[vmarks]

Today, the NYT op-ed page decided to publish the words of a Hamas terrorist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/op...erland&emc=rss

The NYT describes him today as "“a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya.”

But that isn't how they described him in the past.

According to a 1993 New York Times article:

Mr. Salah said the political command of Hamas in the United States is at the United Association for Studies and Research, in Springfield, Va. He identified the Hamas leader in the United States as the head of the institute, Ahmed Youssef, a writer whose code name he said was Abu Ahmed. He also said Mousa Abu-Marzuk, known as Abu Omar, 51, of Arlington, Va., was the political chief…

Hamas, remember, is a terrorist organization outlawed in America.

In 1998, he gave an interview ( http://www.meforum.org/article/388 ) in which he defended Hamas, suicide bombings and encouraged attacks on Jews. Asked if he wrote, "God has promised that the Muslims will fight the Jews and defeat them," Yousef answered that he did, and continued, “I took this from an authentic Islamic hadith (or tradition) that does not say when this defeat will happen or where. My objective in using this quote is to assure the Palestinian people that one day justice will be realized and to encourage them to continue their struggles with the assurance of victory against the occupation.”

Basically, when he was in the US he denied all links to Hamas. And as soon as he was in private, or had left, he started championing murder of the Jews.

Again, according to the 1993 Times article:

Mr. Youssef denied that he or his association had any links to Hamas.
Mr. Youssef said Mr. Abu-Marzuk had been a member of the association's board but had resigned in November, and Mr. Abu-Marzuk did not respond to repeated telephone calls.

Remember the Hamas charter: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.
…

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

In his op-ed, Yousef misrepresents the concept of the hudna, and specifically the Hamas position on any “truce” with Israel. In fact, Yousef’s ultimate boss, Hamas political chief Khaled Mishal, has referred to the hudna as simply, “rest for the warrior.” That is, it's a break from fighting so that Hamas can re-arm, a break until they can be assured victory. Not a truce at all.

Yousef speaks nicely to Americans about peace, Israeli military intelligence has reported witnessing a massive build-up of Hamas weaponry, according to Haaretz, “Since the beginning of the year, more than 20 tons of explosives, anti-aircraft missiles and antitank missiles have been smuggled into Gaza.” --http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/775101.html


We had a Hamas terrorist in the US raising money for murders to be perpetrated upon Israelis because they were Jews (read that Hamas charter if you're in doubt) and the NYT has chosen to print his deceitful op-ed.

The next time someone tells me about news organizations being unbiased, I want them to think about this.

[nonhuman]

Wouldn't it be showing bias to refuse to print what he says for political reasons?

[vmarks]

Yes. I just don't approve of people claiming the NYT is unbiased now that it is so blatantly obvious.

I likewise disapprove of their choice. They've given a podium to murderous thugs who intend to commit genocide.

[Mithras]

I dunno, better to hear what they have to say. They're in an elected government for frick's sake.
Not to drag out the usual point of comparison, but I'd sure as heck want the newspaper to publish the works of Hitler after he'd been named Chancellor so we could hear what he had to say & figure out that he was a doof.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

I dunno, better to hear what they have to say. They're in an elected government for frick's sake.
Not to drag out the usual point of comparison, but I'd sure as heck want the newspaper to publish the works of Hitler after he'd been named Chancellor so we could hear what he had to say & figure out that he was a doof.

Exactly.

I believe in freedom of speech, not just in the context of the US Constitution, but as a Universal Good. I don't just want to hear what Americans have to say, I want to hear what everyone has to say. Isolating ourselves from the input of the rest of the world, even if we don't like that input, does no one any good.

[Nicko]

Op-ed pieces are just that, opinions. They don't have to be unbiased, they present a point of view. If you don't like it write your own op-ed.

Now, if it were an editorial we were talking about, then nytimes could be said to be biased.

[Dork.]

Like it or not, if there is going to be any peace in the region, some of the players at the negotiating table are people who the other side will consider to be terrorists. It was like this in Northern Ireland, there were Irish representatives in the power-sharing government who the British representatives initially refused to acknowledge, because they accused them of foul deeds in the past, and because of those deeds generally did not trust them. But these were the people that the Irish side were putting forth to represent their interests. Although great strides have been taken in Northern Ireland, the power-sharing government is still in jeopardy, and this lack of trust between the sides is one of the main reasons.

This op-ed writer, no matter what his past deeds were, is currently in a position of influence in the Palestinian government, and is espousing a position that, taken at face value, appears to further the cause of a lasting peace in the region. Why shouldn't the Times publish it? There can't be any peace without trust, and the trust has to start somewhere....

[vmarks]

When asked if they hold to the Hamas charter earlier this year, they said they do not revoke one word.

The charter, which I linked to, calls for genocide of Jews.

Where are we supposed to begin this trust, precisely?

They are willing to die for their cause, what makes you think they won't use the NYT as a PR tool?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Exactly.

I believe in freedom of speech, not just in the context of the US Constitution, but as a Universal Good. I don't just want to hear what Americans have to say, I want to hear what everyone has to say. Isolating ourselves from the input of the rest of the world, even if we don't like that input, does no one any good.

Ah, but what of isolating those who intend to commit genocide? Why should they be given an audience?

Free speech does not require the NYT to provide them with the audience.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Yes. I just don't approve of people claiming the NYT is unbiased now that it is so blatantly obvious.

I likewise disapprove of their choice. They've given a podium to murderous thugs who intend to commit genocide.

You know, after we invaded Afghanistan the left began their campaign of hate against Bush and America, I couldn't figure out for the life of me what the appeal of radical Islam could possibly be to them when it is diametrically opposed to the leftists idea of a utopian world. Then I saw that their hatred for Bush and America is only matched by how much Muslim extremists hate Bush and what we stand for and it became painfully obvious that the fact that Radical islamists hate Bush, is good enough for the left.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Ah, but what of isolating those who intend to commit genocide? Why should they be given an audience?

Free speech does not require the NYT to provide them with the audience.

See the point of an op-ed piece is to present different and informed opinion on a subject.

You live in a free society and are free to disagree with other's opinions. Since you appear to disagree with this particular opinion, you should write a rebuttal to the NYT, maybe you'll get lucky and be published! (Though I suppose if you don't you'll just accuse the NYT of being biased ) Who knows. At the very least you could post your rebuttal in one of their blogs.

Now what would be more constructive?

Call for an end to free speech (and thus democracy)?

Or accept that other people may not agree with you?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

When asked if they hold to the Hamas charter earlier this year, they said they do not revoke one word.

The charter, which I linked to, calls for genocide of Jews.

Where are we supposed to begin this trust, precisely?

They are willing to die for their cause, what makes you think they won't use the NYT as a PR tool?

A document like the Hamas Charter, while it does speak for the movement as a whole, does not necessarily speak for every single individual in Hamas. Especially now that Hamas has the responsability of government in Gaza, it is not out of the question that specific individuals, while still loyal to the organization, work to establish peace first and foremost over these ancient grudges. And given Hamas' history, it is entirely likely that these individuals were, at one time, not model world citizens. Trust is hard, and since I'm not right there in the thick of the situation, I can't say for sure where trust should start. But it's necessary to get to a peaceful solution.

All I'm saying is that the NY Times has to take the op-ed at face value, where it gives a message of peaceful reconciliation between the parties, and respect this guy's words as a person with influence in Hamas, which is running a government right now. Just like they would have to have taken an op-ed by Ariel Sharon at face value, written as the Prime Minister of Israel, even though many people think he's a war criminal.

[marden]

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm

A Measure of Media Bias

Tim Groseclose
Department of Political Science
UCLA

Jeff Milyo
Department of Economics
University of Missouri

December 2004

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

A document like the Hamas Charter, while it does speak for the movement as a whole, does not necessarily speak for every single individual in Hamas. Especially now that Hamas has the responsability of government in Gaza, it is not out of the question that specific individuals, while still loyal to the organization, work to establish peace first and foremost over these ancient grudges. And given Hamas' history, it is entirely likely that these individuals were, at one time, not model world citizens. Trust is hard, and since I'm not right there in the thick of the situation, I can't say for sure where trust should start. But it's necessary to get to a peaceful solution.

All I'm saying is that the NY Times has to take the op-ed at face value, where it gives a message of peaceful reconciliation between the parties, and respect this guy's words as a person with influence in Hamas, which is running a government right now. Just like they would have to have taken an op-ed by Ariel Sharon at face value, written as the Prime Minister of Israel, even though many people think he's a war criminal.

It says it does.

The Call to Jihad:

------------------

'The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the

individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation,

it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15)



'Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses

everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the

call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'. This cry will

reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is

achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah's victory comes about.'

(Article 33)

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

But when the Iranians shout "Death To America" every Friday after prayers as they have the past 25 years, I'm sure they don't mean ALL Americans...

Well, I'm kinda sure...I think maybe they don't...

From the History channel's program, "IRAN= The Next iraq?"

Every Friday after prayers, crowds chant, "Death to America. It is a ritual that has gone on for much of the past quarter century. This boiling rage is fueled by a single idea. Iranian leaders blame the US for their status as a weak nation. (John Pike) "They believe themselves to be a Godly society and they see us as their tormentors and their oppressors."

(Brig. Gen. David Grange (Ret.) ) "It's not just a slogan to hate America, to kill Americans, it's a policy."

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

See the point of an op-ed piece is to present different and informed opinion on a subject.

You live in a free society and are free to disagree with other's opinions. Since you appear to disagree with this particular opinion, you should write a rebuttal to the NYT, maybe you'll get lucky and be published! (Though I suppose if you don't you'll just accuse the NYT of being biased ) Who knows. At the very least you could post your rebuttal in one of their blogs.

Now what would be more constructive?

Call for an end to free speech (and thus democracy)?

Or accept that other people may not agree with you?

I fully accept that people may not agree with me.

I also don't have to approve of giving them a soapbox to stand on. Free speech does not require that they be given an audience. I can disapprove of that. Or would you call for an end to my speaking my disapproval?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I fully accept that people may not agree with me.

I also don't have to approve of giving them a soapbox to stand on. Free speech does not require that they be given an audience. I can disapprove of that. Or would you call for an end to my speaking my disapproval?

You can disapprove of the NYT's publishing the Op-Ed without also seeking to censor the author of the specific Op-Ed. But you don't want to simply express disapproval of what the NYT did, you want the NYT to censor those who submit Op-Ed pieces. And you should be criticized for calling for censorship of ideas--however horrible those ideas may be--in a secular, democratic nation.

[vmarks]

Sure, I want the NYT to make choices that are not reprehensible.

Here, they've made a dangerously bad choice in making themselves a mouthpiece for a terrorist.

Criticize me all you like, free speech does not mean giving people a microphone. It just means the government doesn't pass a law restricting that speech.

I'm not calling for government action of any kind. I'm saying that the NYT made a disastrous choice, and should be ashamed.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Sure, I want the NYT to make choices that are not reprehensible.

Here, they've made a dangerously bad choice in making themselves a mouthpiece for a terrorist.

Criticize me all you like, free speech does not mean giving people a microphone. It just means the government doesn't pass a law restricting that speech.

I'm not calling for government action of any kind. I'm saying that the NYT made a disastrous choice, and should be ashamed.

I'm saying that the NYT made a disastrous choice, and should be ashamed.
Allright, you've said your piece about the matter. Feel better? Or do you want to keep rambling on about it?


(I, for one, am offended/horrified by a lot of people who get published in the NYT Op-Ed pages. I still want those people who offend/horrify me to be published.)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Allright, you've said your piece about the matter. Feel better? Or do you want to keep rambling on about it?

What is this all about?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Ah, but what of isolating those who intend to commit genocide? Why should they be given an audience?

Free speech does not require the NYT to provide them with the audience.

They should be given an audience so that it can be understood by the public that these people can not be trusted. It does nothing to hinder these people by keeping their opinions under wraps, if anything, it adds to the mystique and romance of their cause and gives sympathizers the wiggle room to deny the evil in their motives.

People made and make the same argument about Mein Kampf; they are wrong. I read it, not because I agree with what Hitler believed or did, but because I, as a Jew, wanted to try and understand why it is that someone would want to kill me for no reason other than my ancestry.

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

A Measure of Media Bias

A Measure of Media Bias

Very cool. Thanks for the link.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Exactly.

I believe in freedom of speech, not just in the context of the US Constitution, but as a Universal Good. I don't just want to hear what Americans have to say, I want to hear what everyone has to say. Isolating ourselves from the input of the rest of the world, even if we don't like that input, does no one any good.

Don't let Spliffdaddy hear you say that.

[Chuckit]

I print opinion pieces by people with whom I disagree all the time. Does that make me biased?

[Sky Captain]

No, if you only printed opinion pieces that agreed with your adgenda.
And excluded the ones that didn't
The you would be biased.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Ah, but what of isolating those who intend to commit genocide? Why should they be given an audience?

Free speech does not require the NYT to provide them with the audience.

Then don't subscribe to the NYT. I hope you're not suggesting that the government get in the business of what constitutes free speech

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Then don't subscribe to the NYT. I hope you're not suggesting that the government get in the business of what constitutes free speech

If you had read up, you would see where I had said that I absolutely do not propose government intervention. I just am bringing attention to the shameful NYT.

[marden]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Then don't subscribe to the NYT. I hope you're not suggesting that the government get in the business of what constitutes free speech

Excuse my jumping in here and cherry picking, but I'd suggest the NYT get in the business of journalism...

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of — truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability — as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent reportage to the public.

Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of "limitation of harm." This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims' names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone's reputation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal..._and_standards

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

Very cool. Thanks for the link.

I'm here to enlighten.

Speaking of which, notice that CNN's Newsnight with Aaron Brown is shown in that chart to be close to the average/center (though their overall coverage isn't).

But look what Juan Williams said:

Juan Williams Agrees CNN 'Is In The Tank' For the Democrats (Surprise, Surprise!)
NewsBusters ^ | 10/30/2006 | Dave Pierre

Posted on 10/30/2006 6:35:27 PM PST by tobyhill

In an eye-opening exchange on The O'Reilly Factor this evening (Monday, October 30, 2006), liberal Fox News analyst Juan Williams agreed with host Bill O'Reilly that CNN "is in the tank for the Democrats." The topic of the segment was Friday's testy exchange between Lynne Cheney and CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

O'REILLY: ... But the bigger picture is that Lynne Cheney asserts that CNN, in its election coverage, Juan, is in the tank for the Democrats. You buying that?

WILLIAMS: Yeah. I think that's true.

O'REILLY: (surprised) Do you really?

WILLIAMS: Yeah. I think that they are counter-programming Fox, is what it looks like to me.

O'REILLY: Well, no. MSNBC is doing that.

WILLIAMS: Well -

O'REILLY: You think that CNN's in the tank for the Democrats?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think that "Broken Government" program that Lynne Cheney was talking about - You know, Lynne Cheney made a really strong point when she said, "You know, the economy's doing pretty good. Where's this broken?" I have problems with this administration - look - in terms of American democracy. I don't know. It looks to me, though, that they are becoming more and more partisan. And that's what they think we do here at Fox.

O'REILLY: That's really interesting that you would say that, because Juan, of course, is the king of NPR and a liberal guy himself. Ummm. I don't know. I mean, I have to say. I'm busy here working all day. I'm not watching The Situation Room. I mean, I see the transcripts, but I don't know if they're in the tank.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1728869/posts

So, if CNN is in the tank, NYT must be "in hell!"