Anti-Semitism at the New York Times

[Jack Hays]

Here's an ugly episode, with the New York Times normalizing hate.





Anti-Semitism is not just another opinion. The New York Times should know better.

• By Richard Cohen

Over the centuries, anti-Semitism has been many things — a religious conviction, an ideology, a national ethic, an unadorned expression of hate and, in more recent times, evidence of sturdy insanity. Now thanks to a New York Times interview with Alice Walker, it’s been reduced to merely a point of view. To cite the Times’s own motto, this interview was definitely not “news that’s fit to print.”
Walker, of course, is a highly praised novelist best known for “The Color Purple,” for which she won a Pulitzer Prize. Her renown is great, and it was no doubt on this basis that the Times interviewed her for its “By the Book” feature that runs in the Sunday Book Review. The trouble started with the first question.
“What books are on your nightstand?” the Times asked. The second book Walker named was “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by the British conspiracy theorist David Icke. The book is so repellently anti-Semitic that Icke’s usual publisher wouldn’t touch it. Among other things, it endorses that hoary anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which blames evil Jews for much of the world’s ills. The book also suggests that schools ought to balance lessons on the Holocaust with some questioning whether it ever even happened, and it reveals that the world is run by a cabal of giant, shape-shifting lizards, many of whom just happen to be Jewish.
Times readers howled. The paper should have flagged the book as an anti-Semitic tome, they insisted. The Times disagreed. It doesn’t do that sort of thing in its “By the Book” feature. In the Times’s response, the paper conceded that Icke “has been accused of anti-Semitism,” a bit like conceding that David Duke has been accused of racism. Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”. . . .

 

[Oborosen]

Here's an ugly episode, with the New York Times normalizing hate.





Anti-Semitism is not just another opinion. The New York Times should know better.

• By Richard Cohen

Over the centuries, anti-Semitism has been many things — a religious conviction, an ideology, a national ethic, an unadorned expression of hate and, in more recent times, evidence of sturdy insanity. Now thanks to a New York Times interview with Alice Walker, it’s been reduced to merely a point of view. To cite the Times’s own motto, this interview was definitely not “news that’s fit to print.”
Walker, of course, is a highly praised novelist best known for “The Color Purple,” for which she won a Pulitzer Prize. Her renown is great, and it was no doubt on this basis that the Times interviewed her for its “By the Book” feature that runs in the Sunday Book Review. The trouble started with the first question.
“What books are on your nightstand?” the Times asked. The second book Walker named was “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by the British conspiracy theorist David Icke. The book is so repellently anti-Semitic that Icke’s usual publisher wouldn’t touch it. Among other things, it endorses that hoary anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which blames evil Jews for much of the world’s ills. The book also suggests that schools ought to balance lessons on the Holocaust with some questioning whether it ever even happened, and it reveals that the world is run by a cabal of giant, shape-shifting lizards, many of whom just happen to be Jewish.
Times readers howled. The paper should have flagged the book as an anti-Semitic tome, they insisted. The Times disagreed. It doesn’t do that sort of thing in its “By the Book” feature. In the Times’s response, the paper conceded that Icke “has been accused of anti-Semitism,” a bit like conceding that David Duke has been accused of racism. Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”. . . .

Yeah... not one of their best moments that at the NYTs if you ask me.

 

[Xelor]

Anti-Semitism at the New York Times

So far I've only read this thread's title and not the corresponding WaPo article. Does the article indicate there actually is anti-Semitism afoot among the NYT's staff and managers? I don't know....I'm gonna read the editorial referenced in the OP, the NYT's Walker interview, and find out.....


From the WaPo editorial...

The trouble started with the first question. “What books are on your nightstand?” the Times asked. The second book [author Alice] Walker named was “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by ... David Icke. The book is so repellently anti-Semitic that Icke’s usual publisher wouldn’t touch it....Times readers howled. The paper should have flagged the book as an anti-Semitic tome, they insisted. The Times disagreed.
​

• 
  [*=1]What? To what end? So people who consume only distillate prose about other people can be "told" what to think about Walker or Icke?

The [NYT} book review editor, Pamela Paul, submitted to some questions, one of which was why the Times did not ask Walker to account for her odd literary taste.
​

1. 
   [*=1]De gustibus non disputandum est
   [*=1]What makes the fact of her reading that book be indicative of her literary taste? To wit, do you not read to abet your intellectual development as well as your literary taste? I read for both purposes; I'm sure plenty of others do too. And, yes, some texts, to varying degrees, satiate both interests and others appeal to one or the other.
   
   Be that as it may, the only way to fully understand anything is to, as any good solicitor or analyst will state, know it from "both" sides; thus be Walker an anti-Semite or a Semite-supporter, it yet behooves her to reconnoiter for read content sympathetic to both sides.
   • 
     [*=1]Confirmation Bias
     [*=1]Filter Bubble -- Note strictly the term applies to Internet behavior; however, the concept extends handily too to non-Internet/non-tech reflexive contexts.
     
     

The Times neglected to ask the Times (Paul) if it even knew that Walker was an anti-Semite.
​

• 
  [*=1]Red: It's contextually disingenuous of Cohen to intimate that Paul's views represent/equate to the NYT's. The only people who speak for the the NYT are its editorial board members and it's publisher/owner, A.B. Sulzberger, and Paul is none of those individuals.
  [*=1]Blue: If I read Mien Kampf, am I a Nazi sympathizer and or anti-Semite? If I object to your political stance, does that mean I necessarily also hate your existential traits, such as your being Jewish, Catholic, etc?

​

Okay, so having read the essay, it's clear that Cohen objects to the NYT's story editor/writer taking a neutral stance toward Walker; however, he's also made inferences about Walker on account of what's on her nightstand and the fact of her holding a political stance other than "if Israel says so, it must be so, and to oppose Israel is to hate Jews." The short of my assessment of Cohen's ideas as expressed in his editorial is that he's tilting at windmills.

 

[truthatallcost]

NYT's owner is Jewish, the editorial staff is mostly Jewish, and it's OP-ED columns are written mostly by Jews. I'm all for legitimate criticism of NYT, after all they once welcomed Leon Trotsky to breach America's shores, and would do so again if he were alive. They're about as New York City Jewish as it gets.

 

[Crovax]

Here's an ugly episode, with the New York Times normalizing hate.





Anti-Semitism is not just another opinion]The New York Times should know better.LeBron James apologizes for sharing anti-Semitic song lyrics on Instagram

• By Richard Cohen

Over the centuries, anti-Semitism has been many things — a religious conviction, an ideology, a national ethic, an unadorned expression of hate and, in more recent times, evidence of sturdy insanity. Now thanks to a New York Times interview with Alice Walker, it’s been reduced to merely a point of view. To cite the Times’s own motto, this interview was definitely not “news that’s fit to print.”
Walker, of course, is a highly praised novelist best known for “The Color Purple,” for which she won a Pulitzer Prize. Her renown is great, and it was no doubt on this basis that the Times interviewed her for its “By the Book” feature that runs in the Sunday Book Review. The trouble started with the first question.
“What books are on your nightstand?” the Times asked. The second book Walker named was “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by the British conspiracy theorist David Icke. The book is so repellently anti-Semitic that Icke’s usual publisher wouldn’t touch it. Among other things, it endorses that hoary anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which blames evil Jews for much of the world’s ills. The book also suggests that schools ought to balance lessons on the Holocaust with some questioning whether it ever even happened, and it reveals that the world is run by a cabal of giant, shape-shifting lizards, many of whom just happen to be Jewish.
Times readers howled. The paper should have flagged the book as an anti-Semitic tome, they insisted. The Times disagreed. It doesn’t do that sort of thing in its “By the Book” feature. In the Times’s response, the paper conceded that Icke “has been accused of anti-Semitism,” a bit like conceding that David Duke has been accused of racism. Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”. . . .

Unfortunately this is the new normal in America now.

Black is an anti-Semite and it’s published in the NYT or posted by a person with 50 million followers. (LeBron James apologizes for sharing anti-Semitic song lyrics on Instagram)

A Jew says something racist about a black and they are forced to sell their business

 

[TheParser]

The moral of this thread: One must be very, very careful about what others know or think they know about one. In this case, the lady in question should have had the smarts not to mention that particular book.

For example, I am such a coward that I will not subscribe to certain magazines, lest the letter carrier become suspicious of my political views and decide to take some kind of retaliatory action.

 

[Thoreau72]

The charge of being anti-Semitic seems to be another way of saying "I don't want to talk about the crimes of the Israeli government". It is a cop-out, and relieves the accuser of having to present real facts or evidence, at least in his own view.

 

[marke]

Here's an ugly episode, with the New York Times normalizing hate.





Anti-Semitism is not just another opinion. The New York Times should know better.

• By Richard Cohen

Over the centuries, anti-Semitism has been many things — a religious conviction, an ideology, a national ethic, an unadorned expression of hate and, in more recent times, evidence of sturdy insanity. Now thanks to a New York Times interview with Alice Walker, it’s been reduced to merely a point of view. To cite the Times’s own motto, this interview was definitely not “news that’s fit to print.”
Walker, of course, is a highly praised novelist best known for “The Color Purple,” for which she won a Pulitzer Prize. Her renown is great, and it was no doubt on this basis that the Times interviewed her for its “By the Book” feature that runs in the Sunday Book Review. The trouble started with the first question.
“What books are on your nightstand?” the Times asked. The second book Walker named was “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by the British conspiracy theorist David Icke. The book is so repellently anti-Semitic that Icke’s usual publisher wouldn’t touch it. Among other things, it endorses that hoary anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which blames evil Jews for much of the world’s ills. The book also suggests that schools ought to balance lessons on the Holocaust with some questioning whether it ever even happened, and it reveals that the world is run by a cabal of giant, shape-shifting lizards, many of whom just happen to be Jewish.
Times readers howled. The paper should have flagged the book as an anti-Semitic tome, they insisted. The Times disagreed. It doesn’t do that sort of thing in its “By the Book” feature. In the Times’s response, the paper conceded that Icke “has been accused of anti-Semitism,” a bit like conceding that David Duke has been accused of racism. Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”. . . .

The ungodly are hateful and wicked. You cannot clean them up. They are pigs in their slop and washing them off to be presented in public does nothing to hide the animosity they harbor in their hearts towards God and humans they don't like.

 

[Jack Hays]

So far I've only read this thread's title and not the corresponding WaPo article. Does the article indicate there actually is anti-Semitism afoot among the NYT's staff and managers? I don't know....I'm gonna read the editorial referenced in the OP, the NYT's Walker interview, and find out.....


From the WaPo editorial...

The trouble started with the first question. “What books are on your nightstand?” the Times asked. The second book [author Alice] Walker named was “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by ... David Icke. The book is so repellently anti-Semitic that Icke’s usual publisher wouldn’t touch it....Times readers howled. The paper should have flagged the book as an anti-Semitic tome, they insisted. The Times disagreed.
​

• 
  [*=1]What? To what end? So people who consume only distillate prose about other people can be "told" what to think about Walker or Icke?

The [NYT} book review editor, Pamela Paul, submitted to some questions, one of which was why the Times did not ask Walker to account for her odd literary taste.
​

1. 
   [*=1]De gustibus non disputandum est
   [*=1]What makes the fact of her reading that book be indicative of her literary taste? To wit, do you not read to abet your intellectual development as well as your literary taste? I read for both purposes; I'm sure plenty of others do too. And, yes, some texts, to varying degrees, satiate both interests and others appeal to one or the other.
   
   Be that as it may, the only way to fully understand anything is to, as any good solicitor or analyst will state, know it from "both" sides; thus be Walker an anti-Semite or a Semite-supporter, it yet behooves her to reconnoiter for read content sympathetic to both sides.
   • 
     [*=1]Confirmation Bias
     [*=1]Filter Bubble -- Note strictly the term applies to Internet behavior; however, the concept extends handily too to non-Internet/non-tech reflexive contexts.
     
     

The Times neglected to ask the Times (Paul) if it even knew that Walker was an anti-Semite.
​

• 
  [*=1]Red: It's contextually disingenuous of Cohen to intimate that Paul's views represent/equate to the NYT's. The only people who speak for the the NYT are its editorial board members and it's publisher/owner, A.B. Sulzberger, and Paul is none of those individuals.
  [*=1]Blue: If I read Mien Kampf, am I a Nazi sympathizer and or anti-Semite? If I object to your political stance, does that mean I necessarily also hate your existential traits, such as your being Jewish, Catholic, etc?

​

Okay, so having read the essay, it's clear that Cohen objects to the NYT's story editor/writer taking a neutral stance toward Walker; however, he's also made inferences about Walker on account of what's on her nightstand and the fact of her holding a political stance other than "if Israel says so, it must be so, and to oppose Israel is to hate Jews." The short of my assessment of Cohen's ideas as expressed in his editorial is that he's tilting at windmills.

NYT's owner is Jewish, the editorial staff is mostly Jewish, and it's OP-ED columns are written mostly by Jews. I'm all for legitimate criticism of NYT, after all they once welcomed Leon Trotsky to breach America's shores, and would do so again if he were alive. They're about as New York City Jewish as it gets.

From the OP link:

". . . Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”. . . "

 

[Hawkeye10]

Jamming NYT's for not acting as the thought cop here goes to show how far we have already traveled towards UTOPIA.

They did nothing wrong in the original interview.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jamming NYT's for not acting as the thought cop here goes to show how far we have already traveled towards UTOPIA.

They did nothing wrong in the original interview.

From the OP link:

". . . The tone of Paul’s response is appalling. She surely does not mean to, but she manages to treat anti-Semitism as just another point of view — not a hatred with a unique and appalling pedigree that has led to unending slaughter, including the murder of 6 million, pogroms in Kielce in Poland (1946), York in England (1190) and the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia (1915). What’s lacking from the Times is appropriate shock at Alice Walker’s bigotry and its own refusal to admit a mistake. An apology would be fit to print."

 

[washunut]

From the OP link:

". . . The tone of Paul’s response is appalling. She surely does not mean to, but she manages to treat anti-Semitism as just another point of view — not a hatred with a unique and appalling pedigree that has led to unending slaughter, including the murder of 6 million, pogroms in Kielce in Poland (1946), York in England (1190) and the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia (1915). What’s lacking from the Times is appropriate shock at Alice Walker’s bigotry and its own refusal to admit a mistake. An apology would be fit to print."

Not surprising and not a random change for the Times. Do a little research of its handling of the holocaust and you will find this is part of thir legacy.

Nor is it surprising to read some of the responses to this thread.

 

[Mr Person]

Oh look, people pretending to care about anti-semitism so that they have an excuse to attack the Hated Liberals.

Have a merry whatever, I guess.

 

[rocket88]

Here's an ugly episode, with the New York Times normalizing hate.





Anti-Semitism is not just another opinion. The New York Times should know better.

• By Richard Cohen

Over the centuries, anti-Semitism has been many things — a religious conviction, an ideology, a national ethic, an unadorned expression of hate and, in more recent times, evidence of sturdy insanity. Now thanks to a New York Times interview with Alice Walker, it’s been reduced to merely a point of view. To cite the Times’s own motto, this interview was definitely not “news that’s fit to print.”
Walker, of course, is a highly praised novelist best known for “The Color Purple,” for which she won a Pulitzer Prize. Her renown is great, and it was no doubt on this basis that the Times interviewed her for its “By the Book” feature that runs in the Sunday Book Review. The trouble started with the first question.
“What books are on your nightstand?” the Times asked. The second book Walker named was “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by the British conspiracy theorist David Icke. The book is so repellently anti-Semitic that Icke’s usual publisher wouldn’t touch it. Among other things, it endorses that hoary anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which blames evil Jews for much of the world’s ills. The book also suggests that schools ought to balance lessons on the Holocaust with some questioning whether it ever even happened, and it reveals that the world is run by a cabal of giant, shape-shifting lizards, many of whom just happen to be Jewish.
Times readers howled. The paper should have flagged the book as an anti-Semitic tome, they insisted. The Times disagreed. It doesn’t do that sort of thing in its “By the Book” feature. In the Times’s response, the paper conceded that Icke “has been accused of anti-Semitism,” a bit like conceding that David Duke has been accused of racism. Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”. . . .

Wait, they asked a person a question and printed the response? How evil!

Should they have not printed the response? Maybe censor it to keep from offending people?

 

[rocket88]

Oh look, people pretending to care about anti-semitism so that they have an excuse to attack the Hated Liberals.

Have a merry whatever, I guess.

You'd think they'd be happy that the Times is finally printing a far-right opinion. "Fine people" are people too!

 

[rocket88]

NYT's owner is Jewish, the editorial staff is mostly Jewish, and it's OP-ED columns are written mostly by Jews. I'm all for legitimate criticism of NYT, after all they once welcomed Leon Trotsky to breach America's shores, and would do so again if he were alive. They're about as New York City Jewish as it gets.

Because Jews are communists and won't replace us?

 

[Jack Hays]

You'd think they'd be happy that the Times is finally printing a far-right opinion. "Fine people" are people too!

Richard Cohen is the opposite of "far right."

 

[Jack Hays]

Wait, they asked a person a question and printed the response? How evil!

Should they have not printed the response? Maybe censor it to keep from offending people?

From the OP link:

". . . The tone of Paul’s response is appalling. She surely does not mean to, but she manages to treat anti-Semitism as just another point of view — not a hatred with a unique and appalling pedigree that has led to unending slaughter, including the murder of 6 million, pogroms in Kielce in Poland (1946), York in England (1190) and the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia (1915). What’s lacking from the Times is appropriate shock at Alice Walker’s bigotry and its own refusal to admit a mistake. An apology would be fit to print."

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh look, people pretending to care about anti-semitism so that they have an excuse to attack the Hated Liberals.

Have a merry whatever, I guess.

1. It is breathtaking presumption to assert someone is "pretending to care."
2. It is a sad fact that anti-Semitism, once a far right phenomenon, has now taken root on the left.

 

[Rogue Valley]

In order to understand some phenomena, you have to read it and dissect it.

If Mein Kampf was on my nightstand, would that fact infer that I am a Nazi or a Hitler supporter?

Some of you folks need to escape your confirmation bubbles.

 

[Jack Hays]

In order to understand some phenomena, you have to read it and dissect it.

If Mein Kampf was on my nightstand, would that fact infer that I am a Nazi or a Hitler supporter?

Some of you folks need to escape your confirmation bubbles.

Except that Walker is an anti-Semite. From the OP link:

". . . Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?” . . . "

 

[OlNate]

Here's an ugly episode, with the New York Times normalizing hate.





Anti-Semitism is not just another opinion. The New York Times should know better.

• By Richard Cohen

Over the centuries, anti-Semitism has been many things — a religious conviction, an ideology, a national ethic, an unadorned expression of hate and, in more recent times, evidence of sturdy insanity. Now thanks to a New York Times interview with Alice Walker, it’s been reduced to merely a point of view. To cite the Times’s own motto, this interview was definitely not “news that’s fit to print.”
Walker, of course, is a highly praised novelist best known for “The Color Purple,” for which she won a Pulitzer Prize. Her renown is great, and it was no doubt on this basis that the Times interviewed her for its “By the Book” feature that runs in the Sunday Book Review. The trouble started with the first question.
“What books are on your nightstand?” the Times asked. The second book Walker named was “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by the British conspiracy theorist David Icke. The book is so repellently anti-Semitic that Icke’s usual publisher wouldn’t touch it. Among other things, it endorses that hoary anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which blames evil Jews for much of the world’s ills. The book also suggests that schools ought to balance lessons on the Holocaust with some questioning whether it ever even happened, and it reveals that the world is run by a cabal of giant, shape-shifting lizards, many of whom just happen to be Jewish.
Times readers howled. The paper should have flagged the book as an anti-Semitic tome, they insisted. The Times disagreed. It doesn’t do that sort of thing in its “By the Book” feature. In the Times’s response, the paper conceded that Icke “has been accused of anti-Semitism,” a bit like conceding that David Duke has been accused of racism. Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”. . . .

For what it's worth...I think it's fine to call out this woman, and scrutinize her work. It should be done, regardless of her political lean. I expect you'd show the same discipline for people voicing opinions on the right....right?

Where you lose me, once again, is when you use one example to broad brush the entire left. First of all, it's inaccurate, sloppy, and lazy. Second of all, it puts folks that might otherwise support your concern on the defensive. I wonder when folks will finally realize that thoughtless generalization torpedos their thread before it begins?

 

[sangha]

Except that Walker is an anti-Semite. From the OP link:

". . . Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?” . . . "

Wow!! She asked questions?

OMG! She must be an anti-semite. Only they ask questions

 

[Jack Hays]

For what it's worth...I think it's fine to call out this woman, and scrutinize her work. It should be done, regardless of her political lean. I expect you'd show the same discipline for people voicing opinions on the right....right?

Where you lose me, once again, is when you use one example to broad brush the entire left. First of all, it's inaccurate, sloppy, and lazy. Second of all, it puts folks that might otherwise support your concern on the defensive. I wonder when folks will finally realize that thoughtless generalization torpedos their thread before it begins?

The only person broad brushing "the entire left" is you. The OP focuses on the NYT. I offered one response in the thread to a poster who claimed it was just an excuse to bash liberals. Not true. I pointed out that anti-Semitism, once a phenomenon of the right, has now also taken root on the left. Neither every conservative nor every liberal is anti-Semitic, but some are.

 

[rocket88]

Richard Cohen is the opposite of "far right."

Anti-Semitism is a hallmark of the far right. It wasn't liberals chanting "Jews will not replace us."