Ira Stoll writes for the Washington Free Beacon about another example of major legacy media malfeasance.
Anti-Jewish hate crimes outnumber anti-Muslim hate crimes about seven to one, according to FBI crime statistics. Yet the New York Times is offering its readers a different view of the relative seriousness of the issues. The newspaper—which the Israeli government says “consistently demonizes and delegitimizes the Jewish State and publishes false blood libels against the State of Israel”—has escalated its coverage of supposed anti-Muslim bias to the point that, by some measures and at some times, the volume exceeds or roughly equals Times coverage of anti-Jewish bias.
Critics accuse the Trump administration and supporters of Israel of “weaponizing antisemitism,” a frequently groundless charge that is shorthand for the assertion that the antisemitism complaint is being used to silence criticism of Israel and also as a pretext for an authoritarian crackdown. Yet some of the Times coverage seems to engage in—to borrow a phrase—weaponizing Islamophobia, using the hate label in an attempt to silence criticism of Islamist extremism, of Muslim-dominated countries, or of support for terrorism.
Among the recent New York Times headlines and articles that exemplify or approach this pattern are:
An August 10 article by Zolan Kanno-Youngs headlined, “Trump Stokes Islamophobia by Calling Democratic Candidates ‘Jihadists.’” That article reported, “President Trump on Monday described Democratic candidates in the midterm elections as ‘jihadists,’ adding to Islamophobic statements recently made by Republican elected officials.” …
… A front-page article featuring the bylines of four Times reporters, purporting to describe “Islamophobia’s Rise in Texas.” This one is actually funny, because it takes the position that Muslims should have totally maximal free exercise rights under the First Amendment without being at all self-aware of the fact that when Times readers or Democratic politicians try to prevent Christians or Orthodox Jews from doing these things, the Times doesn’t describe those people as anti-religious bigots.
