NY Times Watch: Disputed Integrity cc @Sulliview

There they go again. The New York Times today published this story on the attempt to silence BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) activism at Brooklyn College. Here's the lede (emphasis added):

Facing criticism for its decision to co-sponsor an event with speakers from an international group that advocates Israel’s withdrawal from disputed territories where Palestinians live, Brooklyn College indicated Monday that it still planned to do so — but would also host future events featuring opposing views.

Disputed? Why is the New York Times so inconsistent with its use of "occupied" to describe occupied territory? It's a cowardly cop-out. You will notice in the story that the language is linked to a topic page with many more articles on Israel/Palestine. This is the New York Times' way of saying it doesn't want to take a position on a matter of fact in so few words. The territory is occupied. This is a reality. Israel may dispute that reality, but that does not make it any less of one. Failing to describe it as such is tantamount to adopting an Israeli narrative of events and that is unfit to print as objective journalism.

The rest of the story is also lacking. Here, in a story about the BDS event at the college, plenty of space is given to critics of the event and BDS and one university official is quoted. Where are the pro-BDS voices? Where are the Palestinians? Sure, some will say this is but one article in ongoing coverage that happens to be about the criticism. The New York Times did publish another article about this issue a few days earlier. See if you can find any Palestinians quoted in that one. It is disheartening and a disservice to readers when the paper of record adopts an Israeli narrative. It is doubly worse though when it concurrently denies Palestinians permission to narrate.

Share |