Here’s the way the New York Times describes an ongoing controversy over whether the Berkeley Daily Planet is obsessively anti-Israel and perhaps anti-Semitic:
For the last six years, The Berkeley Daily Planet has published a freewheeling assortment of submissions from readers, who offer sharp-elbowed views on everything from raucous college parties (generally bad) to the war in Iraq (ditto).
But since March, that running commentary has been under attack by a small but vociferous group of critics who accuse the paper’s editor, Becky O’Malley, of publishing too many letters and other commentary pieces critical of Israel. Those accusations are the basis of a campaign to drive away the paper’s advertisers and a Web site that strongly suggests The Planet and its editor are anti-Semitic….
Still, she says she has no intention of stopping the publication of submitted letters, citing a commitment to free speech that is a legacy of the city where the Free Speech Movement was born in the 1960s….
Ms. O’Malley denies any personal or editorial bias, and bristles at the suggestion that she should not publish letters about Israel ….
“I have the old-fashioned basic liberal thing of believing that the remedy for speech you don’t like is more speech,” said Ms. O’Malley….
The paper has published unpopular opinions on other subjects, including a commentary from a local activist arguing that the murder of four Oakland police officers — none of whom were black — by an African-American parolee in March was “karmic justice” for past police killings of civilians. But such pieces are in a section of the paper that clearly states they “do not necessarily reflect the views of the Daily Planet.”
I’ve never heard of the Daily Planet, much less the relevant controversy, but the Times’ piece seemed so one-sidedly favorable to the Planet and its editor that it prompted me to look at John Gertz’s dpwatchdog.com (referenced in the article) to see what the fuss was about. The site is somewhat rambling and unprofessional, and unfortunately does not generally link to the full text of the op-eds, editorials, and letters it quotes from.
Nevertheless, if the Times is going to cover the controversy, you would think its reporter could at least be bothered to figure out what the controversy actually revolves around. Below are some of the allegations I learned from the site that I didn’t learn from the Times, allegations that show, specifically, that the controversy is not, as the Times has is, about the Planet publishing uncensored letters to the editor that “do not necessarily reflect the views of the Daily Planet.”
“Becky O’Malley used to claim that, being a free speech absolutist, she publishes everything she receives. The lack of pro-Israel pieces merely reflected the fact that she received very few. This was a flatly false statement at the time she was making it, since we have seen quite a number of pro-Israel pieces, which were sent to O’Malley but which she declined to publish.
Then she changed her story. She called some pro-Israel pieces “Islamophobic,” and she refused to run them for that reason. She also claimed that pro-Israel articles would “bore” her readers…. When she does publish pro-Israel letters, she has been known to edit their most important sections out. All of this is thoroughly documented elsewhere on this website.”“The Berkeley Daily Planet’s own employees share an obsession with Israel, starting with O’Malley herself. Contrary to O’Malley’s assertion that she does not write about Israel, to date (September 2009) the Berkeley Daily Planet has published 24 editorials written with Becky O’Malley’s own hand and which concern the topic of Israel or the Jews. She has written on virtually no other part of the world, except, very occasionally on Iraq.”
“Conn Hallinan writes a regularly appearing foreign affairs analysis column for the Berkeley Daily Planet, under the byline, “Dispatches From the Edge.” Hallinan is in fact from the very edge of the American body politic, being a lifelong Communist. He is a contributor to various anti-Israel websites, such as PalestineThinkTank.com. At least 15 of his columns to date entirely or mostly concern Israel, while many more bring Israel into articles written chiefly on other topics.”
Managing editor, Justin DeFreitas has published at least 13 cartoons concerning Israel or the Jews, but only a small handful about all the other situations in the world. Additionally, there have been numerous “news” articles concerning Israel…. By admission and implication, the Berkeley Daily Planet, while obsessed with Israel, is only interested in one side of the story.
“O’Malley placed an anti-Israel article by well-know anti-Israel activist Henry Norr in the news section instead of in the commentary section where it belonged (August 30, 2005).”
“Both Becky O’Malley and Conn Hallinan (we will consider Hallinan in depth elsewhere) equate Israel and its supporters with the Nazis. This in itself is a very strong indication of anti-Semitism, while Daily Planet cartoonist, Justin DeFreitas, has used imagery in depicting Israel that is indistinguishable from Nazi and neo-Nazi propaganda.”
Gertz also claims that despite its claimed commitment to freedom of speech, the paper has special rules that apply to Jews and Israel only, such that pro-Israel Jews (but no other ethnic groups) may be slurred on ethnic grounds in the paper. (The Times notes that Gertz was attacked in a letter to the paper for wearing the “funniest looking yarmulke,” but fails to note that Gertz points out that he doesn’t wear a yarmulke, making the remark not just a juvenile insult, but a juvenile insult of the sort someone who hates Jews would make, like saying “Obama wears the funniest looking dashiki I have ever seen”). Gertz also suggests that the paper has a special letters to the editors policy re Israel, so that anti-Israel and even blatantly anti-Semitic letters from readers outside the Bay Area (one of which is noted in the Times) are published, but pro-Israel letters from local residents are “censored.”
In short, Gertz alleges not that the Planet is too indulgent in publishing crankish letters to the editor, but that it has an official editorial policy, adhered to by its editors, columnists, and reporters, that is obsessive about and extremely hostile to Israel, to the extent that it sometimes crosses the line into overt anti-Semitism.
Again, I had never heard of the Planet, or O’Malley, or Gertz. But it does strike me that if the Times thinks that the controversy over the Planet’s coverage of Israel and Jews is worth reporting, it should report both the allegations and O’Malley’s defense, not take the line that O’Malley is under seemingly unfair attack for adhering to free speech principles.
UPDATE: Bizarrely, two commenters below seem to think that my block quotations from Gertz’s site mean that I’m endorsing both his general attack on the Planet and all of the specifics in those block quotes. I should think that it’s very clear that I’m just reporting, not endorsing, his allegations, because I think the Times’ story did not fairly portrary those allegations, and it’s easy to show that this is true by just reprinting them. But just to be even clearer, the point of my piece is that the Times’ only provided O’Malley/the Planet’s side of the story, and failed to accurately portray Gertz’s allegations. I did not address whether those allegations are sound in general, much less endorse any or all of Gertz’s specific language. (Further update: perhaps this will clear up the source of the confusion: the block quotes, including internal links, are all Gertz, no me).
ADDITIONAL UPDATE: I do not meet to imply that the author of this article, San Francisco bureau chief Jesse McKinley, is motivated by hostility to Israel or Jews. Rather, I suspect a combination of sloppy, lazy reporting and the tendency of Times reporters to portray any case in which a media outlet is being criticised as involving trogrlodytes who don’t understand the value of free speech, and treating editors under attack as beleaguered heroes, almost without regard to the merits of the underlying controversy.
Shag from Brookline says:
“I’ve never heard of the Daily Planet, ….”
Isn’t that where Clark Kent and Lois Lane report?
November 29, 2009, 5:29 amIraqVet says:
My don’t these people have a high opinion of themselves. The place where free speech was born. A real mutual congratulation society. Free speech was born long before 1960′s San Francisco. Insular, disengenuous, egotistical. Yes, very proud to be from the Bay Area as they evoke such things. Reminds me of talking to a vietnam vet at the VFW who remembers clearing villages and finding care packages of medicines to be used for the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong, addressed from their proud comrades in Berkely.
For herd partipants like this some speech will always be freer than others, a la Orwell.
November 29, 2009, 5:44 amD.O. says:
Before critisizing Times for the lack of journalistic rigor you also might consider educating yourself about the situation. You never heard about the Planet, or O’Malley, or Gertz, but read only one side of the controversy. That’s classy. Current issue of the Planet (of which i never heard either) contains one letter to the editor of clearly pro-Israel inclination written clearly in response to some anti-Israel piece. No “anti” side is presented. I will look at it a bit more now.
November 29, 2009, 6:59 amD.O. says:
Second at the top of (google powered) search of Planet’s webside for Israel is a selection of reader’s responses to the article of Annette Herskovits “Who Remembers the Holocaust?”. The article itself was undoubtly anti-Israel and readers’ responses are mostly supportive of it (the article, not Israel), but there are two contrarian letters. All responses, pro and contra, are quite civil.
November 29, 2009, 7:19 amThe third item in the search is a pro-Israel piece arguing (mainly) that Israel is an important member of civilized world because it produces and will produce very useful drugs and also some other gizmos.
I would not call this publication strictly one-sided even if it turns out that on average it is more on the anti-Israeli side.
Guy says:
Isn’t the distinction you make merely one of imputed motive? Obviously (is this usage okay?) a newspaper makes decisions about which editorials to publish- it’s not like they have infinite paper. I would hope NYT readers aren’t too stupid to realize this. Basically all the allegations say is that (1) the letters printed are biased, and (2) (the one you say the NYT tries to whitewash) the editors are doing it “on purpose”. But I think the second is already understood by the readers to be implicated by the first.
November 29, 2009, 8:01 amDavid Bernstein says:
After reading the Times’s account, I knew O’Malley’s side of the story (the Times makes it clear that she claims that the paper is not anti-Israel, but publishes anti-Israel letters to the editor and perhaps an occasional guest column as a matter of free speech) I didn’t know Gertz’s (I did not learn that he claims that the Planet publishes many anti-Israel editorials, including those written by O’Malley herself and various vociferously anti-Israel staff columnists, is far from an open forum when it comes to letters re Israel, and permits abuse related to Jews permitted re no other group).
You’re not seriously claiming that current issue’s content is dispositive? Obviously, no one issue would be, but certainly not one written knowing a Times story was forthcoming. In any event, as discussed below, if the Times had investigated Gertz’s claims, and found them to be false or exaggerated, that would be an appropriate journalistic piece. Simply distorting/ignoring Gertz’s claims is not.
No, that would be true only if the controversy only involved the letters to the editor, and the question was whether this was a “free speech” motive, or an “anti-Israel” motive. But if the paper’s editorials, columnists, and choice of letters to publish are all anti-Israel, then motive is no longer in question. If it turns out that Gertz is distorting the record, is incorrect about his figures, is lying, etc., then the theme could be “Daily Planet attacked for being anti-Israel, but the charges are dubious based on a reading of dozens of issues.” Instead, the reporter doesn’t even address the actual allegations, and instead portrays the controversy in a false light; if the controversy is over whether the Planet should open its letters pages, uncensored to cranks, the boycott, criticism etc seems obviously overblown.
And btw, this is rather typical of the Times in such cases. Not so much the demeaning of pro-Israel activists like Gertz, but portraying any case in which a media outlet is being criticised as involving trogrlodytes who don’t understand the value of free speech, and treating editors under attack as beleaguered heroes, almost without regard to the merits of the underlying controversy.
November 29, 2009, 8:39 amDishman says:
I believe the NYT has a right to cover its ears and hear no evil of the people it likes.
It’s on us to recognize it for what it is. Just note its bias, and even point it out if you want.
I don’t fish, so I don’t have much use for it myself.
November 29, 2009, 8:58 amtamerlane says:
Why does a food fight between two cranks in the City of Loons merit any coverage by the NYT (or the Volokh Conspiracy for that matter)?
November 29, 2009, 9:39 amPersonFromPorlock says:
So, you want to complain about the NY Times being shameless? Take a ticket.
November 29, 2009, 10:10 amyour mama says:
I find it hard to believe people don’t realize the nyt is a newspaper of fiction.
November 29, 2009, 11:06 amneurodoc says:
What supports your characterization of Gertz as a “crank”?
November 29, 2009, 11:08 amtamerlane says:
My diagnosis was based on the contents of Gertz’s site using the link provided by Prof. Bernstein. I invite those who are interested to investigate for themselves.
November 29, 2009, 11:41 amAriel says:
I skimmed through some things on the Daily Watchdog site. This page has what I would consider to be the most damning evidence. O’Malley quoted a Seymour Hersh piece in the New Yorker about Abu Ghraib. Where Hersh referred to John Israel as one of the perpetrators, O’Malley did not quote directly, but instead left it as Israel. It’s pretty hard to do that by accident. The implication of such a substitution is not pretty.
November 29, 2009, 12:01 pmLTEC says:
For me, the important question is whether we will be better off or worse off when the NYT dies. There is some valuable reporting that the paper does, I suppose. I am not referring to publishing leaks (the stuff it wins prizes for), since anyone can do this, and the leakers will always be able to find someone suitable to leak to. But I suppose there is some other stuff.
But there are two things about the NYT which together cause me to look forward to its demise. One is the incredible bias and dishonesty with which it reports — and ignores — the news. The other is its incredible prestige. The first alone is not so bad. For example, I am not especially bothered by the National Enquirer, since it has no presige and is occasionally useful. But the two together more than outweigh anything good the NYT has to offer.
November 29, 2009, 12:09 pmOren says:
So having a particular political view is now tantamount to racism? One cannot be critical of Israel’s policies and action without hating Jews?
This is almost as bad as reflexive cries of racism from the far left at every opposition to Obama’s policies. Politics are politics — disagreement with someone is not the same as hate.
November 29, 2009, 12:19 pmOren says:
The motive being what? The only thing that proves is that the editorial board has a particular political view. We are, no doubt, aware that you disagree with their position, but what of it?
Does the NYT have to do an in-depth report on the Volokh Conspiracy’s “anti-UN-bias” because the bloggers here are (generally) take the position that the UN is useless (and don’t often link to stories praising the UN)?
November 29, 2009, 12:27 pmOren says:
No, it’s a strong indication of a doctrinaire unwillingness to acknowledge bona-fide differences of opinions. The same sort we have seen exhibited in this thread (ironic that opponents tend to mimic each other). The Daily Planet cannot conceive that pro-Israel supporters have any motive other than hatred for Palestinians, DB cannot conceive that the Daily Planet has any other motive other than hatred for Jews. The only thing at which they both succeed is proving that the other side is an ass.
Some days I wish that both the pro and anti Israel sides of this asinine debate would just sod off and leave us to solve our own problems. “More heat than light” does not begin to describe how unproductive this exercise has been.
November 29, 2009, 12:35 pmDave N. says:
Not a comment on the main point (though I think a news story should try to report all sides), but what kind of loon actually believes that “the murder of four Oakland police officers — none of whom were black — by an African-American parolee in March was ‘karmic justice’ for past police killings of civilians”?
November 29, 2009, 12:38 pmPaperNuncio says:
As opposed to David Bernstein who has always presented both sides equally when discussing the issues surrounding Israel.
Seriously David. I usually skip almost any post you put about about Israel because of YOUR clear and obvious bias. You mus be a terrible racist and hate anyone who doesn’t immediately support Israel’s views…Snark.
Pot and kettle.
November 29, 2009, 12:48 pmGuy says:
David Bernsein,
“But since March, that running commentary has been under attack by a small but vociferous group of critics who accuse the paper’s editor, Becky O’Malley, of publishing too many letters and other commentary pieces critical of Israel.”
“The paper has published unpopular opinions on other subjects, including a commentary from a local activist arguing that the murder of four Oakland police officers — none of whom were black — by an African-American parolee in March was “karmic justice” for past police killings of civilians. But such pieces are in a section of the paper that clearly states they “do not necessarily reflect the views of the Daily Planet.” (emphasis mine)
Well, these seem to indicate that the accusations involve more than just letters, and also implicate the “official” opinion of the paper. Also, to the extent you say this happens whenever a media institution comes under fire, I think that may have been worth including in the original post. As written, I got the impression that you were suggesting the “one-sidedness” you see was evidence of an anti-Israel bias, not of a pro “freedom of the press” bias. And even if it is true that the Daily Planet has an anti-Israel bias, that doesn’t change that free speech is implicated. I agree the NYT seems to be covering this from a free speech angle, which maybe cuts against Gertz’s criticism, but since the Times notes that Gertz “says his goal is not to close the paper” I’m not sure they’re being unfair in suggesting that the “free speech” defense is all that airtight (unless you think the “says” casts aspersions on his credibility). I’m not sure that it is really inappropriate for the paper to approach this as a “free speech” issue.
Actually, the Hersh article just says Israel too, having already referenced John Israel previously in the article. Since Gertz doesn’t give us the context, it’s hard to say if she was trying to mislead readers.
Although I live in Berkeley, I don’t read the Daily Planet, I do vaguely recall reading a free copy in a restaurant and finding it to be rather wingnutty, though. So I want to stress that I can’t comment on whether an anti-Israel bias really does exist.
November 29, 2009, 12:56 pmjcm says:
Who will take seriously the Metropoli´s news-daily?
Not the NYT , the other
November 29, 2009, 1:04 pmDavid Bernstein says:
What “DB”? I’m just quoting Gertz’s allegations, not endorsing them.
Again, I’m not seeing, or reporting, “evidence” of anything, I reprinted Gertz’s allegations verbatim to show that the Times did not describe them with anything remotely approaching accuracy.
And if O’Malley had defending herself and the Planet on that basis, instead of “we have a free speech free for all here,” then she’d be honest, and the Times would assumedly have repeated that defense.
Very amusing on two grounds. First, that you conflate an opinion blogger’s “journalistic” responsibilities with that of a reporter of a news story in the “newspaper of record.” (Not to mention that I don’t think this article is a reflection of anti-Israel, as opposed to pro-beleaguered newspaper, bias). Second, that you claim not to read my Israel posts, but you not only read this one, but bothered to comment. “I hate your posts so much that I just can’t resist reading them, claiming not to, and then commenting on them.” LOL
November 29, 2009, 1:05 pmOren says:
If TDP’s publishing of wingnut letters serves to define their official editorial policy then why can’t your quotation of Gertz be used in the same way?
How is having a political view (even a wingnutty one) in tension with supporting free speech? They don’t seem contradictory and so the use of the word “instead” puzzles me. TDP supports free speech for all, including themselves and their particular political views about Israel.
November 29, 2009, 1:13 pmfrankcross says:
What is the obsession with the NYT? This strikes me as a fairly minor story, somewhat interesting insofar as it reveals continued anti-Semitism in America. So why the headline about the NYT? There are plenty of stories in the press, at the NYT and other papers that are imperfect in many ways. There are thousands of journalists, often writing on short deadlines and they will be incomplete in their articles or even screw things up. I find the tendency to call out isolated NYT articles kind of strange. But I guess it’s a tribute to the paper, really.
November 29, 2009, 1:21 pmsbron says:
California is currently beset by a 12.5% unemployment rate (probably a 20% or more real unemployment rate.) The state’s population is exploding by about 500,000 people per year, partly due to mass immigration by poorly skilled and poorly educated individuals. There are insufficient jobs and infrastructure to support the current, much less future population. California industry is crippled by absurd green church regulations (latest being restriction on the sale of big-screen TVs — bye bye perhaps millions of dollars in sales tax revenue.) CA can’t even build solar plants in the Mojave desert without environmentalists killing the project. The state educational system is a disaster with 25% of K-12 students classified as limited English proficient (another benefit of “diversity” and mass immigration.)
The crime rate in nearby Oakland is one of the worst in the U.S.
With all these problem, the emphasis placed by papers like the Daily Planet (there are many other similar independent papers in CA) on Israel is absurd.
November 29, 2009, 1:26 pmDavid Bernstein says:
It’s not, but she didn’t say, “we publish nutty anti-Israel letters because we share their perspective on Israel,” as witnessed by our own editorial policy, she said “we publish nutty anti-Israel letters because we believe in freedom of speech,” and the Times at least implies that the paper has no editorial line on Israel, which is quite obviously a different rationale.
November 29, 2009, 1:32 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Frank, in my case it’s because the Times is not only the most important paper in the country, it’s the only newspaper I read regularly (though hardly cover to cover), so it’s the only place I’m likely to independently discover egregiously poor reporting worth commenting on.
November 29, 2009, 1:34 pmGuy says:
If you weren’t suggesting that this article is evidence of an anti-Israel bias at the NYT, I apologize, but that was the impression I got. Maybe my judgment is colored by your tendency to make such accusations against other organizations.
“But since March, that running commentary has been under attack by a small but vociferous group of critics who accuse the paper’s editor, Becky O’Malley, of publishing too many letters and other commentary pieces critical of Israel. Those accusations are the basis of a campaign to drive away the paper’s advertisers and a Web site that strongly suggests The Planet and its editor are anti-Semitic.”
You don’t think this remotely approaches accuracy? The accusations are clear: that the paper has an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bias. Is the Times obligated to mention every single claim made by its critics that might support that accusation?
“Mr. O’Malley, the paper’s publisher, said he thought The Planet’s critics were confusing letters from unaffiliated writers — the paper says it prints anything that is not libelous or obscene, with a preference for local writers — with official editorial positions.”
Again, this suggests that Gertz is making imputations about the character of more than just the letters, otherwise how would this be a defense? A reasonable reader ought to be able to infer that Gertz is accusing the paper of more.
November 29, 2009, 1:40 pmOren says:
Ah, I understand the complaint. My apologies for misapprehending it the first time. That is indeed disingenuous, if not outright dishonest.
Do any serious papers really claim to accept letters without any reference to the editorial line? Are human editors even capable of such a feat? I’m inclined to look poorly on any editor that does claim such a thing — they are either superhuman in their objectivity or, more likely, deluding themselves.
November 29, 2009, 1:48 pmPaperNuncio says:
I admit it David. I have BFF-Love for you.
I read it because I wanted to see how much shilling you wanted to do, and I have spare time this weekend.
Jokes aside, I actually believe that your fairly constant, slanted rants on Israel bring down the intellectual honesty of what I believe to be one of the more intellectually honest sites around (this one).
As for “newspaper of record,” I thought most of the “bloggers of record” on this site eschewed this idea for good reason. Sounds like a pathetic cop-out excuse to stoop below the levels of others. I assume that you would not then seek “fourth estate” protection if the government wanted to force issues with you if you’d published something critical or controversial?
And with the cop-out, are you saying that this person should be held to a higher standard than a Professor from the George Mason School of Law? Given the very nature of your original post, you would think you’d hold yourself to a higher standard than the people you call out. So, once again…Pot and Kettle.
Nice to see that people are the same all over.
November 29, 2009, 1:50 pmdrunkdriver says:
I went through Gertz’s site, and browsed some back issues of O’Malley’s paper. The paper, and O’Malley, take a distinctively anti-Israel stance. Also, she is just a flat-out bad writer, which makes her more obnoxious to disagree with. Perhaps she’s just a case of someone with more money than sense who wants a platform for her incoherent views- she’d hardly be the first such person in Berkeley.
As far as I’m concerned, she is fair game for anyone who has an opposing view. The fact that the antiwar lefties of Berkeley are distancing themselves from her, should suggest how far out there she is on this issue.
The most serious complaint I have about Gertz’s site, is his tracing her privileged background and suggesting her family, most of whom are long dead, are anti-Semites. He has utterly no evidence of this and it struck me as quite petty and unfair. He surely appears to have gotten his a few details wrong about the living O’Malley (example: he claims she changed her name from Peters to O’Malley to appear more “working class.” “Peters” is hardly a name evoking privilege, certainly to people who don’t know your family living on the other side of the continent; and in any event, O’Malley says she changed her name when she got married and assumed her husband’s name).
I also disagreed with his tracing her educational background as evidence she was a “second-rate intellect” because her college wasn’t prestigious enough- that makes him come off as a snob, and besides, the real evidence of her inadequacy leaps off the pages of anything she’s written, why can’t he be content with that?
Bottom line, DB is quite correct that the Times left readers with the wrong impression about her paper. They did make it sound like all she’d done was run a few letters in “free speech alley” style, when in fact if you read her paper, you see she did a lot more than that.
November 29, 2009, 1:58 pmOwen H. says:
Criticism of Israel’s government and it’s policies is not automatically anti-semitic or anti-Jew.
November 29, 2009, 2:09 pmA. Zarkov says:
Oren the issue here is not really the Daily Planet, but the Times’ coverage of the matter. The anti-Israel, anti-US, anti-white, anti-male, anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, etc material found in the DP is normal fare for Berkeley. If a new local newspaper appeared in Berkeley that took the opposite positions, its offices would be fire-bombed, the staff physically attacked, and their cars vandalized. Their advertisers would be threatened and a team of lawyers would start suing for anything they could dream up. After all, this is the place that had a riot because Tower Books simply opened up a store. The whole city is one big nut house that any sane person should stay far away from. My friend got his arm broken for making pro-Israeli statements in the Berkeley Jewish Community Center. This is not about free speech because we don’t have free speech in Berkeley. The DP simply reflects the prevailing attitudes in the community at large. I’m afraid the Times’ staff shares many of the same attitudes as the DP staff, that why the article is so incomplete.
Reading the NYT is like looking at the world through a pinhole. But most people realize that now, and that’s one of the factors in Times’ pre-tax earnings loss of $78 million last quarter. Unless Obama takes my money to bail them out, the Times will disappear into the dustbin of history.
November 29, 2009, 2:18 pmBerkeleyBeetle says:
I’m a student at Berkeley and have read the Daily Planet pretty regularly for years, mostly for the amusement in the opinion pages. While I disagree with her on almost everything (such as when she went into old lady “get off my lawn, you youngsters” mode and blamed a stabbing on the idea that frats are just gangs for white people), I don’t believe O’Malley is deliberately pushing the anti-Israel view in her paper. I suspect she is so used to the people around her agreeing with her on everything that she simply cannot comprehend opposing views. In the same paper where she ran the anti-semitic piece from Kurosh Arianpour, she ran another piece from a pro-Zionist which she titled Criticizing Israel = Anti-Semitism, despite the fact that nothing of the sort was mentioned in the piece. She had apparently let her own ignorant conception of the opposing side frame how she looked at the piece.
More recently, in response to the campaign mentioned in this NYT article, the Planet ran a news article in its defense which eventually turned into a hit piece against the three people they blame for the campaign. When some of the targets of the piece tried to respond, O’Malley refused to run their letters, saying:
“Upon reflection we have decided not to provide any more free space in our opinion pages for those whose expressed intention is to destroy the forum we provide. They may, if they wish, purchase advertising space to advance their opinions.”
It struck me, at least, as inappropriate given that the paper had just done a news story criticizing them. In general, I think her “editorial policy” is pretty fluid, not because she has a secret policy that she keeps coming up with excuses for, but just that she is not very committed to having a policy that holds up in the abstract. She does whatever she thinks is correct at the time, and her worldview prevents her from making those judgments in an objective way.
November 29, 2009, 2:37 pmfrankcross says:
Fair enough, David, it’s a sort of tribute. But, although I agree that the NYT (with the WSJ) are far and away the best papers in America, they are far from perfect and I wouldn’t hold them to that standard or be too shocked to find mistakes.
November 29, 2009, 2:37 pmArthurKirkland says:
Charges of obsessive anti-Israel and anti-Semitic journalism from obsessive advocates of (certain) pro-Israel positions. Low-grade stridency tangling with low-grade stridency.
I don’t expect much insight from either side. So, far I haven’t been surprised.
November 29, 2009, 2:52 pmMalvolio says:
So you’re apologizing for mistreating DB and using the occasion of your apology to attack him again? Nice.
Let me summarize: DB is noting that the premier newspaper in the US is reporting on an unbelievably obscure controversy — and deeply mischaracterizing it. Is it bias? Is it incompetence? Is it an isolated error in an otherwise splendid paper? The only way to find out is to ask.
Yes, the mischaracterization does run directly counter to DB (and, full disclosure, my own) view of things: that anti-Israeli stance is not just an unbiased response to the fact, and often not even just legitimate political disagreement, but actual, live anti-Semitism.
But that isn’t the point at this moment. The point is, the Times is getting stuff wrong and need to work on that.
November 29, 2009, 2:55 pmGuy says:
Malvolio, not an attack, just trying to explain why I had the perception that I did, and letting him know why someone might get that impression.
Zarkov,
November 29, 2009, 3:20 pmNot to be parochial, but is that kind of Berkeley bashing called for? I don’t think it’s fair to malign an entire city based on dominant political attitudes. I don’t go around saying there’s no freedom of speech in Salt Lake City just because of the cultural dominance of the LDS church there. I also don’t think a newspaper would have its office fire-bombed or other such nonsense. Do you really think John Yoo, for example, has serious reason to fear for his safety? I can assure you he’s not too popular here, but he still manages to teach just fine (okay, there’s been at least one disruption/demonstration that I’m aware of, but no violence).
A. Zarkov says:
Yes. I tell you what. Put a Palin sticker on your car and park over on Shattuck Avenue and see how long it takes to get your windows smashed.
That’s because there is freedom of speech in Salt Lake City. We don’t have it in Berkeley because of an atmosphere of intimidation and violence.
Oh no? Then you are not too familar with the history of the goings on in Berkeley.
I give you the case of Arthur Jensen who needed a police escort to go from his office to any other building. The campus police told him it was not safe for him to walk around campus alone. Now you will notice that my remarks were about the city and not the campus. Things have improved on campus since Jensen, which is why Yoo hasn’t been beaten up (yet). But those goons have graduated and some of them are still around in the city at large.
If a Berkeley fire truck goes to a fire displaying an American flag it gets pelted with rocks. How about Sanne DeWitt and bombed Israeli bus she brought to Berkeley. Go read the history of that affair if you want to get an idea of free speech and Berkeley. Berkeley is the most intolerant city in America.
November 29, 2009, 4:32 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Thanks to BerkeleyBeetle for the regular reader’s perspective. The Daily Planet postdates my time at Cal, and I know it only from picking up a copy whenever I’m over there.
What strikes me about the paper from that casual acquaintance is that (1) letters to the editor take up an unusually large fraction of the space; and (2) the actual journalistic content (articles and editorials) is written by two or three people, O’Malley herself (IIRC) providing the lion’s share. It’s much more nearly a personal outfit than the ordinary free local paper; certainly much more so than the Daily Californian (the UC/Berkeley student paper). It would not surprise me to find the letters policy a little, shall we say, idiosyncratic. On the other hand, they do print a lot of letters, and publish five times a week, so they don’t have the ordinary excuse of lack of space when they pointedly don’t run something.
November 29, 2009, 6:01 pmjosh says:
Pot, meet Kettle
November 29, 2009, 6:13 pmLeo Marvin says:
The Daily Planet looks like the kind of obnoxious rag liberals should want no part of. As for The Times, I agree with Frank Cross. DB’s complaint seems strained.
November 29, 2009, 7:15 pmBerkeleyBeetle says:
Michelle,
The Daily Planet publishes once a week. Go figure.
November 29, 2009, 7:18 pmCan't find a good name says:
In the original post, the second paragraph of the long quote from the NYT article should not be there. (“John Gertz, editor of dpwatchdog.com, a site containing what it calls anti-Semitic writings published in The Planet. He says his goal is not to close the paper.”) That’s a photo caption, not part of the text, which explains why that paragraph begins with an incomplete sentence.
November 29, 2009, 8:07 pmLeo Marvin says:
I agree. though Berkeley’s the most liberal place I’ve lived — most places I’m well left of center; in Berkeley I may even have been right of center — the vast majority of people there are cordial and respectful.
Unfortunately I don’t think this comparison works. What Berkeley has that I’ve never seen in Salt Lake City is a relatively tiny, but vocally hostile (left) fringe. I’m sure Salt Lake City is as right wing as Berkeley is left, but if it has a comparable political fringe, and I assume it does, they’re at least more respectful of people who disagree with them. I’m guessing that has something to do with the dominant LDS culture you mentioned, which among other things is unfailingly courteous. I disagree with Zarkov that a conservative has anything to fear from physical violence in Berkeley, but I would feel a lot more comfortable expressing my political views in Salt Lake City than I’d expect a conservative to feel doing in Berkeley.
November 29, 2009, 8:08 pmCan't find a good name says:
While I am suspicious of the NYT’s reporting of the controversy (i.e. as to whether it is about mostly the letters from readers or the main editorial content of the newspaper), I am also suspicious of the credibility of dpwatchdog.com.
Note the following paragraph from dpwatchdog.com regarding the intelligence, or lack thereof, of Becky O’Malley:
“Unfortunately for her, the system had changed in the era between her father’s admission to Princeton in 1930 and her admission to college in 1957. Slots in the best Ivy League schools that had been assumed would go to good girls from good families were now being granted on the basis of merit to upstart and swarthy Jews from unwashed immigrant families.”
The implication is that O’Malley wasn’t smart enough and couldn’t compete with Jews to get into Princeton. However, Princeton didn’t start enrolling women until 1969, which would even better explain why O’Malley didn’t go there.
November 29, 2009, 8:16 pmSara says:
What’s really confusing is that David Bernstein’s version of the NYT article and the NYT article he links to are not the same. So how can one credit Bernstein’s post?
November 29, 2009, 8:40 pmA. Zarkov says:
If the left in Berkeley is such a tiny “fringe” than how do you explain the various radical city councils that get elected?
Then I invite you to put a Palin sticker on your car and park it on Vine and Walnut over night.
Now my experiences are all more than 15 years ago. I suppose it’s possible that Berkeley is a really different place than in was in the period 1970-1990. But my daughter’s experiences match mine.
November 29, 2009, 8:45 pmAriel says:
Uh, no. Even if the Hersh article does that, if O’Malley did not include the prior reference to John Israel but only the later reference to Israel, she was probably trying to mislead readers.
November 29, 2009, 8:54 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Thanks, fixed, my mistake, messed up a block quote.
November 29, 2009, 9:01 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I agree that there is a certain degree of crankishness to Gertz’s site.
November 29, 2009, 9:20 pmGuy says:
They’re not common, but I absolutely have seen Bush-Cheney bumper stickers in Berkeley, I’ve also seen students on campus with stickers on their backpacks professing a right-wing political affiliation, and I know several conservatives who have never expressed a fear of making their leanings known to me. As for the city council, it shouldn’t be surprising that the politically active far left (like the tree-sitter folks) has a disproportionate influence on the council.
The Salt Lake City comparison may not be perfect (though there is the whole “LDS church owns Main Street” thing, for example), but my basic point is that you’re basically attacking an entire city, filled pretty much with ordinary Americans, just because of your impression of a few activists being overly hostile to those they disagree with.
“Even if”? It does do that, follow the link. Again, there is no link to O’Malley’s article, so basically all Gertz says is that she used a direct quote that, out of context, could be misinterpreted to refer to the nation of Israel negatively. Since this is highly dependent on context, I would think that Gertz would provide (or at least talk about) the context if he thought it would help his case.
November 30, 2009, 1:09 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » More One-Sided “Reporting” from the NYT -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Addie Bendory and Kai Kaapro, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: More One-Sided “Reporting” from the NYT: Here’s the way the New York Times describes an ongoing controversy ove.. http://bit.ly/5s3B6E [...]
November 30, 2009, 1:33 amneurodoc says:
Are the letters the NYT publishes a representative sampling of the coherent ones received or are they more reflective of a decided selection bias in favor of letters that echo the paper’s editorial slant? (Of course, if letters that echo the paper’s editorial slant are more likely to be published than those which don’t, then over time more of the former and fewer of the latter will be submitted for publication, and it will become more a representative sample.)
It seems to me that years ago (20?), the letters to the NYT were generally more original, of higher quality, and less consistently liberal. They were worth reading, whereas now I find them to be for the most part a waste of time. Do others agree or disagree?
November 30, 2009, 2:03 amA. Zarkov says:
I’m glad to hear that because that’s a change from my experience in the past. Are you sure those bumper stickers are on the cars of residents as opposed to someone from out of town parking during the day?
I don’t think that’s correct. There is a pretty big difference from the folks who inhabit Berkeley as compared to (say) Concord. I have never heard anyone describe the inhabitants of Berkely as “ordinary.”
November 30, 2009, 2:17 amGuy says:
No, I don’t exactly interrogate people about their bumper stickers, but I do know (and am friends with some) Berkeley students who are Republican. At any rate, I’ve never seen these cars being keyed. The College Republicans frequently have a booth set up at Sproul Plaza, I’ve seen people getting into arguments in front of it, but never violence.
That’s because the more extreme elements get disproportionate visibility. The population of Berkeley is by and large left-leaning, but to generalize that every inhabitant is a member of the various radical minorities is simply untrue. It’s akin to generalizing that all southerners are racists. Also, I want to emphasize that the presence of out-of-the-mainstream elements does not, on its own, constitute evidence that those who disagree need to fear for their safety.
November 30, 2009, 2:38 amAnnie says:
I lived in Berkeley and I remember the Daily Planet. I don’t know if Becky O’Malley was involved with the paper at that time, but the Daily Planet did represent the majority opinions of the city: Leftist and anti-Israel.
November 30, 2009, 7:41 amFloridan says:
Berkeley is a municpality of over 100,000 residents. The prevailing political sentiment may lean to the left, but it is foolish to assume that the overwhelming majority of Berkeley’s population is not politically apathetic.
As for non-leftists being under seige there and must go underground to protect their bodies and property, how does one explain the success of this group?
(My emphasis).
November 30, 2009, 9:43 amYankev says:
If you go back and take a deep breath or two before re-reading DB’s original post, I think you will see that he takes no position as to whether Gertz’s complaints about the Daily Planet are justified, but rather that through laziness or pro-newspaper bias, the NYT is seriously misreporting those complaints in order to make them seem unjustified.
November 30, 2009, 10:50 amYankev says:
Duh. And apparently neither is ridiculing a writer you disagree with by making fun of the fact that he is Jewish, e.g. by making fun of his yarmulke even though he doesn’t wear one.
November 30, 2009, 10:56 ammojo says:
The reason you’ve never heard of the “Daily Planet” is that it’s a worthless rag with a microscopic circulation.
November 30, 2009, 2:18 pmDouglas Weber says:
Now, Now. It is not worthless. Without it we would never know what the Berkeley City Council was up to without actually attending meetings, something I would not wish on my worst enemy.
November 30, 2009, 5:59 pm