Aside from the New York Times, the Sulzbergers own and operate the Boston Globe and dozens of other municipal papers around the country. They own a news syndicate that distributes articles around the English-speaking world and further amplifies their voice, and share ownership of the International Herald Tribune with The Washington Post.
What the New York Times chooses to publish or decides to censor eventually ends up affecting public policy. It is a common occurrence for a congressman or senator to include columns from the Times in the congressional record. The volume of distribution alone accords the Sulzbergers and their bully pulpit journalists a forum to slice and dice policies and policy makers according to their very private agendas. The editors and journalists at the New York Times have created for themselves a power-base that acts as a virtual lobby. The Sulzbergers have accorded themselves the authority to act as shadow presidents, shadow congressmen and a shadow Supreme Court.
These invisible power brokers are perhaps the strongest element in the arsenal of the formidable Jewish Lobby. This very ethnic newspaper has a national reach that American politicians ignore only when assured of strong support from The Washington Post, the other 'national' newspaper. Over the course of the last nine months, a group of Arab-American and progressive journalists have carefully monitored the advocacy journalism of the current head of the New York Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, on a single subject; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Exposing Sulzberger's obvious and systematic anti-Palestinian bias has been light duty. Indeed, it often appears that he has allowed his journalists to moonlight as public relations officers for the Israeli Government.
As an Arab American, I am very conscious of the difficulty in maintaining objectivity on a subject as emotional as the Palestinian struggle for independence. But, unlike William Safire, Thomas Friedman and Deborah Sontag, I make no attempt to disguise my ethnic affinities.
It seems ludicrous that an ethnic publishing company should market itself as a 'national' newspaper. America is a free country, and ethnic groups should definitely be encouraged to have their voices heard. Every patch in the great American ethnic quilt adds vibrant color to the character of our nation. Having said that, it is only intellectually honest to acknowledge that some of the patches in our quilt are more authentically American than others. In today's America, if you want to stay ethnic, no worries. No one shoves you into the melting pot.
How ethnic is the New York Times? Well, ethnic enough to cover up for 'war criminals in the old country' like Ariel Sharon. In fact, by following the New York Times reporting of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict it is plainly evident that Sulzberger does not only align himself with Israel, right or wrong, but with the Israeli Likudniks, who are extremely right-wing and always wrong. Now, there is no more certain sign of ethnic allegiance than when you swear allegiance to an extremist political faction in a foreign country. Sulzberger and his crew are no different from the Irish-Americans who support the Real IRA or Afghani Americans who support the Taleban. The symbiotic relationship with the Likud, a party dominated by Jewish supremacists and war criminals, firmly casts the New York Times and its affiliated publications in the camp of the 'very ethnic press'.
Is there anything more ethnic than supporting a war criminal because he is a fellow Jew? Last year, Sulzberger's reporters have exposed ex-Senator John Kerry's Vietnam atrocities, but deliberately ignored Sharon's filthy record as a serial mass executioner of innocent civilians. They ranted and raved about Jorg Haider of Vienna and ignored the constant racist drivel by the spiritual leader of the Shas Party. Tolerating such extreme racism should permanently strip the very ethnic Sulzberger of his 'liberal' and 'civil libertarian' credentials.
The paper's constant attempts to fabricate the historical record, all in the interest of prolonging a vicious and racist land-grabbing foreign occupation, are well documented. But Sulzberger's tactic of falsifying history by repeating fabricated and partial news in edition after edition will no longer carry the day.
'Yellow journalism' is bound to fail the test of time. The news of a Belgian trial for Sharon's war crimes will melt the iron in Sulzberger's mighty wall. Defending a serial war criminal, simply because he is a fellow Jew, is not something Sulzberger should be allowed to get away with. It is time to cut his paper empire down to an appropriate ethnic size. For every child and every woman killed in Qibya, for every refugee slaughtered at Sabra and Shatila, let us resolve to get Sharon to the Hague. And let us never forget that one of his willing enablers is the man in the shadows, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.
