Thursday, April 7, 2016

The dishonest Editors of the N.Y. Daily News

The editors of the New York Daily News conducted an interview with Bernie Sanders and wrote about it in an editorial that came under the title: “The Scary Bernie Sanders” and the subtitle: “The Democratic presidential candidate is very wrong on much surrounding Israel.” It was published on April 6, 2016.

What the editors find scary about Sanders is that he thinks about the situation in Palestine the way that seven billion people on Planet Earth think. Being a part of the oddball group which thinks differently, they view him the way they view the entire human race. That is, while they think of themselves and the most fanatic of Jews as normal people, they think of everyone else, including Bernie Sanders, as being oddballs onto themselves.

To buttress their argument, they go over what he said during the interview about the Middle East, and refute it point by point. What they did in effect, is counter every argument he made with one of the talking points they have been propagating for ever. Most of that was discussed on this website at one time or another, and there is no point rehashing all of it again. So the question is whether or not there is something new we can take away from the interview and from the editorial that accompanies it.

The answer is yes there is. It's the abysmal shamelessness with which the editors of the New York Daily News have treated their readers. What they did is insult the intelligence of the readers in a way that can only be described as stunning. In fact, they were the ones who first used that word. Here is what they said:

“Stunningly, Sanders said he believed that Israel had been responsible for 10,000 deaths – a number almost five times the United Nations count of roughly 2,000 ... His use of the figure 10,000 was all the more remarkable and irresponsible coming from a presidential candidate who had previously put the death toll at 1,500”.

Look now how the interview actually went:

SANDERS: I'm just telling you that I happen to believe … anybody help me out there, because I don't remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right?

DAILY NEWS: I think it's probably high, but we can look at that.

SANDERS: I don't have it in my number … but I think it's over 10,000. My understanding is that a whole lot of apartment houses were leveled. Hospitals, I think were bombed...

Compare the shameless dishonesty of the Daily News editors with the supreme honesty of Bernie Sanders. Responding to a question, he begins not by asserting something but by advising what he believes. He then asks the interviewers to help him with the number before dropping the 10,000 figure, and quickly asks if that sounds right. So how do they respond? They say they will look up the number. It is that they too did not remember.

That's fine; it can happen to anyone. In fact, nothing further would have been said on this subject had they stopped here. But they didn't. On the contrary, they tried to milk the incident like the madman that's trying to draw blood from a stone. They went ahead and wrote an editorial to say they were stunned by the 10,000 figure. No, they did not appear stunned; they appeared the way they always do … like being permanently stoned by whatever fumes they inhale in the editorial room where they produce the nonsense that's never fit to print.

We now ask: Where could the two figures 1,500 and 10,000 have come from?

In a war situation, you don't get an accurate figure of the casualties till months after the war has ended. The figure 1,500 was mentioned at some point with regard to the last Gaza war, and was later revised to 2,200.

As to the 10,000 figure, if you add up the number of Palestinians who were killed by Israeli bombardments – mostly from the air – during the intifadas and the wars on Gaza, they would come close to that figure. And this must have been the number that was stuck in the head of Bernie Sanders. There is no mystery here.

But the lesson to be learned from this episode is that the readers must never again take the editors of the New York Daily News seriously. They don't deserve an iota of trust or respect.