New York Times need no introduction. It is one of the most widely read newspapers not only in the US but all across the world. What does New York Times as a company count as part of its holdings.
Here's a partial list:
Newspapers
The Boston Globe
The Courier (Houma, LA)
The Daily Comet (Thibodaux, LA)
The Dispatch (Lexington, NC)
The Gadsden Times (AL)
The Gainesville Sun (FL)
International Herald Tribune
Following are the International Herald Tribune Alliances with newspapers around the world
Haaretz (Israel)
Kathimerini (Greece and Cyprus)
JoongAng Daily (Korea)
The Asahi Shimbun (Japan)
The Moscow Times (Russia)
El Pais (Spain)
Daily News (Egypt)
Al Watan Daily (Kuwait)
The Ledger (Lakeland, FL)
The New York Times
The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA)
Petaluma Argus-Courier (CA)
Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL)
Spartanburg Herald-Journal (SC)
Star-Banner (Ocala, FL)
TimesDaily (Florence, AL)
Times-News (Hendersonville, NC)
The Tuscaloosa News (AL)
The Star News (Wilmington, NC)
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Radio
WQCR - FM (New York City)
Other
Boston Red Sox (partial)
NESN (partial)
About Group (About.com)
With a vast empire covering most major areas along with a well established distribution network for its flagship newspaper, the New York Times, there is very little that The New York Times Company cannot influence. Multiply that with the syndication of its publications over the Internet and other electronic media and add the international alliances via the International Herald Tribune and you have making of a media empire. What New York Times says becomes reality.
As the media giant, coming out of city of hate, New York Times has been spewing hatred towards Muslims and Islam for decades now. Never a day has gone by when the New York Times does not carry an article, most of the time several articles in one day, bringing out an aspect of Islam with a negative spin on what could easily be explained otherwise by a scholar of Islam or even a lay person that is even slightly versed in the teachings of Islam. The spin is always negative, the portrayal is always skewed, the outcome is always one sided. Always.
Some examples are more egregious than others and have far reaching consequences. Here are three articles that have appeared within the last three months.
On January 27, 2010 New York Times published what it called "The Jihadist Next Door" written by Andrea Elliott. It was a lengthy article and went into great detail about all aspects of the topic at hand. Not that much of it was accurate, it read very nicely and majority of it sounded very plausible. You have to know a lot about Islam and Muslims in order to look at it critically and refute some of the assertions it made. Unfortunately, most of the readers would have absolutely no clue. At one count there were 263 comments on the article. The article portrayed the life of Omar Hammami, born and raised in America. He went to school in Alabama and attended church while growing up in small town. The article suggests among other things:
- This kind of transition from normal school boy to a Jihadi is rampant among the Muslim youths
- The family structure within the Muslim Household is broken down
- This can happen time and again
- We must take action to prevent this from happening
- We are being over taken by the people with Jihadi agenda
- No one of Muslim faith can be trusted
This article is coming at the heels of another article from the same author about an Imam. One can imagine the mudslinging that went on in that article. That article garnered the author a Pulitzer prize. That is also part of the claim to fame for this article.
In a society that is a great melting pot something has failed this kid that went from small town USA to being aligned with the Shabab's army in Somalia. Not only that but he also in the process convinced few of his friends to go along with him. That something that has failed this young man is the very phenomenon of melting pot. What exactly is it that drove him to seek out these outside influences that were strong enough to change him from his moderate, even church going upbringing so radically? It's not what one finds on the Internet; it's not what is being preached at the mosques; and it's not what is being taught at schools. What is breaking down is the societal norms of inclusion. The constant bombardment of us versus them. From the time you wake up in the morning to the time you go to bed there is the constant barrage of negativity about one's religion, beliefs, and origins. It is the equivalent of school yard bullying. There is no escape from this which is driving many young Muslims towards seeking out ways to help the downtrodden, a basic tenet within Islam. It's absolutely no different from a jewish kid going to iz-ra-eel to learn more about the history and it's people and then coming back home and supporting iz-ra-eel in any which way he or she can using media, school programs, fund raising, debates, speeches, articles and the positive feedback that goes with that. All of these avenues and outlets are closed for a person like Omar Hammami. None of these normal channels are available to thousands of people like Omar Hammami. When your belief is strong and you want to do something with the strength and desire to help can manifest itself in many different ways.
On March 3rd, New York Times Published an article called "Divorced Before Puberty" written by Nicholas D. Kristof. The article talks about a 10 year old girl getting married to somebody that is about 20 years older than her. The article made it sound like this is something sanctioned by Islamic religion. It also made it sound like it happens everyday and everywhere in the Muslim world. Reality is far from it. The author not only tells the story of this little unfortunate girl but in the process malign Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both Muslim countries.
There is no doubt about isolated cases of this inhumane treatment of girls and women but Muslims countries are not the only ones where monsters are perpetrating these crimes. Remember the Austrian guy raping his own daughter and having 5 kids with her, the Jaycee Dugard case in California is fresh on our minds, and the celebrity case of the singer of the Mammas and the Pappas having sex with his daughter. Add to these atrocities the child abuse cases in the Catholic church and the church actively hiding and muffling those cases by moving the priests around. All of that is swept under the rug and New York Times does not have much to say about any of that. On some of these cases there have been no reporting by New York Times at all since it did not happen specifically in New York. A rather convenient technicality.
Yemen is the way it is not ONLY because its women are deprived. It could be a contributing factor but not a top of the list contributing factor. It is the one sided policy of discrimination at the international political level of US and other western countries that perpetuate the situation in Yemen. Yemen is being used as the checkmate for Saudi Arabia. It is a well known fact that the militias of the Houti tribe were well armed and had sophisticated weaponry. They even had their own uniforms. That is a pretty good indicator that they are well funded and well armed. Those weapons did not come from Iran. Those weapons were channelled from South Korea to the ports of Sanaa, delivered to Houti tribesmen to fight against the Saudi government troops. The on-again-off-again assault of the Houti tribes over the Yemeni government forces and the Saudi villages is the direct reflection of the failed diplomatic efforts of Hillary Clinton. The rebels have declared truce for now. When the state department would like to do some arm twisting involving Saudi Arabia those Houti Tribesmen will rise again on queue from the operatives of state departments.
For Pakistan the dynamics are even more complex. Under the benign and very pro-American dictatorship of Mr. Musharraf, Pakistan offered its full support to US against the Taliban. This was done at huge risk to Musharraf's own life and well being. As a result of that he was a target of several assassination attempts. The dividend of all this effort and alliance went to India instead in the form of subsidies, equipment, and guarantees for its nuclear program. Not even a thank you for Pakistan. On the contrary there was additional belt tightening of funds and technology transfer to Pakistan. The most important reason: Pakistan is a Muslim country. Nobody from the current regime at State Department will ever support providing what Pakistan really needs to make the right progress in curbing the advances of outside forces like the Taliban.
For both Yemen and Pakistan, poverty is the one and most prevalent reason why women don't go to schools and don't advance to colleges. Schooling of kids is not free in most of Pakistan. When the head of the household has to make a choice between providing food for his family and sending kids to school, the food, a basic necessity, usually wins out, hands down. One must wonder if Kristof took this very real and hard fact into account while writing his well worded malignment of Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. When is Kristof going to write espousing the benefits of policy of engagement instead of policy of confrontation with both Yemen and Pakistan?
On March 6th New York Times published an article with the heading: "Arabia: Inshallah, Obama" written by Maureen Dowd. Dowd's writing is academic, to say the least. She is what most would call an accidental Journalist. She would be better off writing for a blog instead of writing for New York Times where the readers expect lot more than the rants of an accidental journalist. (she probably does write for a blog with same hatred for Arabs, Muslims and Islam) The article rehearses a conversation between her and Prince Faisal, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. The premise of the article, starting from the title, is poking fun at the Arabs in general and an undertone of tongue-in-cheek attitude towards what amounts to policy discussion and serious subject matters such as dealing with settlement activity by the iz-ra-eeli-s, the question of restarting the stalled negotiations for the peace process in the Middle East, and the Iranian crises.
Underlying aspects of the conversation:
First she uses the full name of Barak Obama with the middle name spelled out. Not a coincidence since it's not commonly used. It is only used when the purpose is to spread the controversy. Here is some of what she says:
"The address of the first American president with Muslim roots"
That is a thorn in many voters' side but New Work Times has to publicise that from time to time to keep things in check.
Here she goes for the jugular:
"It’s probably a sign of progress that Prince Saud calls it "a border dispute." Unless it’s just his understated way. He also refers to "the 9/11 incident" and alludes to the Holocaust obliquely as "World War II."" "Despite repeated attacks by Arab states and Arab and Iranian-backed militant groups, and a call for Israel’s destruction by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Prince Saud suggested that Israel might be overreacting about security because of "World War II" and that this prevented a peace deal."
Here is the breakdown:
"Despite repeated attacks (justification for what Iz-ra-eel does) Border dispute (read as if he is undermining the severity of the issue), 9/11 being an incident (something that has totally consumed the American psyche when worse atrocities have been committed in the name of 9/11, but the media wants to keep that in the forefront, and despite the fact that many credible American politicians have called it something other than what the American government has led the public to believe), and referring to Holocaust as World War II (anything but that. It's the ultimate weapon in a news person's arsenal alluding to anti-semitism).
Thomas Friedman is the original three headed snake that talks with one head and bites with the other two. Maureen Dowd is clearly following in his footsteps. It would be wise for the Saudi government, and all the Arab and Muslim governments to declare journalists attached in any way to New York Times, Associated Press, and NewsCorp as persona non-grata and not allow any conversations with them especially by those who are in position of power. These so called journalists go there, eat their food, talk to them as if they are friends, put them at ease, get the unofficial take on the current issues and present them to the American public as if it is the official version. American people, not knowing Albania from Zimbabwe believe anything and everything that these journalists put out as news and spit it out on queue at the comments on the news and other forums to malign Muslims and Islam. Two for the price of one. Unfortunately the chances of Prince Faisal reading what is attributed to him in dialogues such as this one from Maureen Dowd in the New York Times are remote at best. What is even more remote is the possibility of any corrections of what is attributed to him. What is almost guaranteed from the likes of Friedman and Dowd is that they will twist and twist again what was said in a private conversation to promote their own nefarious agendas.
These are only three examples of the most recent articles that have helped expose the overall agenda of New York Times of hatred towards Muslims all around the world. More and more articles are showing up on daily basis that are suggesting that hate towards American citizens of Muslim origin or those who may have converted to Islam is OK and in fact maybe called for. There is not one Muslim country that is exempt from the wrath of news hacks at the New York Times. Those who best the agenda of hate among the New York Times and Associated Press writers are sure to get a berth at the highly coveted (kissing each other's ass) Pulitzer Prize.
