Yossi Gestetner, an Orthodox Jewish writer and marketing consultant, writes on his blog YossiGestetner.com:
In a story posted yesterday at the New York Times, the writer points out that six of the 64 petition issues at the White House “We the People page” is focused on legalizing Pot and that a total of 77,000 signed for this issue between all six petitions.
Nothing wrong if Pot was the only focus of the piece, but the report points out the following:
“A petition to stop animal homelessness has passed the 5,000-signature threshold and has 7,726 supporters… More than 8,000 people want to dissolve the electoral college… The protectors of shark fins have a little work to do. Only 2,136 people have so far petitioned for a ban on the sale, trade and possession of the fins… Haters of former President George W. Bush are having little luck with their petition to investigate him for war crimes. Only 318 have signed so far… But there are apparently plenty of people who don’t like waiting in lines at the airport. At least 21,124 people have signed a petition to abolish the Transportation Security Administration.”
The Rubashkin Petition that has 19,000 signatories and is the third most-signed off all issues is not mentioned in the report. One can argue that all those issues are monkey stuff and as such they made it to the report, but Rubashkin is too serious of an issue to be placed into the same report. OK, fair enough. But if the Times editors agree that this is no laughing matter, they should look into it and get to the bottom of the accusations leveled against the government.
Last week, when Rubashkin was the second most-signed issue, The Hill publication, widely read in national political circles, also made no mention of the Rubashkin issue.
Mrs. Leah Rubashkin was nominated for the 2011 Jewish Community Heroes contest for her charity and dedication. She is leading by 1922 votes. VOTE HERE
You say “ny times is acedemic not liberal”. But they are essentially one and the same. College campuses, professors the world over and the very vast majority (probablhy 98%) of ppl in Academia identify liberally. Hence the pro-Paletinian protests on campuses, the Israeli-product bans by professors in England and Scandinavia, the fights for separation of church and state….
Unfortunately, many of these Liberal/Academics are JEWISH, too. Brocha C. M.
FYI I happen to be a regular 770 bochur who is open-minded enough to look at things honestly. If seeking antisemitic conspiracies in every news article is what makes one a frum Jew, then I guess you do have what to be proud of.
THE TIMES IS INFAMOUS FOR EITHER OMITTING ISSUES OR DISTORTING THE FACTS. A TYPICAL EXAMPLE IS THE WAY THEY REPORTED THE RIOTS OF 1991. THEY DID NOT CALL IT A RIOT, THEY CALLED IT A DISTURBANCE.
Just shows you that many times newspapers become novels.
I stopped reading it years ago (Bec. of coverage of Israel) and I’m still alive.
B”H
the reason he is being ignored is A) court of appeals turned him down and B) no one cares, this is an old dated story and in the eyes of the public its over and done with.
This isn’t big news. The NY Times caters to a certain extremist faction that calls itself ‘liberal’. It has been lacking in truth in journalism for years and has regressed to little more than a tabloid at this point.
mountain of molehill.
the report is a general thing, and it is mentions general petitions, that don’t need explanation. Rubashkin would need more background to understand why it is there, and that is not the purpose of this blog
As proof, it didnt either mention petitions number 4, 5, or 8 etc.
Please be aware that not all commenters are Lubavitch, frum or even Jewish. Point in case # 5
To # 5. When NY Times is covering the various petitions it is relevant to include SMR’s.
I’m not impressed with your comment.
Yes, it would have been nice if they mentioned it. But they were not doing a thorough report on all the top petitions. They were highlighting this new platform and some of the issues that were raised. They brought up issues that people are familiar with and don’t need explaining – the Rubashkin petition requires a lot more background knowledge.
Not very impressed with the argument. As you correctly pointed out, there’s nothing very interesting or exciting about SMR’s petition, and the fact that it’s a serious issue doesn’t compel the New York Times to look into it. They’re not a scholarly organization dedicated to uncovering the truth, they’re a newspaper looking for a hot story to feed the public.
Ever heard of sarcasm?
Very little of the news that is reported is honest and correct. In other words most of the news is either incorrect or outright lies.
they still havent heard that there was a holocaust either…
Who would have ever thought the day would come when the American mainstream media would misreport/slant the news.