Berl Falbaum
In the upper lefthand corner of The New York Times’ front page is the historic, famous and revered motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” that was created by the paper’s publisher, Adolph S. Ochs in 1896.
The objective: Ochs pledged to the public that the paper would be dedicated to the highest principles of responsible journalism and he wanted to separate The Times from the yellow journalism so prevalent at the time.
Ochs’ present successors have, unfortunately, violated that ethic — most recently by political columnist Nicholas Kristof, who practiced the “yellowist” of yellow journalism when in a piece on May 11 he charged that there was “a pattern of widespread Israel sexual violence against men, women and even children…” by Israeli settlers, IDF soldiers and prison guards.
The column titled “The Silence that Meets the Rape of Palestinians” brought an avalanche of criticism, including charges of “blood libel” and threats of lawsuits from Israeli government officials.
Apparently, feeling the heat, on May 21, The Times took the very unusual step of publishing a rebuttal written by Kathleen Kingsbury, head of Times Opinion, and Kristof himself.
Before we get to the “explanation,” let’s review just some of what Kristof charged, which I covered in a column the May 18 edition of the Detroit Legal News.
• He wrote on May 11 that his column was based on “conversations” with 14 men and women — all of 14 people — who claimed to have been sexually abused. Only a couple are named, and he accepts the charges because he talked to family members, lawyers, witnesses and “others.” He does not identify the “others.”
• In some cases, he said, it was possible to corroborate the stories “in part” by talking to witnesses and to those within whom the victims confided. Exactly which parts could not be corroborated we were not told.
• He added, “In other cases [corroboration] was not possible, perhaps because shame left people reluctant to acknowledge abuse…” True, “perhaps,” but “perhaps” the abuses did not happen.
• He finds accusations that Palestinians may have “fabricated” stories of sexual assault “farfetched…” He did not explain why. But, again, this is supposition, not fact.
• Most of his “sources” were anonymous but some he named reportedly had ties with Hamas, the terrorist organization. I know, I’m quibbling.
There was more, but let’s go to the Kingsbury-Kristof defense.
Kingsbury said The Times stands by the story because sexual abuse by Israeli security forces has been documented. Response: Okay, accepted, but what Kristof reported was not documented.
She writes the column was vetted by fact-checkers, editors, lawyers (of course), and they “found no errors.” Of course not. There were no facts to be checked just opinions and uncorroborated charges.
The Times, she said, doesn’t rule out interviewing prisoners. No quarrel with that but their credibility, at least, needs to be questioned. Nor does the paper consider a social media history. Why not, particularly if it includes venomous attacks on Israel.
Kristof argues that he “checked” the charges with the victims’ families and lawyers, in one case citing testimony given to the United Nations, you know, that pro-Israel organization. And might, just might, the victims’ relatives, etc. have been “misinformed” by the victim or, frankly joined in the lie.
In one of the most disgusting charges, Kristof cited an alleged rape of a prisoner by a dog. The anti-Israel charge had appeared in social media and was distributed also by Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, which Israel says has ties to Hamas. It was a source used by Kristof.
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Yechiel Leiter, asked, “Whose evidence is Mr. Kristof leaning on to wield his accusations? A principal NGO quoted in Mr. Kristof’s piece is Euro-Med Monitor. Sounds impartial, right? Balanced, so stately.
“But lo and behold, its leaders Ramy Abdu and Mazen Kahel have been repeatedly found to have links to Hamas.”
Abdu has been quoted as describing gruesome attacks on October 7 as producing “Hollywood-like amazing scenes.”
Kristof’s response: Abdu’s comments “cannot be taken lightly” but added that “citing a source does not constitute an endorsement of its leadership’s political views or social media activity.”
Political views? We are talking about beheadings, gang rapes, and burning people alive. Does one really need to respond to such intellectual dishonesty and sophistry?
Kristof said he was reluctant to report the dog episode but, “In the end, I did because he had told the account previously and what he described has happened before.”
Two points: So, since the victim repeated the dog rape charge, it must be true, and “it has happened before.”
What? The charges or actual rapes by dogs? He doesn’t say. Whatever the case, none of his “evidence” proves that this heinous, inhumane, hard-to-get your-head-around crime happened in Israel.
The columnist advises us that “It serves no one to automatically discount people’s accounts because of their identity or beliefs.” Okay, on identity, but it serves everyone’s interest to question the charges of someone who “believes” that Israel should not exist and celebrates the October 7 massacre.
Kristof proudly defends himself, stating that he wrote, “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rape,” and “It’s impossible to know how common sexual assaults against Palestinians are.”
In the rebuttal, he omitted the fact that in his May 11 column, he wrote:
“The horrific abuse inflicted on Israeli women on October 7 now happens to Palestinians day after day.” He cited no sources for this “fact,” not even anonymous ones.
The Times, to give Kristof’s work credibility, cites the fact that he won two Pulitzer Prizes. I, for one, now question the truthfulness of his previous work.
That also has happened before, but this was true. In 1981, Janet Cooke, of The Washington Post, won the 1981 Pulitzer Prize for her article “Jimmy’s World,” the story of an alleged 8-year-old heroin addict. Minor problem, it wasn’t true.
When the paper discovered the scam, it returned the prize.
After this journalistic defamation, The Times needs to change its motto to “All the News That’s Fit to Print and Some That Isn’t.”
The objective: Ochs pledged to the public that the paper would be dedicated to the highest principles of responsible journalism and he wanted to separate The Times from the yellow journalism so prevalent at the time.
Ochs’ present successors have, unfortunately, violated that ethic — most recently by political columnist Nicholas Kristof, who practiced the “yellowist” of yellow journalism when in a piece on May 11 he charged that there was “a pattern of widespread Israel sexual violence against men, women and even children…” by Israeli settlers, IDF soldiers and prison guards.
The column titled “The Silence that Meets the Rape of Palestinians” brought an avalanche of criticism, including charges of “blood libel” and threats of lawsuits from Israeli government officials.
Apparently, feeling the heat, on May 21, The Times took the very unusual step of publishing a rebuttal written by Kathleen Kingsbury, head of Times Opinion, and Kristof himself.
Before we get to the “explanation,” let’s review just some of what Kristof charged, which I covered in a column the May 18 edition of the Detroit Legal News.
• He wrote on May 11 that his column was based on “conversations” with 14 men and women — all of 14 people — who claimed to have been sexually abused. Only a couple are named, and he accepts the charges because he talked to family members, lawyers, witnesses and “others.” He does not identify the “others.”
• In some cases, he said, it was possible to corroborate the stories “in part” by talking to witnesses and to those within whom the victims confided. Exactly which parts could not be corroborated we were not told.
• He added, “In other cases [corroboration] was not possible, perhaps because shame left people reluctant to acknowledge abuse…” True, “perhaps,” but “perhaps” the abuses did not happen.
• He finds accusations that Palestinians may have “fabricated” stories of sexual assault “farfetched…” He did not explain why. But, again, this is supposition, not fact.
• Most of his “sources” were anonymous but some he named reportedly had ties with Hamas, the terrorist organization. I know, I’m quibbling.
There was more, but let’s go to the Kingsbury-Kristof defense.
Kingsbury said The Times stands by the story because sexual abuse by Israeli security forces has been documented. Response: Okay, accepted, but what Kristof reported was not documented.
She writes the column was vetted by fact-checkers, editors, lawyers (of course), and they “found no errors.” Of course not. There were no facts to be checked just opinions and uncorroborated charges.
The Times, she said, doesn’t rule out interviewing prisoners. No quarrel with that but their credibility, at least, needs to be questioned. Nor does the paper consider a social media history. Why not, particularly if it includes venomous attacks on Israel.
Kristof argues that he “checked” the charges with the victims’ families and lawyers, in one case citing testimony given to the United Nations, you know, that pro-Israel organization. And might, just might, the victims’ relatives, etc. have been “misinformed” by the victim or, frankly joined in the lie.
In one of the most disgusting charges, Kristof cited an alleged rape of a prisoner by a dog. The anti-Israel charge had appeared in social media and was distributed also by Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, which Israel says has ties to Hamas. It was a source used by Kristof.
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Yechiel Leiter, asked, “Whose evidence is Mr. Kristof leaning on to wield his accusations? A principal NGO quoted in Mr. Kristof’s piece is Euro-Med Monitor. Sounds impartial, right? Balanced, so stately.
“But lo and behold, its leaders Ramy Abdu and Mazen Kahel have been repeatedly found to have links to Hamas.”
Abdu has been quoted as describing gruesome attacks on October 7 as producing “Hollywood-like amazing scenes.”
Kristof’s response: Abdu’s comments “cannot be taken lightly” but added that “citing a source does not constitute an endorsement of its leadership’s political views or social media activity.”
Political views? We are talking about beheadings, gang rapes, and burning people alive. Does one really need to respond to such intellectual dishonesty and sophistry?
Kristof said he was reluctant to report the dog episode but, “In the end, I did because he had told the account previously and what he described has happened before.”
Two points: So, since the victim repeated the dog rape charge, it must be true, and “it has happened before.”
What? The charges or actual rapes by dogs? He doesn’t say. Whatever the case, none of his “evidence” proves that this heinous, inhumane, hard-to-get your-head-around crime happened in Israel.
The columnist advises us that “It serves no one to automatically discount people’s accounts because of their identity or beliefs.” Okay, on identity, but it serves everyone’s interest to question the charges of someone who “believes” that Israel should not exist and celebrates the October 7 massacre.
Kristof proudly defends himself, stating that he wrote, “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rape,” and “It’s impossible to know how common sexual assaults against Palestinians are.”
In the rebuttal, he omitted the fact that in his May 11 column, he wrote:
“The horrific abuse inflicted on Israeli women on October 7 now happens to Palestinians day after day.” He cited no sources for this “fact,” not even anonymous ones.
The Times, to give Kristof’s work credibility, cites the fact that he won two Pulitzer Prizes. I, for one, now question the truthfulness of his previous work.
That also has happened before, but this was true. In 1981, Janet Cooke, of The Washington Post, won the 1981 Pulitzer Prize for her article “Jimmy’s World,” the story of an alleged 8-year-old heroin addict. Minor problem, it wasn’t true.
When the paper discovered the scam, it returned the prize.
After this journalistic defamation, The Times needs to change its motto to “All the News That’s Fit to Print and Some That Isn’t.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
