Today's New York Times carries an editorial that runs under the headline "Diplomatic Balance in the Mideast." The editorial calls for "a balanced approach," an "evenhanded American effort" to mediate between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. This is just ridiculous. Would the Times call on Britain to adopt a "balanced," "evenhanded" approach between the United States and Osama Bin Laden? Israel is a country that shares America's values of freedom and democracy. It was a steady friend to America in the Cold War and the Gulf War. The PLO is a terrorist organization that runs the West Bank and Gaza as a corrupt dictatorship. It sided against America in the Cold War and the Gulf War. For America to approach the Israeli-Arab conflict in a "balanced," "evenhanded" manner would be a betrayal of America's friendship with Israel.
It's bad enough that the Times editorializes to this effect. But the views spill over into the news coverage, as well. The Times' support for balance and evenhandedness, it seems extends to the Bush administration's diplomacy but not to the newspaper's own news operations. The Times carries a dispatch from Tel Aviv in today's paper that reports, "Now that the talks are under way, the predicament facing Mr. Sharon is that if he pronounces the cease-fire dead and blocks further talks he will risk the appearance of undermining Mr. Bush's war on terrorism." This is twisted. If the Israeli Prime Minister refuses to negotiate further with the terrorists, he "risks the appearance of undermining Mr. Bush's war on terrorism"? If Mr. Bush's war on terrorism consists of pressuring Israel's democratically elected government to negotiate further with the terrorists, then appearing to undermine it is not a "risk" but a benefit. This seems to Smartertimes.com like a predicament facing Mr. Bush, not one facing Mr. Sharon. The word "appearance" is particularly rich. Mr. Sharon is being told to worry about how he will appear to the Times, which has a twisted view of the situation.
Another dispatch in today's Times runs under the headline, "U.S. Jews Split on Washington's Shift on Palestinian State." That article claims "a significant split has emerged among American Jewish organizations over the Bush administration's consideration of a diplomatic initiative that would include United States support for the creation of a Palestinian state." It's an incredibly one-sided dispatch. The Times quotes extensively from a letter from left-wing factions in the American Jewish community and from interviews with longtime extremist "peace" activists. But when it comes time to represent the views of the mainstream and center-right wing of the community, the Times relies only on an old "statement" and an old quote from "a news report." It is as if the Times reporter doesn't deign personally to speak with anyone who is not a member of the left wing. Those who oppose the timing of the announcement of the Bush administration's initiative, or those who oppose the initiative itself, aren't given a chance in the Times article to respond to the leftists' letter.
Trade Caricature: An article on page B8 of today's New York Times runs under the headline "Gephardt Says He Will Resist Bush on Trade." The article reports that labor unions "fear that expanded trade would cost jobs in this country, particularly in manufacturing, where unions are strong." That's a caricature of the unions' position on trade. In fact most labor union leaders are sophisticated enough to realize that expanded trade can actually mean gains in jobs in this country -- even manufacturing jobs, as America exports goods. The unions say their objection is not to the expansion of trade in principle but to the expansion of trade with unfree countries where workers don't have the same right to organize unions and bargain collectively that they do in America. The Times could argue that the union claims about worker rights abroad are just a smokescreen for protectionist anti-trade sentiment. But the sentence in today's article doesn't do justice to position articulated by the unions.
Mark Green and Al Sharpton: An article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports, "All of this explains why Mr. Green has declined the advice of supporters who have urged him to attack Mr. Sharpton." Today's New York Post has a headline, "Mark Roughs Up Rev. Al." Sometimes it really seems like these newspapers are writing about two different cities.
SPECIAL CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENT: Newspaper business executive -- Smartertimes.com was founded June 19, 2000, "dedicated to assembling a community of readers to support a new newspaper that would offer an alternative to the dominant daily." That effort has now advanced to the point where a search is underway for a business executive to lead the circulation and advertising-sales effort of a new daily newspaper in New York. The successful candidate will be entrepreneurial, creative, capable and energetic, will have some publishing industry experience, and will be willing to work long hours in a start-up environment. Compensation in the low six-figures. This venture is an equal opportunity employer, and candidates of all backgrounds are encouraged to apply. Interested candidates should contact [email protected].