I too was taken by the propagandistic nature of this New York Times article (linked in the article below). But I didn't get around to posting about it.
But the Middle East Forum doesn't miss a trick and here takes it apart.
The New York Times, which rather fancies itself as "the newspaper of record", has a shameful history of apologetics: in the thirties it was an apologist for the rise of Nazism, and in the fifties it whitewashed Stalinism, becoming a shill for Stalin's "useful idiots". (It was he, IIRC, who coined the term).
Rather than the "paper of record", the New York Times is, more accurately, the "apologist of record".
http://www.meforum.org/blog/2015/06/nyt-image-islam
Sent from my iPhone
But the Middle East Forum doesn't miss a trick and here takes it apart.
The New York Times, which rather fancies itself as "the newspaper of record", has a shameful history of apologetics: in the thirties it was an apologist for the rise of Nazism, and in the fifties it whitewashed Stalinism, becoming a shill for Stalin's "useful idiots". (It was he, IIRC, who coined the term).
Rather than the "paper of record", the New York Times is, more accurately, the "apologist of record".
http://www.meforum.org/blog/2015/06/nyt-image-islam
Sent from my iPhone
