Can you believe that some people say that the New York Times isn’t an objective newspaper? They just refuse to see the overwhelming evidence that the Times offers impartial reporting. For example, the New York Times in the third paragraph of a recent story headlined “Despite Alarm by U.S., Europe Lets Hezbollah Operate Openly”, states:
Israeli and American officials have attributed the Bulgarian bus bombing last month that killed six people, including five Israeli tourists, to Hezbollah and Iran, saying it was part of a clandestine offensive that has included plots in Thailand, India, Cyprus and elsewhere.
Now, I must admit, my own immediate thought after reading this was: Shouldn’t the Times point out that there is no evidence to support the U.S. and Israeli accusation? Shouldn’t they, for example, tell readers that the Bulgarian investigators had not found evidence to draw that conclusion yet in their ongoing investigation? And anyone who stopped reading there might be left with the erroneous impression that by omitting this information, the Times was not being objective. Au contraire! All one needed to do was keep reading, all the way down to the very last sentence at the very bottom of page one, where the Times states:
And Hezbollah’s defenders note that no hard evidence has been produced tying the group to the Bulgarian bus bombing.
So, you see, this fact is something that “Hezbollah’s defenders note”, so if the Times had mentioned it in paragraph three, it would have made them “defenders” of Hezbollah, and it would certainly not be objective journalism to take sides like that by being a “defender” of a group the U.S. lists as a terrorist organization. So, naturally, basic journalistic integrity demanded that they withhold that information from the beginning of the article where they report the U.S.-Israeli accusation. Of course, neither would it be fair to “Hezbollah’s defenders” not to point it their argument for “defending” Hezbollah, so the Times, being as objective as it is, does fairly report their point of view much further into the article.
So, there you have it. So much for this silly nonsense about the New York Times not being an objective source for news! Hopefully, this will put to rest all this hoopla about the Times being nothing more than a propaganda outfit.