April 19th, 2017

All the lies…

…that are fit to print.

Find them in the NY Times:

Michael Oren: …I talk about an incident that occurred in May of 2010 with the New York Times when Mahmoud Abbas published an op-ed in the New York Times in which he alleged that he insinuated that the Arabs accepted the U.N. partition resolution of 1947, and the Jews rejected it. And I called up the editor of the New York Times, and I said wait a minute, this is exactly the opposite. Don’t you check facts? We [Israel] accepted it. The Arabs rejected it, and went to war against it. That was the war of independence. And the Arabs rejected the first two-state solution. And he says well, that’s your interpretation. Now wait a minute, there are certain in-controversial historical facts, uncontestable facts. I mean, did the Allies land, or did they not land on Normandy Beach in June, 1944? And the editor’s response was [analogous to] well, some people think so.

That’s an interesting aside in an interview that focuses on the Times’ recent publication of a tract by the convicted terrorist Marwan Barghouti, whom the Times described as “a Palestinian leader and Parliamentarian.”

[ADDENDUM: Well, it’s even worse than I thought at the Times, and I’ve long thought it’s very very bad.

That Normandy quote wasn’t just Oren making an analogy; it was apparently what the Times editor actually said. I interpreted the Oren quote in the Hugh Hewitt interview as being somewhat ambiguous and thought it was most likely an analogy rather than a direct quote, although it’s clear to me (and has been for a long time) that the Times regularly lies about Israel. I’m not defending the Times editors; I’m accusing them.

I’ve finally found this article from two years ago, in which the matter is clarified:

Oren, who was recently elected to Israel’s Knesset, goes on to recount a bizarre exchange he had with New York Times op-ed editor Andrew Rosenthal after Oren felt “compelled” to respond to an erroneous retelling of history that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas published in the New York Times in 2011. In his New York Times op-ed, Oren writes, Abbas implied “the Arabs had accepted the UN’s Partition Plan in 1947 while Israel rejected it,” which is the exact opposite of what actually occurred.

Oren’s recreation of the phone exchange between him and Rosenthal suggests that the New York Times editor is unable to distinguish the difference between fact and opinion:

When I write for the Times, fact checkers examine every word I write,” I began. “Did anybody check whether Abbas has his facts exactly backwards?”

“That’s your opinion,” Rosenthal replied.

“I’m an historian, Andy, and there are opinions and there are facts. That the Arabs rejected partition and the Jews accepted it is an irrefutable fact.”

“In your view.”

“Tell me, on June 6, 1944, did Allied forces land or did they not land on Normandy Beach.”

Rosenthal, the son of a Pulitzer Prize-winning Times reporter and famed executive editor, replied, “Some might say so.”

So Oren has been telling this story for a while and it’s not an analogy. In his book he named the editor—Rosenthal—and the quote is a bit different, but just as bad or worse. So I stand corrected. I was being a bit too kind to the Times, something I’ve not usually been accused of.

I wonder whether Rosenthal believes the moon landing occurred, or whether “some might say so.” Did any historical event actually occur, according to Rosenthal?]

37 Responses to “All the lies…”

  1. y81 Says:

    Well, now the Republicans have their own post-truth spokesman, and the relativism of the Times has been turned against it.

  2. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Another example of an objectivist “confusing the issue with facts”.

    Facts are only valid when they support the narrative. Thus, expecting respect for facts to act as restraint from a leftist is a bit naive. If only it were not so.

    Here is the latest opposition to objective facts:

    “Three students at Claremont McKenna’s sister school, Pomona College, wrote an open letter to that college’s president, David Oxtoby, demanding he withdraw his stated commitment to free speech because, they said, it “has become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions.” They add that “truth” and “objectivity” are white-supremacist myths.” [my emphasis]

  3. M J R Says:

    y81, 6:02 pm — “Well, now the Republicans have their own post-truth spokesman, . . . .”

    Just so . . .

    Donald Trump Is The First President To Turn Postmodernism Against Itself

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/

  4. mollyNH Says:

    Mjr great link enjoyed reading it!
    &y81 what’s the big whoop? ( If I can borrow a cultural appropriation from Dem hypocrit fake Indian LizWarren) Rather the carnival barker then the pearl clutching con woman who belongs in a lock up & her minions the serpent woman, the half man half woman, the Wild man of Borneo,The Wolf Boy & all her assorted phony deplorable & irideemables, which to her warped thinking is what everyday people are. Laughs on her and those who voted for her!

  5. mollyNH Says:

    BTW, how Trump has played these fools & their media cohorts qualifies the man as a genius in that regard. So glad he is on our side !

  6. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    All the news that fits…their agenda.

  7. Frog Says:

    Truth is relative.
    Not for me, fortunately.
    We are truly awash in a sea of scheissdreck.

  8. AesopFan Says:

    “And he says well, that’s your interpretation. Now wait a minute, there are certain in-controversial historical facts, uncontestable facts. I mean, did the Allies land, or did they not land on Normandy Beach in June, 1944? And the editor’s response was [analogous to] well, some people think so.”

    I can’t even figure out how to comment on something this insane.

  9. neo-neocon Says:

    Aesop Fan:

    Just to clarify—I don’t think the editor literally said that about Normandy. I puzzled over that, too, and I decided that Oren was using denial of Normandy as an analogy to denial of the facts about the partition of Palestine (who accepted it and who didn’t) rather than that the editor had actually, literally said that about Normandy.

  10. J.J. Says:

    The heart of postmodernism – nothing can be known for sure except in the fields of biology, chemistry, and physics. All human cultures, governments, political preferences, economic systems, etc. are created from myths and stories told by fallible humans. All are relative and open to question. In their minds nothing can be known for certain, not even historical events.

    All the records of the past don’t mean much because in their opinions history is a matter of opinion. The USA winning WWII was not necessarily a good thing. Why? Because that is their opinion.

    However, even in areas of science; such as the math, physics, and chemistry associated with CAGW; they claim that those who dispute the theory do not understand the science, or have the wrong opinions, or are deluded, or are corrupt.

    Their arguments for their narrative, which is mostly opinion/myth, are based on two assumptions. The first is that their position is morally superior. The second is that they have authority (academic opinion, climate scientists, MSM, and Hollywood) in their corner. That they might be hypocrites, deluded, or racists never intrudes on their sense of certainty. That they are against free speech and free markets mark them as fascists of the first order.

    At one time I thought postmodernism would not last because it is so phony, irrational, and anti-freedom. I was wrong. It is probably THE domestic issue of our times.

  11. artemptydgr Says:

    The letter goes on to attack the very concept of truth as a symptom of “white supremacy”:

    “Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples,” they explain. “The idea that there is a single truth–‘the Truth’–is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples.”

    Welcome to the product of of schools post feminism and racialism

  12. parker Says:

    Oh, please… the postmodern people are nihilists. Its that simple.There is no truth except there is no truth. There is no reality except the reality when there is no reality. Long ago it was labeled insanity. XX might be XY, XY ight be XX. He might be zer, she might be zer. Until we can legally put them into the insane ward, we are lost as a civitation. These people need helth care. To deny is to fostef their illness.

  13. Yann Says:

    Neo, you don’t need to go to 2010 to find fake news in the mainstream media about this subject.

    There’s a website, BBCWatch, that follows all the lies and manipulations in the BBC about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s a continuous flow.

    https://bbcwatch.org/

  14. RC Says:

    noeneocon, re your response to Aesop fan, above; you may be giving too much credit to the NYT.

  15. Yackums Says:

    WTAF!?!?!?

    “the Enlightenment […] was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain”

    Up is down. Black is white. Freedom is slavery. Finkle is Einhorn.

  16. Chas C-Q Says:

    noeneocon: “. . . I decided that Oren was using denial of Normandy as an analogy to denial of the facts about the partition of Palestine (who accepted it and who didn’t) rather than that the editor had actually, literally said that about Normandy.”

    Oren said that the editor said those words, but you decided . . . that Michael Oren is a liar, basically. (You inserted “[analogous to]” into the published transcript.)

    Well, that’s “your truth,” if you wish it, I guess; but I don’t think it leaves you much room to criticize the NYT.

  17. CW Says:

    >>”…did the Allies land, or did they not land on Normandy Beach…?”

    It all depends upon your definition of the word “land.”

    The muddling of our language to suit one’s own argument was the gift bestowed on us by President Bill Clinton and reaffirmed by Barack Obama. The truth is now a relative thing, its relevance depending upon whether or not we choose to acknowledge it.

    Good luck with that.

  18. OldTexan Says:

    The term modern means current, now, in our time and it is an old word that means something in our English language. Used as an adjective like modern art which started in 1807 it indicates a change from old to new and it is a fixed point in time. Modern architecture has a meaning as a form of architecture, words have meaning.

    When my niece came back from her first year at Vanderbilt in the 1990’s and worked with us in our store at Christmas we had some time together and I ask her about her favorite subjects and she started talking about deconstruction in the postmodern era and I told her those words did not make sense.

    To me everything going on currently is happening in the modern time. Deconstruction is really a strange word because once something is constructed it exists, either as a physical item or abstract such as a story or song or a record of an event. A construction can be refuted, or dismissed or if physical dismantled and destroyed but the word construction means building and telling a college student that you are going to un-build something in order to understand the truth is total utter nonsense.

    Of course this squishy perception that the truth is what a group of people with the proper thinking decide it should be can sure cause a lot of misery for people who are old fashioned and think facts are real with consequences.

    That same niece went on to get her masters at a major University and came back home and told me that she thought she was a liberal on most issues but she discovered she was one of the most conservative students in her classes. That was almost 20 years ago and we know the ability to process information has probably been deconstructed further. (Whatever that means.)

  19. OM Says:

    To the “postmodernists”truth is whatever those in power want it to be, just as long as it is their tribe, gender, affinity group, ethnicity, “gender or non-gender,” or clique. It’s all about power to suppress anyone else’s thought and speech. What is actually thought or said is of no value, as Orwell (Ministry of Truth) or Carroll (Humpty Dumpty) pointed out. A few practical problems arise once you get more than one person involved; it devolves into constant suppression and application of power to maintain control.

  20. Otto Says:

    Pure postmodernism by the NYT. Reality is social construct. Must read “Explaining Postmodernism” by Hicks. That is the state of socialists who have received defeat after defeat for the the last century. Yes it started after WW1 when the world did not follow the Russia model of revolution.

  21. submandave Says:

    Chas C-Q: The wording is imprecise. As neo (and I) read it, the recounting of the conversation ends with, “And he says well, that’s your interpretation.” After that, Oren is openly musing on treating other historical facts in the same manner, and that the NYT’s response regarding the partition was analogous to denying the Normandy landings.

    Personally, I’d like to see these folks stand on the railroad tracks and see if they can deny the truth of several hundred tons of speeding steel.

  22. MPH Says:

    “It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else’s opinion.”
    – Thomas Sowell

  23. Artfldgr Says:

    Just compare what Erin Pizzey says compared to what the people are doing teaching the kids to be adults who do what with their lives?

    this is old news and her story is quite an eye opener as she was one of the people who exposed things and they threatened her life for it. a changer neo doesnt cover, along with freda utley, and about a dozen others. too close to home? not safe like modern ones who are vacuous?

    I didn’t last long. What I saw happening were groups of left leaning white middle class women gathering together to hate men.

    Their slogan was ‘make the personal political.’

    What I could see happening was that the most veciferous and the most violent of the women took their own personal damage, their anger against their fathers and expanded their rage to include all men. Many of these women were ‘trust fund bunnies’ meaning that they lived off their rich father’s money.

    What made the movement so immediately violent, was the fact that it was founded in England by American women who were on the run from the FBI.

    This was not the first time America exported its revolutionaries.

    Trotsky was deported along with other revolutionaries years before. Some went to Germany to join the Baader-Meinhof revolutionaries. Others went to Holland to join the Red Stockings and some chose to come to England. England seemed destined to become the revolutionary hot bed for terrorists all over the world – Beirut by the Thames.

    [snip]

    In 1970 terrorist women from groups everywhere poured into London for the first Women’s Liberation March, but by this time I was becoming far more politically aware.

    http://www.sossandra.org/2008/01/18/my-views-on-domestic-violence/

  24. The Other Chuck Says:

    Call me cynical but I’ve come to think that postmodernism is nothing but a tool of diehard Marxists. They don’t believe the insanity of Derrida and Foucault anymore than we do, but realize its usefulness.

  25. Mike Perry Says:

    Quote: “I mean, did the Allies land, or did they not land on Normandy Beach in June, 1944? And the editor’s response was [analogous to] well, some people think so.”

    Keep in mind that if you’re as woefully ignorant of history as many journalists are, virtually every fact becomes a matter of opinion.

  26. neo-neocon Says:

    Chas C-Q:

    That’s my best interpretation of what he said and what he meant, and I was NOT calling it a lie on his part. It seems to have been an analogy.

    And when you quote someone and put words in brackets, as I did, you are not “inserting” the words as though they were a quote from the person. That’s what the brackets are all about.

    Of course, my interpretation of the quote as an analogy could be incorrect. But until Michael Oren himself tells me so, I’ll assume that I’m correct and you’re incorrect about his meaning.

  27. Tuvea Says:

    Interesting.

    I wonder how the editor would have responded if Mr. Oren had asked ‘Did the United States drop a nuclear bomb or did the United States not drop a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945?’

  28. Spamf Roming Says:

    His actual quote is:

    “I mean, did the Allies land, or did they not land on Normandy Beach in June, 1944? And the editor’s response was well, some people think so.”

    The editor’s response here is paraphrased, but it is clearly in response to the question of whether or not the D-Day landing was a fact or an opinion.

  29. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    parker @ 1:00am,

    Bingo. The inmates truly are running the Left’s insane asylum.

    The Other Chuck,

    Marxists come in two flavors; Trotskyite true believers and Stalinists. Of the two, it is the Stalinists who cynically view postmodernism’s nihilism as a useful tool. Just as they view the Trotskyites as “useful idiots”.

    Tuvea,

    Facts are a white supremacist myth. Facts sole reality is determined by the degree to which they support the narrative. How many lights do you see, Picard?

  30. Yann Says:

    I wonder how the editor would have responded if Mr. Oren had asked ‘Did the United States drop a nuclear bomb or did the United States not drop a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945?’

    Even better: did black people went to US as slaves? did slavery in America really happen?

  31. Artfldgr Says:

    Call me cynical but I’ve come to think that postmodernism is nothing but a tool of diehard Marxists. They don’t believe the insanity of Derrida and Foucault anymore than we do, but realize its usefulness.

    BINGO!!!
    and there is even a famous soviet that detailed the double talk!! which is what it is… but it takes a real smart person to actually know its double talk, otherwise, you have to pretend… and THATS why people keep bringing up the emperors new clothes the original story as the point of the original is lost today – Its that the tailors points were protected by the ego of the victims who could not admit they were not as smart or clever and didnt see the clothing

    so that is what sets nechyeves cathecism.
    the top, knows the game and the fakery and knows how it moves people for their power [they know its a lie, and why so many wealthy are part of the scam (Bella dodd and others admitted to it!!!), and that they are using fronts, movements and bad advice visited on the women who have bigger ego problems than men, to put a combatant in every home!!!!!)

    the next level down, are furvent believers of most if not all, but do not question because they beleive its the greater good or their own future place

    the rest of them are the men the women, “EVEN THE VAPID ONES” who are tricked into self extermination by below birth rate, need foreign replacements, equate fiminism with being a woman or your nothing, and on and on.

    but we have had it normalized so long, we are like ex soviets who didnt see anything strange in the left right speech, the clostet polisci as abnormal, and on and on..

    we are the new soviets who dont know it once the old soviets removed themselves… they realized we defined ourselves in their opposition… without hte opposition, nothing to push back on, we would turn on ourselves as in an autoimmune desease and with all their games and tweaking, become so dysfunctional, we would give up in war and thats that.

  32. Artfldgr Says:

    Geoffrey Britain Says:
    Marxists come in two flavors; Trotskyite true believers and Stalinists. Of the two, it is the Stalinists who cynically view postmodernism’s nihilism as a useful tool. Just as they view the Trotskyites as “useful idiots”.

    this is wrong, there are at least three items in the troika or rather the triumvariate

    one the left is trotsky permanent war, etc.
    the centrists are stalin and lenin
    you left out the right, which is ok, everyone does, and its bukharin…

    not that i didnt mention it over and over so that we coudl do this again and again and again once people didnt read or pay attention.

    Left Opposition
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Opposition
    Leon Trotsky / Fourth International

    The Left Opposition was a faction within the Bolshevik Party from 1923 to 1927, headed de facto by Leon Trotsky. The Left Opposition formed as part of the power struggle within the party leadership that began with the Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin’s illness and intensified with his death in January 1924. Originally, the battle lines were drawn between Trotsky and his supporters who signed The Declaration of 46 in October 1923, on the one hand, and a triumvirate (also known by its Russian name troika) of Comintern chairman Grigory Zinoviev, Communist Party General Secretary Joseph Stalin and Politburo chairman Lev Kamenev on the other hand.

    The Right Opposition was led by the leading party theoretician and Pravda editor Nikolai Bukharin, and supported by Sovnarkom Chairman (prime minister) Alexei Rykov. In late 1924, as Stalin proposed his new Socialism in One Country theory, Stalin drew closer to the Right Opposition and his triumvirate with Zinoviev and Kamenev slowly broke up over the next year. The Right Opposition were allied to Stalin’s Centre from late 1924, until their alliance broke up in the years from 1928-1930 over strategy towards the Kulaks and NEPmen. Trotsky and his supporters in the Left Opposition were joined by the Group of Democratic Centralism.

    just reading the wiki for left, right and that should make you very scared… but maybe THATS Why no one reads it..

    my family lived thorugh it, scary is what you dont know, even monsters can be familiar.

  33. neo-neocon Says:

    See the ADDENDUM I just added to the post, for some clarification on the Normandy quote.

    The gist is that it’s even worse than I thought.

  34. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Artfldgr,

    If with Lenin you posit a combination of Trotsky’s true believer with Stalin’s ruthlessness, I agree and stand corrected.

    But… Stalin was a ‘centrist’? Personally, I find that assertion “a bridge too far” and imagine that at least 20 million dead think otherwise as well.

    I’ve little doubt that you’ve mentioned this particular point “over and over” but that malady MEGO (my eyes glaze over) struck long ago, your lengthy, tedious missives require a degree of attention and investment that quite frankly, I’m unwilling to tolerate.

    Many here have repeatedly suggested in vain that you avoid counter-productiveness by making them more concise. Crumbs are more easily digested than a 15 course dinner.

    Otherwise, babble on, a Macduff in your own play.

  35. Doug Purdie Says:

    Post-modernism – There is no absolute truth, no such thing as facts! Which begs the question, “Is it true that there is no such thing as truth?”

  36. OM Says:

    Doug:

    It’s true if you are holding the gun.

  37. AesopFan Says:

    Thanks for the Addendum. I would trust Oren over the Times any day and twice on Saturdays.
    But sometimes its lies, and sometimes just stupidity.
    They kind of run together.
    Or, some people might think so.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/the-new-york-times-corrects-fake-news-three-weeks-late.php

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge