted in an excellent editorial in The Free Press:
In a highly influential front-page article titled “Gazans Are Dying of Starvation,” originally published on July 24, the paper, without fanfare, inserted an editor’s note—one that went largely unnoticed, despite its serious implications for both journalism and public understanding of the war in Gaza.
The original article, bolstered by a heart-wrenching photo of a frail child in his mother’s arms, quickly went viral.
The child featured so prominently—Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq—was introduced as a once-healthy baby now suffering from severe malnutrition due to the war. That version of the story omitted the fact that Muhammad had pre-existing conditions, including serious neurological and muscular developmental issues. That important detail was added later—quietly, and without clear acknowledgment of the prior omission.
Further complicating matters: Muhammad’s older brother, who appears healthy, was cropped out of the photo. This should have been a dismissible offense.
The editors of The Free Press concluded the following:
“The Times should respect its readers by bringing them news that reflects complicated reality, not propaganda. And the most fundamental fact of all is that anyone who wants this war to end must insist that Hamas return the 50 hostages that still remain in its captivity.
The Times should treat its readers better than this. But after 21 months of its reporters taking their cues from Hamas’s public relations operations, we should not expect that they will anytime soon.”
What happened?
For many years, when people would ask me, “Why is The New York Times so anti-Israel and antisemitic?” I would answer quite sincerely that The New York Times is no more anti-Israel than about half the Israeli public is anti-Israel and antisemitic.
My first argument with a colleague about Israel happened in the upstairs bar at Sardi’s restaurant in Midtown Manhattan. I was drinking with a friend, the late Phil Drysdale, then a young black Harvard University grad who became deputy editor of the Op-Ed page. We were arguing back and forth about Israel and the Arabs, and I finally shouted: “Why do you have to hold Israel to a higher standard than everyone else in the world?” And he screamed back: “Because you’re the Jews, God dammit!!” And we ended that with a laugh and another drink. Zero antisemitism, and I do think we heard each other.
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the former chairman and publisher, was my first boss at the Times when I reported to work in April 1971 as his office boy. Both he and his son showed nothing but respect when I chose to become religious after working there for 15 years. To the contrary, I didn’t start getting serious promotions until after I became religious and outspokenly “pro-Israel.” I am certain there is no way I would be hired today if I came in wearing a kippah and tzitzit.
When I retired in 2006, his son, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., personally did my exit interview, and to start off, asked me: “What do I need to know?” Without going into detail, my answer was: “You need to know that your masthead does not know the meaning of the word ‘diversity.’”
That’s far truer today than it was then.
Once upon a time, I had no idea what the politics or religion of most of my colleagues in the newsroom were. It was a mix of Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, with your occasional Marxist thrown into the mix.
Today, I doubt if you could find a minyan of registered Republicans, or church- or synagogue-going staff among the thousands of employees there. As far as I can tell, it is the most politically and philosophically non-diverse workplace imaginable.
And that’s the problem. Being a “pro-Israel” Jew or non-Jew at today’s Times is not a dismissible offense—because there is no way you are going to get hired in the first place.
Even the token conservatives among the Op-Ed columnists have a vitriolic hatred of the democratically elected leaders of Israel, led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and contempt for the people who elected them. Their disgust for the majority of Israelis is almost as strong as the vitriolic hatred they have for the elected leaders of the United States, led by U.S. President Donald Trump, and the utter contempt they have for the people who voted for them.
This is not something that can be changed in less than a generation. The only thing we can do—since editors and writers still hope to hide behind the camouflage of “objective journalism”—is call them out on their offenses as clearly and loudly as we can.
