The New York Times, unperturbed by the antisemitic chants from campus strongmen and by President Biden’s damp squib of support for Israel, turned its journalistic arsenal down a strange alley, seeking dirt on Republicans. The purpose: an elaborate dance around allegations of antisemitism, painting the party patriotically supporting Israel as the antisemitic boogeyman. A peculiar twist indeed!
The Times’ four reporter unit utilized artificial intelligence to sift through official press releases, newsletters, and social media posts of every person who served in Congress over the past decade. Keywords in this digital scavenger hunt were “Soros,” “globalist,” or “globalism.” Words that some journalists and historians claim are covert signals pointing to the Jewish community. Their investigative pursuit focused heavily on allegations that criticism of progressive financier George Soros automatically qualifies as antisemitism, a simplistic and unsound logic.
The Times conveniently skirted around the gravity of the “peaceful” campus protests, a zone where antisemitic screeds were audibly present. Jewish students have been unwitting victims, told to return to Holocaust-grounds, Poland. Unfathomable hatred was on public display with sign-waving support for Hamas, the culprit behind the latest Israel crisis. A venomous call to arms from a Columbia protest leader declared that “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” Much louder, clearer, and direct hate speech could hardly be imagined.
However, the pressing issue for the Times, wasn’t the overt antisemitism or campus unrest, but a supposed rise in veiled anti-Jewish rhetoric among conservatives during Trump’s era. The age-old conspiracy theory regarding Jewish elites secretly helming world events gained traction in their narrative. Such a theory is unproven claptrap and propaganda, yet the Times eagerly espoused its credibility while dismissing criticism aimed at their leftist lobbyist, George Soros.
Soros, the Times protectively highlighted, is a 93-year-old Holocaust survivor who has generously donated towards liberal causes and democratic institutions. However, his political activities have often attracted criticism, which the reporters have pegged as “hate-filled speech of the extreme right”. The strategies of the Times rely on painting straightforward political criticism as an antisemitic nightmare.
To make their narrative appear fair, they grudgingly conceded a couple of paragraphs on left-wing anti-Semitism. The Times quickly rattled off details on the pro-Palestinian protests and Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s (D-Mich.) controversial statements in the wake of the Hamas attacks. However, the undertone was clear, the same protective crouch seen with Soros, dismissing any substantial link as ‘indirect.’
In conclusion, the Times has gone all-in on a paradoxical narrative. Their investigatory fervor seems focused on making the party standing with Israel, appear antisemitic. Meanwhile, their coverage tip-toes around the very real and vile antisemitism espoused in widespread protests. Is this unbiased journalism or a strangely rolled-out political strategy? Readers ought to keep their eyes wide open.
