I get the NY Times internet "digest," and today there was an article about the terror attack in Tel Aviv. If you click this link, what do you think you will read about? Innocent Israelis injured? Jewish business and buildings damaged? OK, try, click it. I bet that isn't the aticle you wanted or expected. But this is what they featured, what they offered to subscribers all over the world. Nebich, the poor terrorist and his family. Here's an the article from the Times about the Arab terror attack, and here's another from another source. Compare, please.
When I was in NY last week, the big topic of conversation was Spielberg's "Munich." Couples fought over it. Was it good, or bad? One person I spoke to insisted that it really was OK. He felt that the Jewish-Israeli issue was sympathetic.
I haven't seen the movie, and I have no idea when I will. It's a movie made for Hollywood. It wasn't made to be a documentary. It's not a news article, which is supposed to be objective and free of emotion. When the NY Times features a sympathetic story of an Arab terrorist as "news," what can you expect from Hollywood? Even if the movie was from one of the "prouder" Jews in the business...
2 comments:
I left the NYT long ago. It was making my blood pressure rise way too much for my comfort.
As for Munich, as you know I reviewed it on my site. People just don't get it. Heck, I had to explain to my sister why the review in "Entertainment Weekly" was short-sited and baloney. Makes me sick.
for free the NYT, ok, easy to delete
Post a Comment