Skip to main content

NYT: Re-wriitng the headline. Why?

 Thankfully people like FAIR keep an eye out for tweaking or fiddling with the news.....

 "Non-violent protesters came up with a novel way to protest Israeli plans to build more settlement colonies in the occupied West Bank: They occupied the land themselves. The Bab Al Shams tents went up on Friday on privately owned Palestinian land  in what Israel designates as the E1 part of the West Bank. Israel's announcement of a plan to build new colonies in that part of the West Bank was especially controversial.

The New York Times reported the news on Saturday. But the most remarkable thing is what they did with the headline.


The headline on the earliest versions of the story was "Palestinians Set Up Camp in Israeli-Occupied West Bank Territory." Such acknowledgments of the West Bank as "occupied" territory are relatively rare in corporate media, as Seth Ackerman pointed out in Extra! (1/01).




But then, as Ali Abunimah wrote (Electronic Intifada, 1/12/13),  at some point it was changed to "Palestinians Set Up Tents Where Israel Plans Homes." (Twitter user @jamiesw was credited with spotting the change.)

The Times story, and the one the next day, both refer to "Israeli-occupied West Bank territory." So why was this fact removed from the headline? The decision is certainly a curious one–a casual reader would likely react very differently to the idea that Palestinians are protesting an occupation, versus placing tents where someone would like to build "homes."





It seems like a good issue for Times public editor Margaret Sullivan. If you'd like to know more about why the Times changed an accurate headline,  you can email her at public@nytimes.com."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Wake Up"

The message is loud and clear....and as you watch this, remember that it was on Israeli TV - not some anti-semitic or anti-Israel program somewhere in the world.


Look where Steve Jobs' father came from.....

MPS isn't a great fan of Thomas Friedman, who writes for The New York Times.

His latest column "Connecting Trump’s Dots" excoriates Trump - and he makes out a strong case.   Not that that is all that hard! 

At the conclusion of his column Friedman writes....

"Trump wants to partner with Vladimir Putin to defeat ISIS in Syria — a worthy goal. But Putin hasn’t been trying to defeat ISIS. He’s been trying to defeat democracy in Syria to keep the genocidal pro-Russian dictator there in power.

Will that be our goal, too? And who are Putin’s allies in Syria? Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite mercenaries from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Will they be our allies, too? No. We will enlist Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis to help us, says Trump. Really? But he just barred them from entering the U.S. How cooperative will they be?

And whom else might this ban keep out? Remember Steve Jobs? His biological father was Abdulfattah “John” Jandali. He came to America as a student in the 1950s and studied at…

Trump gives Aussies the flick!

There is simply no stopping Trump - and to think he will be in office for another 4 years!   The latest outrage is discussed by Roger Cohen in his op-ed piece "United States to Australia: Get Lost"  in The New York Times.

"Let’s imagine for a moment Rex Tillerson, the newly installed secretary of state, awakening to this tweet from President Trump about an important American ally:

“Do you believe it? The Obama administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!”

First, the “illegal immigrants” are in fact desperate people fleeing conflict whose status as refugees has in most cases been officially recognized. Second, as refugees, they have the right, under the Geneva Conventions, of which the United States is a signatory, to be treated “without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.” Third, the “thousands” are in fact about 1,250 of the 2,500 men, women and children who, for more than three years…