Caption: The anti-Semitic cartoon that appeared in The New York Times International paper last Thursday.
Last Thursday, the international print edition of The New York Times included an anti-Semitic cartoon of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu playing a dog on a leash held by a blind President Donald Trump. While there was no accompanying article, the cartoon was meant to criticize President Trump's approach to Israel. However, with Prime Minister Netanyahu being dehumanized into a dog, the cartoon clearly held anti-Semitic tones.
In response, The New York Times issued a statement apologizing for its publication of the cartoon. The newspaper explained that the cartoon ran through with an okay after being approved by a single editor. However, many have deemed the statement as inadequate. The American Jewish Committee was one of the critics, saying in a tweet, "Apology not accepted...What does this say about your processes or your decision makers? How are you fixing it?"
This is not the first time that The New York Times has been under fire for anti-Semitic print. Last December, the paper's Sunday Book Review included an interview of writer Alice Walker - author of 'The Color Purple" - that included controversial books. When asked about the books on her nightstand, Walker mentioned "And the Truth Shall Set You Free", a notoriously anti-Semitic book that endorses "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and encourages the questioning of the occurrence of the Holocaust in schools. The paper similarly was criticized by its readers, arguing that the book should have been flagged as an anti-Semitic book. The New York Times responded saying that it was not their job to censor what was said in an interview. Most alarming was the book review editors' explanation: "We never question people on their choices. The people's answers are a reflection of their opinions, taste and judgement."
Frankly, I am appalled by The New York Times' inclusion of such a cartoon. It is upsetting to see that anti-Semitic views continue and seem to be on the rise with synagogues often being attacked. This truly brings to light how Post-Holocaust prejudice against Jews still remains, and how it is yet another example of the many religious and racial tensions in America right now. It also leaves room for questions on whether the public's view on how America should approach the Israel conflict will change; will Trump's back out approach be approved by the general public or not in the rest of his term and in the upcoming presidential election?
Questions:
1. Do you think Anti-Semitic views are on the rise?
2. Should there be universal guidelines on what cartoons are allowed to be published in news outlets? If so, what are they?
3. Do you think self-described non-partisan news outlets should include content from those with controversial beliefs? Does the inclusion of content such as the mention of "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" count as endorsement and approval from the news source?
News Links:
Well yeah, anti semetic views are on the rise, with the rise of alt-right and neo-nazi groups throughout the world, who keep up with the tradition of hating the Jewish people. I don't think a centralized system for those types of cartoons is necessary or advisable, any newspaper significant enough to actually care about and conform to the guidelines would be one that would be receptive to feedback and admit when they made a mistake. I do think that news outlets should contain opinions, it's the whole point of a vast proportion of any newspaper, the editorials, opinion pieces, columns, reviews and comics. People with controversial beliefs should still be heard, even if newspapers could do more to explicitly classify their views as such, in some capacity allowing a mention of a source like "and the truth shall set you free" without challenge is an endorsement, so newspapers shouldn't simply allow people to go too far in sharing their opinions without pushback.
ReplyDeleteI think anti-Semitic views are rising alongside all of the other hateful leanings like islamophobia and white supremacy. However, I think that if the world leader depicted as a dog in this cartoon had been anyone other than Netanyahu, this wouldn't even be a discussion. The main aim of this cartoon was to criticize Trump's blind following of Israel, and blatant disregard for the Palestinian side of the conflict. While I can see how it could be seen as Anti-semitic, especially with the addition of the Star of David, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with criticizing the President's relationship with a foreign government, even if the nation in question happens to be the Jewish state. Regardless of religious affiliation, journalists in the NY Times should be allowed to express their views towards the conflict without automatically being labeled as anti-Semitic. I'll say it again and again, there is a DIFFERENCE between being anti-Semitic, and criticizing the Israeli Government. You mention in the blog that you wonder if Trump's "back out" approach will be continued, but actually Trump has been actively supporting Israel and making advancements to their cause like no other president has-- by recognizing Jerusalem as their capital.
ReplyDeleteSelf-described non-partisan news outlets should include content from controversial beliefs, however they should present them in a way that is not extremist for any side. It is important than news outlets are able to inform the public about all facets of politics, and therefore they should not fear to cover controversial topics. However, they also have the duty of doing so carefully, as they are able to greatly impact people's views through how they report certain topics. The inclusion of content such as "And the Truth will Set You Free" is not inherently endorsement of such beliefs. News outlets should be allowed to cover such content as long as they clearly state that they do not condone those views, and the entire piece is done objectively if not in a criticizing tone. Articles that include extremist views should portray them under an analytical light, and examine those views rather than support them. It should also be important to include examples of content that counters the harmful views so that the reader understands that those views are harmful.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not necessarily think that the NY Times was trying to send out an Anti Semitic message, it was foolish of them to not see the dehumanizing way they were portraying the leader of a country. if the NY Times is attempting to criticize leaders through a political cartoon for being ignorant, it is ironic that they themselves were unable to see the flaws in what they were publishing. In this time where Jewish people are being targeted for simply attempting to live their lives according to there religion, this cartoon is hideously inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe that New York Times was not intentionally trying to be anti-Semitic, it is however a bad way to portray themselves to the public. As an established and reliable news source, they should have checked thoroughly to make sure that they will not offend people. However, at the same time, this is also a political cartoon/satire. If everyone got angry at political satire, then there would be no reason for there to be satire.
ReplyDeleteI think that anti-semitic views are rising. However, I don't think it was New York Times intention to be anti-semitic. The cartoon is anti-semitic and insensitive towards the Jewish population. If they are a non-partisan news outlet, they shouldn't be posting controversal cartoons as such because they come off as insensitive, biased and racist.
ReplyDelete