New York Times Censors/Corrects Itself

If you go now to the New York Times website here, you'll be able to read a story on Mahmoud Abbas and you'll find there this:

Naji Daraghmeh, who came to the rally from a village near Nablus in the northern West Bank, said, “I do not believe there are people who understand the Palestinian cause like those who worked by Arafat’s side.” “We hope Abu Mazen will continue as our leader,” he added, referring to Mr. Abbas, “because he is from that group.”

Wow.

As you can see, what was originally published was this:

"calling Mr. Abbas by his popular name"

Here, this site has it thus:

Naji Daraghmeh, who came to the rally from a village near Nablus in the northern West Bank, said, “I do not believe there are people who understand the Palestinian cause like those who worked by Arafat’s side. We hope Abu Mazen will continue as our leader,” he added, calling Mr. Abbas by his popular name, “because he is from that group.”

And here it is in print (marked off in brackets):



As I have pointed out previously, Abu Mazen is his nom de guerre from the time he was an active terrorist. But, it seems, he is still recalled in that fashion.

God forbid that you should know that and so the NYTimes covers up for Abbas.

If you go here, you'll be able to read a four-year old blog post of mine when I complained about the very same practice of avoiding Abbas' terrorist past by terming Abu Mazen as a "common name" and my complaint to the NYTimes. The essence (and there's more there):-

This sentence appeared in the NYTimes yesterday:

"It won't happen by itself, or because someone likes Abu Mazen," he said, using a common name for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader.

So, I wrote to the Public Editor, Daniel Okrent, and suggested that a correction be made. My exact words were:

"Abu Mazen is the nom de guerre of Mahmoud Abbas from his days as a terrorist, a leading member of Fatah.

It is 'common' only in that it is common for terrorists to take assumed identities and that is how his fellow terrorists referred to him."

I received this reply:

Dear Yisrael Medad,

The editors do not believe a correction is merited. I raised your concern with Mr. Okrent as well and he agreed there's nothing to correct. Thanks for writing.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

To be fair, Arabs get angry at Ms. Kershner too.

An example:

Monday, October 26, 2009
Isabel Kershner's language
Look at Isable Kershner's language (and notice that not once does she refer to the spot as the Noble Sanctuary, the Muslim name for it, and only uses Temple Mount): "The compound sits in contested territory that Israel took from Jordan in the 1967 war." Israel took from Jordan? Are you kidding me? Took? How did Israel take it? Did Israel go to Jordan and say: Hey, Jordan. This is Israel. I would like to take the West Bank and Gaza, if you don't mind it. And Jordan said: sure. Go ahead, Israel. No problem.
Posted by As'ad at 7:17 AM

Of course, there is a difference. As'ad doesn't understand English. What he is describing is a "receiving". Of course, Israel took it. Jordan went to war against Israel, shelled Jerusalem, sent it army across the border. It had been at war legally against Israel since 1949 for all it did was sign an armistice agreement, not a peace treaty.

It's so difficult arguing with people who just don't know the facts, or worse, refuse to acknowledge them.