His name is Yaakov

Remember the "extreme right wing Jewish settler" of the al-Reuters caption, brought to our attention by Elder of Ziyon?

His name is Yaakov.

Best. Response. Ever.  I wish we could respond in this way to every photo caption dhimmedia churns out, dehumanizing Israeli Jews.

 

Seven long years ago, I wrote to Daniel Okrent, then "public editor" at the New York Times, along these same lines:

"While it is deemed newsworthy that 'After the bombing, [the terrorist's] husband was seen crying outside the family home,' there is no mention made whatsoever of even just the names of those who were murdered..."

Six weeks after my original letter, I received his reply:

"I'm sorry for the delay in this response. The normal press of work; the transition between the old foreign editor and the new one . . . and the complex nature of your charges all conspired against a speedy reply. I also have to acknowledge that your comment after the initial delay did not induce me to want to respond quickly . . . .It did not seem like the beginning of a fruitful conversation.

"Do I disagree with your charges? Not necessarily - although your expectation of seeing the names of every one of the Israelis killed seems neither realistic nor fair; I know of no American newspaper that would do this. But neither do I accept your other charges, as cherry-picking a single article does not, to me, make a trend . . .

"Nonetheless, I've put your comments in a file for the piece I will eventually write about the accusations of anti-Israeli bias. And when I write it, I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt that you ask me to give you, despite your clear belief in your rectitude.?"

I immediately responded:

"Dear Mr. Okrent,

".... Many of us who complain about this have been doing so for a long time, with little response, and that seldom 'fruitful.' We do not do this for a job, we do this in spite of jobs and other commitments; we do this out of love - mostly for Israel and the Jewish people, but a bit for the Times as well...

"The Times has on more than one occasion published articles that told not only the name of a suicide bomber, but their age, where they were from, what organizations they were affiliated with, how many children they had, what they did for a living and what their family had to say .... [Do] suicide bombers get more attention because they become news only one at a time, whereas their victims become so in scores, too unwieldy to mention?

"....As for 'cherry-picking a single article,' I find this comment very amusing. When I complain about a trend, I am told that I must be more specific. When I am more specific, I am told a single article does not make a trend.

"....If I weren't certain of the validity of my claim, why would I write to you??"

To this last bit, he responded, "Extremely good point. But if you are, as you say, certain of your rectitude, I don't see any point in my continuing to reply."

And so, [only] by default, I got to have the last word:

"Israeli victims of terror [were] referred to by name and age in an American newspaper. It was in the New York Times, August 12, 2002, in an article headlined "Arafat Calls U.S. Meeting Very Positive." Given that there is this precedent in your own paper, I would suggest that, to be fair, the Times must either name the killers and their victims, or omit the names of both."

 

I could cry that I was so naive, demanding fairness... from the New York Times. Sadly, the only thing that has changed in all these years is that over time, these professional  "journalists" have stopped engaging with readers, stopped considering or responding to criticism. The big newspapers simply appropriated the notion of "blogging" and imitated it, though without the ethos it used to involve.

There is no talking to them any longer. They poison everything they touch.

Comments

[Joel]

Walter Duranty's newspaper is anything but consistent - consistently biased.