So much for fixing the problem and making sure that the publishing of an anti-Semitic cartoon never happens again without “adequate oversight,” hmmm, New York Times? Which unnamed midlevel editor are you going to blame this time?
Less than 24 hours after attempting take #2 at an apology for a truly hideous cartoon that screamed of anti-Semitism from here to the moon, and then publishing an editorial about how badly they’d screwed up (and then the preening by other Times names for “how proud” they were that they had gotten a public flogging by one of their own), the New York Times international print edition put out ANOTHER cartoon. Apparently, those new procedures weren’t put in place fast enough and no one was fired after this weekend, because the anti-Semitism is pretty plain in this one, too. Where the hell are they GETTING these things?
So the @nytimes removed the original anti-Semitic cartoon and replaced it with a different (anti-semitic) cartoon two days later. pic.twitter.com/bBihm5VCej
— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) April 29, 2019
They can’t possibly be this stupid, can they?
— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) April 29, 2019
Is crow kosher? Because the New York Times is going to be eating a LOT of it. We get it, guys – you loathe Benjamin Netanyahu, you dislike Israel, your editorial staff can’t see anti-Semitism when it’s drawn out in a picture for them. The Jewish community is righteously angry.
ANOTHER antisemitic cartoon from the @nytimes.
Protest outside of NY Times headquarters tonight on 8th Avenue at 5:30 P.M.
H/T: @StopAntisemiti3 https://t.co/vMxbxFlqMD
— theJewish Voice (@JewishVoice) April 29, 2019
And what makes this even worse is that this cartoon was published as we are hearing about the sheer bravery during the attack at the Chabad of Poway.
Lori Gilbert Kaye, the only fatality, reportedly jumped in front of Rabbi Goldstein to protect him.
As a gunman unloaded bullets inside the synagogue filled with about 100 worshipers, Kaye performed what her friends and Rabbi Goldstein called a last act of heroism when she protected the rabbi from gunfire.”
“In my own interpretation, Lori took the bullet for all of us,” Goldstein said outside the synagogue a day after the deadly shooting. “She didn’t deserve to die right in front of my eyes.”
The word “giving” was used repeatedly by friends to describe the 60-year-old woman, who has lived her entire life in San Diego. She leaves behind a husband and a 22-year-old daughter.”
“When you ask me, ‘Why’d she put herself in front of the rabbi,’ it’s like, anyone who knows her, that’s what she would do,” her friend Roneet Lev said.”
Both Lev and another friend of Kaye’s, Audrey Jacobs, said that as the rabbi was being wheeled into surgery, he said, “Let everyone know Lori Kaye saved me.”
Lev said Kaye was a pillar of San Diego’s Jewish community and was known by people across the globe for her acts of kindness. Jacobs described Kaye as a “jewel of our community.”
Kaye was attending Saturday’s service to pay tribute to her late mother with a traditional prayer for the dead. She was a member of the synagogue since its founding. According to the rabbi, Kaye helped secure funding that helped open the Chabad of Poway in 1986.”
Kaye’s husband, a doctor, rushed to the shooting scene to help and while performing CPR on a victim fainted when he realized it was his wife, Lev told The Los Angeles Times.”
After all the tragedy of this weekend, after being called out by everyone with a sense of decency, after vowing to change it up and examine their bellybutton lint to root out anti-Semitism – the New York Times stepped in it again. It’s clear that the anti-Semitism is baked into the ink of the paper, especially in that international print edition. If you’re serious about fixing it, NYT, it’s time to start firing people. If not, then we’ll all know just how much of a sham that apology from yesterday was.
Featured image via Pixabay, Pixabay license free for commercial use
Cameron says: “Dammit, Carl. BAD timing!”
Hate_me says: I don’t know… while I despise anti-Semitic sentiment, I don’t like the idea of saying any material should be off-limits to publish. The Times could publish an entire front page spread of a swastika under the title “Israel Must Die” and, while I would stand in their way should they try to act on it, I would also stand in the way of anyone trying to prevent them from publishing it. We should all have that freedom, even when it’s prudent that it not be exercised.
They have a right to be idiots, they have a right to be offensive, and they have a right to be anti-Semitic. It would be up to their consumers and their journalistic peers to judge them through their purchases and hiring practices.
I don’t mean this as a criticism of your post, Miss Fisher. I realize that you’re doing your due diligence by calling them out for doing their job poorly and reflecting negatively on your trade.
rbj says: It’s fine if the NYTimes wants to publish it. However now the NYT has about the same credibility as Der Sturmer. And should be treated as such.
GWB says: the anti-Semitism is pretty plain in this one, too.
I’ll admit it sure isn’t plain to me. It looks like Netanyahu with a selfie stick, pretending to be Moses coming down from Sinai with Israel instead of the 10 Commandments. How is that anti-Semitic?
Deanna Fisher says: Apparently, what he’s carrying is a tombstone with Israel on it.
GWB says: Maybe there’s a subtle intent there, substituting a tombstone for the tablets of the law.
But I still don’t see how that makes it anti-Semitic, rather than merely anti-Netanyahu.
(For instance, many of us thought 0bama – and plenty of others – was killing America. That didn’t make us anti-American or racist or any of that.)
Wfjag says: The NYT should just start reprinting Thomas Nast cartoons and save themselves the trouble of pretending they are commenting of current events.
7 Comments