New York Times Retracts Phrase on Israelis' Victimhood After Outcry
Translated & summarized from Cursorinfo by baba
The New York Times removed a phrase from an article that suggested Israelis "still see themselves as victims of October 7," calling it an editorial error after facing backlash. Israel's embassy criticized the explanation, calling it a reflection of the newspaper's bias.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- New York Times removed a phrase about Israelis seeing themselves as victims of Oct. 7.
- The newspaper called the phrase an editorial error after facing criticism.
- Israel's embassy accused the Times of long-standing bias.
- The article discussed Israeli reactions to a documentary film.
- The Times has faced prior accusations of biased coverage of Israel.
The New York Times has removed a phrase from an article about the Israeli documentary "Naza" after it sparked widespread criticism, with the newspaper attributing the error to editorial oversight. The article, initially published on Wednesday, September 16, stated that while Israelis "strongly disagree on how to assign responsibility for the political, military, and intelligence failures that preceded the attack and war," most Israelis "still see themselves as victims of October 7."
This wording led to accusations that the newspaper was questioning whether Israel's status as a victim of the October 7 attacks was a fact or merely a perception. The controversial sentence was subsequently deleted from the online version of the article.
The phrase drew sharp reactions on social media, with media personality Ethan Fishberger posting on X, "What the hell is that supposed to mean?" His post garnered over 2 million views.
The New York Times issued a clarification on its X account, explaining that the original phrasing was intended to describe Israelis' perception of the government's response to the war following the October 7 attacks. However, an editorial error resulted in the sentence implying that Israelis' experience of victimhood was a matter of perception. The newspaper emphasized that the disputed sentence had been removed.
Tal Naim, spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, criticized the Times' explanation, stating on X that the publication reflected the newspaper's attitude towards Israel over the past three years and that calling it an "editorial error" was an attempt to hide behind professional jargon. She added that the newspaper had not apologized or addressed the underlying bias.
The New York Times has faced previous accusations of biased coverage of Israel, particularly during the recent conflict. A study by a Yale University scholar suggested that the Times' reporting in the initial months of the Gaza war showed bias against Israel, downplaying Israeli losses and Hamas's role. Additionally, Israel announced plans to sue the newspaper for defamation over an article detailing alleged sexual violence by settlers or Israeli security forces against Palestinians, which Israel's government called a "horrific and distorted lie."
Mentioned
