An important examination of the Times’ credulous coverage of Hamas’ claims, and skepticism toward Israel’s, can be found here: “Double Standards as New York Times Accuses IDF of Using Palestinians as Human Shields,” by Simon Plosker, Algemeiner, October 22, 2024:
Notably, it appears that while The New York Times is content to treat the IDF using human shields as fact, when it comes to Hamas, the terrorist organization’s use of human shields is treated as an Israeli claim — despite evidence from Hamas operatives and leaders confirming this policy.
For example:
- “Al-Shifa, Israeli officials have argued, is an example of Hamas’s willingness to use hospitals as cover and turn civilians into human shields.”
- “The Israeli military says that Hamas has ‘cynically exploited’ schools, hospitals and shelters, using them as bases and civilians as human shields.”
Notice that the Times treats statements by Israelis on Hamas’ use of human shields as merely claims: “Israeli officials have argued” and “the Israeli military says.” At the same time, it reports as fact the claim that the IDF uses Palestinians as human shields.
When asked by The Times of Israel about the Times story, the IDF responded that “the orders and instructions of the IDF forbid using civilians in Gaza who were arrested in the field for military missions,” adding that “The orders and instructions are made clear regularly to soldiers in the field during the war.”
This is key. What The New York Times won’t say is that all of the soldiers who spoke out have the option of reporting what they allege to have seen directly to a functioning investigatory system.
Apparently these 16 soldiers who claim to have seen Palestinians used as human shields by the IDF did not avail themselves of the IDF’s own investigators. Why not? Was it because they knew that their claims were flimsy, and they did not want to be exposed? They knew, however, that if they brought their charges to the Times, they would be eagerly accepted.
As the IDF explains:
IDF forces are obligated to report incidents that raise suspicion for violations of the law or IDF orders. Any report (submitted by IDF forces or received otherwise), complaint, or allegation that suggests misconduct by IDF forces, undergoes an initial examination process, irrespective of its source.
In certain cases, the report, complaint, or claim received raises prima facie a reasonable suspicion for criminal misconduct (such as concrete allegations that raise a reasonable suspicion of looting or the abuse of detainees). In such cases, the MAG promptly orders to launch a criminal investigation. Criminal investigations of alleged misconduct occurring in the context of operational activity are conducted by a specialized department under the IDF Military Police Criminal Investigation Division, the National Unit for Operational Affairs. The unit’s work is directed by the MAG….
In other words, the IDF has in place a robust mechanism for considering complaints of misconduct by soldiers, and in punishing those soldiers who are found guilty of such conduct. But the New York Times has said nothing about how the IDF investigates itself.
Why doesn’t the New York Times run a series of reports on all the ways that Hamas uses Gazans as human shields? It could provide an exhaustive list of the men-and-weapons hideouts in civilian structures, including schools, mosques, hospitals, and apartment buildings, and could provide maps showing just where those hideouts have been placed. It could describe how Hamas leaders, hiding underground, surround themselves with Israeli hostages as “human shields,” with the most celebrated example being Yahya Sinwar. It could report on how Breaking the Silence pays some former IDF soldiers for their testimonies, a practice that at the very least should make one wary of accepting their stories. It could describe in detail how Hamas has tried to prevent Gazans from leaving areas that the IDF has warned them to leave, because it wants them to remain in those areas as humans shields and to use them, as Sinwar said, as “necessary sacrifices.” The Times could publish a report on the practice by Hamas of killing Gazans attempting to flee areas that the IDF has warned them to leave. Hamas is known to have killed Gazans attempting to flee Gaza City and Khan Yunis, in order to discourage others from fleeing. But the New York Times has chosen not to report on any of this. Why not?
Taffy says
Although I believe that the lede to this article is rhetorical, The NY Times no longer prints “all the news that’s fit to print,” and disguises opinion as news, fiction as fact, and interweaves bias in its news reporting, sometimes blatantly and sometimes subtly,
I learned my vocabulary from The NY Times, and I was an avid reader since about 4th grade. In 6th grade, the teacher required everyone to purchase a “young student home delivery” for about 5 cents a day for weekdays and bring the paper to school. Back then the paper was a model of journalistic excellence. My only complaint was that the pages were gigantic and one could not read the paper on the buss without elbowing the person adjacently seated.
But no more! I haven’t read the NYT since about 1997, and only then for The Science Times and Romano’s real estate column on Sundays. The only thing good about today’s NYT is that the ink does not smear and it can therefore be safely used to line a bird cage.
Unfortunately the people who still read it are lefty loons who use The Times to echo positive feedback for their vile beliefs. Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” is applicable to the NYT.
tgusa says
“I learned my vocabulary from The NY Times, and I was an avid reader since about 4th grade. In 6th grade, the teacher required everyone to purchase a “young student home delivery” for about 5 cents a day for weekdays and bring the paper to school. Back then the paper was a model of journalistic excellence. My only complaint was that the pages were gigantic and one could not read the paper on the buss without elbowing the person adjacently seated.”
Forcing you schoolkids to purchase their journalistic excellence back in the 90s. Oh man, that says something. In my neck of the woods, SoCal, there wasn’t much interest in the NY Times except within what would come to be known as the leftist bubble. Yeah, it is probably good for increasing your vocabulary but not much for anything else. You took advantage of what they had to offer, good on you.
Thinker1 says
Because to them, it’s normal and OK. Not NEWS.
libertyORdeath says
The bigotry of lowered expectations in action.
gravenimage says
Why Doesn’t the New York Times Report on How Hamas Uses Gazans as Human Shields?
……………………………………….
Does the NYT even care?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Simple reason: for them, it’s justified. This is the same paper that covered up the Holocaust when it was going on
tgusa says
The fools at the NY Times dont seem to realize that today there is a thing called the Internet. This isn’t the 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s or 80s. We live in an age where they report (or dont report, it doesn’t matter) we decide. Wake up and get with the modern program NY Times.
tgusa says
It really makes me wonder why we are still having this conversation. In the early days of the Internet when I was switching over from construction to a career in computers the number one thing I did was cross reference. In those days when I was researching info on this class or another it was mandatory to weed out the misinformation that some people might post regarding this or that. It was very important, mandatory, to determine what was right and what was wrong if you wanted to succeed. Back in those days I spent more time weeding out the wrong than I did studying what was correct.
tgusa says
Weeding out the wrong is not just confined to the newspapers or TV media. Back in the day I was taking a computer related class and they issued us a textbook on the subject. On the first day the first thing the teacher said to us was that there are many mistakes in this textbook. We all immediately thought wtf? He wouldn’t elaborate on what stuff was wrong. Back then teachers wanted us to use our brains to figure it out on our own. Looking back, I’m glad he did that even though at the time I thought, this sucks, its a bunch of BS mixed in with the truth.
James Lincoln says
Today, most New York Times readers are leftists who believe that they are part of the “intelligentsia”.
They will never self-reflect, will remain ignorant, and will vote for Harris-Walz.