Editor & Publisher
January 5, 2008
Israel launched its much-anticipated invasion of Gaza on Saturday. For over a week, U.S. media had provided largely one-sided coverage of the conflict, with little editorializing or commentary arguing against broader Israeli actions.
Most notably, after more than eight days of Israeli bombing and Hamas rocket launching in Gaza, The New York Times had produced exactly one editorial, not a single commentary by any of its columnists, and only two op-eds (one already published elsewhere). The editorial, several days ago, did argue against the wisdom of a ground invasion – - but even though that invasion had become ever more likely all week the paper did not return to this subject.
Amazingly, the paper has kept that silence going in Sunday’s and even Monday’s paper, with no editorial or columnist comment on the Israeli invasion — beyond a hawkish pro-invasion contribution by William Kristol. It’s as if the Times is waiting for the invasion to be over and adapt its position to the outocme.
The Washington Post did manage to work up an editorial for Sunday which, in the usual contortionist manner, found the invasion “justified” but also highly “risky.”
This article was posted: Monday, January 5, 2009 at 9:44 am