I can this a lot. We will never know how many lives could have been saved - and still be saved - in Gaza had the NYT not decided to support the genocide with every fibre of its being
There was a time when I smoked cigarettes, so I suppose I can break the nasty Times habit, too. Thank you for this excellent and necessary piece. What you've written here evokes Karl Kraus and his ongoing battle with the Neue Freie Presse (star reporter: Theodore Herzl) for its mendacious and corrupt coverage during WWI. His play The Last Days of Mankind is as timely now as when it was published in 1918.
Hi Ben, your remarkable passion and humanity, are an inspiration to me at this time when I find it impossible to find the words to express my own despair, anger and grief. A situation beyond hyperbole. Too many people and institutions I have trusted over a lifetime have betrayed us. I wish I could DO something. Bill
We have to do whatever we can, which will always feel like too little. And not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the anger and despair that we are all drowning in.
I notice of late that the deeper reporting is on Substack( Heather Cox Richardson, Jess Piper, Paul Krugman, you {you’re the only one who wrote in depth about the faux pogram in the Netherlands recently}). Other than Ezra Klein & Nick Kristoff, the commentary feels shallow) and yes, WTF with the fluff slur piece on Mamdani? 💙💙
I just read a lot of people I trust, avoiding most institutions. Some institutions are ok! Not all are as bad as the Times. And even there, there are plenty of good people.
I recently got a NYT subscriptio for free together with my NRC subscription, every now and then, when it is about major global event I check them all - my go-to subscription id the Guardian - and I must say, it is evident the priorities they give to certain topic, the place where they are placed. I am pretty sure I am not going to renew it anyway, but I hear from a whole bunch of aquantainces that they also stopped somewhere before the elections.
Is there a single ‘liberal’ outlet that hasn’t failed us in this genocide? In fact, as your article points out briefly mentioning the democrats, which liberal institution hasn’t failed us in this genocide? The UN? Maybe?
Not every news organization has been as bad as the Times, though many of them have been terrible. But it occupies a unique place in American society--as well, of course, in Jewish society--that gives it an outsize responsibility.
Agreed that the NYT is emblematic. Maybe ‘not as bad’ because expectations weren’t as high?
Wouldn’t ‘the market place of ideas’ suggest that another leading publication could’ve filled the void left by the NYT. This didn’t happen. They all failed miserably.
It’s liberalism itself that is crumbling… none of the liberal bastions are putting up a fight, it really does feel like it was all for show.
I think that if the Times had been more principled it would have made it easier for so many less powerful politicians institutions, not to mention individuals. Its inaction indeed laid bare the vacuousness of so many of our liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party.
The one exception I can think of is maybe The American Prospect, where even the more Zionist-leaning staff members have taken a pro-weapons embargo and “no military solution to Gaza” stance.
In the 1980s, when I was at the Times, there was still real belief in the power of journalism, observation, and real reporting. While Abe Rosenthal was enjoying his new access to the White House and the intelligence agencies, there were were key figures in the newsroom who insisted on fact-based reporting. The leader was Seymour Topping (“Top”). The supreme judge of news in that era was Al Siegal. On the other hand, Max Frankel, who had moved from Washington bureau chief to editorial page editor, was key to furthering Punch Sulzberger’s influence in Washington—and the Times began to be aware of its influence. I think that the slide tilted down when Max took over from Abe.
Now, news analysis and “background” pieces have replaced hard news in the paper and on the site. Foolishly copying cable TV news and social media, the Times is fronting reporters’ images as the main art on stories in the app, perhaps in the hope of turning them into “influencers.”
It's the conflation of news with opinion that is killing the Times, as it did at the Guardian, as a trustworthy source. Of course if you agree with the Guardian, it goes down pretty well.
Oddly, the Wall Street Journal has a better distinction between the two. I keep going to Reuters and the BBC for hard news. And for the big picture, the FT, which has been steady on Palestine.
I continue to believe that democracy can survive if people can get the news. But I don't really see how that's going to happen
Thank you for this strong post. It's heartrending.
Totally agree, Ben. Recall us fighting over the paper in college...who would get our hands on it first when it was delivered to our home on hidden street! But i have also soured on the coverage as well. Thanks for writing this. Always appreciate your insights:)
For a piece addressing language and power and the devastating misuse of each, I just want to say that this is perfectly and powerfully written. Cutting, and declarative, and I felt each period. Thank you for so clearly articulating the disgust, the horror, and the rage.
Erudition is the enemy of Propaganda - feel free to 'quote me' - or more auspiciously, to quote Primo Levi "our language lacks words to express this offence, the demolition of a man' -
Shema
(epigraph to his book If This is a Man)
You who live secure
In your warm houses,
Who return at evening to find
Hot food and friendly faces:
Consider whether this is a man,
Who labours in the mud
Who knows no peace
Who fights for a crust of bread
Who dies at a yes or a no.
Consider whether this is a woman, without hair or name
I can this a lot. We will never know how many lives could have been saved - and still be saved - in Gaza had the NYT not decided to support the genocide with every fibre of its being
This was an antidote to our daily gaslighting. Thank you.
There was a time when I smoked cigarettes, so I suppose I can break the nasty Times habit, too. Thank you for this excellent and necessary piece. What you've written here evokes Karl Kraus and his ongoing battle with the Neue Freie Presse (star reporter: Theodore Herzl) for its mendacious and corrupt coverage during WWI. His play The Last Days of Mankind is as timely now as when it was published in 1918.
Cigarettes are honestly healthier. They might fog the air but they don’t create this degree of moral pollution.
Hi Ben, your remarkable passion and humanity, are an inspiration to me at this time when I find it impossible to find the words to express my own despair, anger and grief. A situation beyond hyperbole. Too many people and institutions I have trusted over a lifetime have betrayed us. I wish I could DO something. Bill
We have to do whatever we can, which will always feel like too little. And not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the anger and despair that we are all drowning in.
I notice of late that the deeper reporting is on Substack( Heather Cox Richardson, Jess Piper, Paul Krugman, you {you’re the only one who wrote in depth about the faux pogram in the Netherlands recently}). Other than Ezra Klein & Nick Kristoff, the commentary feels shallow) and yes, WTF with the fluff slur piece on Mamdani? 💙💙
Yes, I think that is what we are seeing. I recently spoke to Aida Alami of the Columbia Journalism Review about this phenomenon. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/trust-news-ideology-partisan-personalities-survey-says.php
Thank you for articulating what I’ve been feeling about the NYT. Thank you for the nudge. Just unsubscribed after 30 years.
It feels great. Nothing like a little self respect!
Thank you for writing this. What alternatives do you find yourself turning to for journalism?
I just read a lot of people I trust, avoiding most institutions. Some institutions are ok! Not all are as bad as the Times. And even there, there are plenty of good people.
Thanks for this eloquent piece.
I recently got a NYT subscriptio for free together with my NRC subscription, every now and then, when it is about major global event I check them all - my go-to subscription id the Guardian - and I must say, it is evident the priorities they give to certain topic, the place where they are placed. I am pretty sure I am not going to renew it anyway, but I hear from a whole bunch of aquantainces that they also stopped somewhere before the elections.
I am depressed to learn that I will still have a subscription through the NRC!
Oops! Don’t read it.
In the Guardian, not the NYT. Assume you do read the Guardian…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jul/06/destruction-of-palestine-is-breaking-the-world?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Is there a single ‘liberal’ outlet that hasn’t failed us in this genocide? In fact, as your article points out briefly mentioning the democrats, which liberal institution hasn’t failed us in this genocide? The UN? Maybe?
Not every news organization has been as bad as the Times, though many of them have been terrible. But it occupies a unique place in American society--as well, of course, in Jewish society--that gives it an outsize responsibility.
Agreed that the NYT is emblematic. Maybe ‘not as bad’ because expectations weren’t as high?
Wouldn’t ‘the market place of ideas’ suggest that another leading publication could’ve filled the void left by the NYT. This didn’t happen. They all failed miserably.
It’s liberalism itself that is crumbling… none of the liberal bastions are putting up a fight, it really does feel like it was all for show.
I think that if the Times had been more principled it would have made it easier for so many less powerful politicians institutions, not to mention individuals. Its inaction indeed laid bare the vacuousness of so many of our liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party.
The one exception I can think of is maybe The American Prospect, where even the more Zionist-leaning staff members have taken a pro-weapons embargo and “no military solution to Gaza” stance.
If only you were not right.
In the 1980s, when I was at the Times, there was still real belief in the power of journalism, observation, and real reporting. While Abe Rosenthal was enjoying his new access to the White House and the intelligence agencies, there were were key figures in the newsroom who insisted on fact-based reporting. The leader was Seymour Topping (“Top”). The supreme judge of news in that era was Al Siegal. On the other hand, Max Frankel, who had moved from Washington bureau chief to editorial page editor, was key to furthering Punch Sulzberger’s influence in Washington—and the Times began to be aware of its influence. I think that the slide tilted down when Max took over from Abe.
Now, news analysis and “background” pieces have replaced hard news in the paper and on the site. Foolishly copying cable TV news and social media, the Times is fronting reporters’ images as the main art on stories in the app, perhaps in the hope of turning them into “influencers.”
It's the conflation of news with opinion that is killing the Times, as it did at the Guardian, as a trustworthy source. Of course if you agree with the Guardian, it goes down pretty well.
Oddly, the Wall Street Journal has a better distinction between the two. I keep going to Reuters and the BBC for hard news. And for the big picture, the FT, which has been steady on Palestine.
I continue to believe that democracy can survive if people can get the news. But I don't really see how that's going to happen
Thank you for this strong post. It's heartrending.
Totally agree, Ben. Recall us fighting over the paper in college...who would get our hands on it first when it was delivered to our home on hidden street! But i have also soured on the coverage as well. Thanks for writing this. Always appreciate your insights:)
For a piece addressing language and power and the devastating misuse of each, I just want to say that this is perfectly and powerfully written. Cutting, and declarative, and I felt each period. Thank you for so clearly articulating the disgust, the horror, and the rage.
Erudition is the enemy of Propaganda - feel free to 'quote me' - or more auspiciously, to quote Primo Levi "our language lacks words to express this offence, the demolition of a man' -
Shema
(epigraph to his book If This is a Man)
You who live secure
In your warm houses,
Who return at evening to find
Hot food and friendly faces:
Consider whether this is a man,
Who labours in the mud
Who knows no peace
Who fights for a crust of bread
Who dies at a yes or a no.
Consider whether this is a woman, without hair or name
With no more strength to remember
Eyes empty and womb cold
As a frog in winter
Consider that this has been:
I commend these words to you
Engrave them on your hearts
When you are in your house,
when you walk on your way
When you go to bed, when you rise
Repeat them to your children
Or may your house crumble,
Disease render you powerless
Your offspring avert their faces from you.