BLATANTLY BIASED REPORTING: NYT

[Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/us/23dearborn.html?th&emc=th]


In an article about Dearborn's Arab population and local politics, the New York Times editor dropped a bowling ball on his foot.

Quote: "He (Dearborn mayor Michael A. Guido) criticized the "mobs" protesting Israel’s attacks against civilian targets in Lebanon and sent the Arab-American community a $23,000 bill for overtime for police officers and firefighters during the demonstration."



Come again? Civilian targets? Surely you mean just "targets", without any modifier?

[You could have also said "Israel's attacks in Lebanon" and left out any mention of targets or civilians - given that you decontextualized, that might have been a good idea.]


Because if you must modify that word (targets), you know that those were valid military targets where Hezbollah was using civilians as human shields in order to dissuade military strikes, or targets where there were civilians, whose injuiries were accidental and unintended.

[Lebanon is densely populated and has civilians all over the place. Who knew? Well, Hezbollah knew. And used that to their advantage. Do I now need to quote Mao on terroris.... errrrm, guerilla war?]


The key concept is valid military targets - NOT striking at valid military targets prolongs combat and carries it into precisely those areas where there will not be any valid military targets. Not pursuing combat operations with a view towards degrading the enemy's capabilities will prolong war and increase the number of civilian deaths. Not striking at Hezbollah's offensive capabilities because of the danger to Lebanese civilians meant more dead and wounded Israeli civilians.

Using civilians as shields is a recognized gambit that Hamas (Harakat al Muqawamma al Islamiyya) and the various PLO terrorist splinter groups also use. It was something that has been used in every war since the Prussians put an end to Nappy the third's regime.


Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqi militias, deliberately use civilians as shields.

This has been acknowledged by and criticized by the United Nations - who are not exactly unbiased themselves, in that they do not consider Israelis to be civilians.


Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqi militias, also deliberately target civilians.

Which apparently is perfectly alright. Because the New York Times does not mention that pertinent detail, but sees fit to throw an anti-Israel slander into an article about Arab American internal discord. Without background, without nuance, without foundation, without evidence.


Such biased pandering in the New York Times shows that pro-Arab partisans have co-opted even the respectable press.