NY Times stealth-edits report saying AOC faced 'powerful' pro-Israel 'lobbyists and rabbis' on Iron Dome vote

목요일에, 하원에서 압도적으로 찬성 $ 1 billion towards Israel’s defense system after the Democratic “분대” 처음에 더 큰 지출 청구서에서 자금을 제거했습니다., sparking backlash from the more moderate wing of the party.

법안, which received strong bipartisan support in a 420-9 투표, was dramatic until the very end as Rep. 알렉산드리아 오 카시오 코르테즈, D-N.Y. changed her vote from “아니” ...에 “선물,” a decision which apparently caused her to shed tears on the House floor. Her “분대” colleagues like Reps. 라시다 틀 레브, D-me., 과 일한 오마르, 디민., voted against the financial aid towards Israel.

NEW YORK TIMES STEALTH-EDITS REPORT ON HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY, SCRUBS ‘UNSUBSTANTIATED’ FOLLOWING BACKLASH

(C-SPAN)

하나, a report published by the Times documenting the turmoil among the Democrats offered a peculiar description of how conflicted the progressives felt when casting their votes.

Minutes before the vote closed, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tearfully huddled with her allies before switching her vote to ‘present.The tableau underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party, such as influential lobbyists and rabbis,” Times congressional correspondent Catie Edmondson initially wrote.

That paragraph raised eyebrows among critics on social media.

“.@nytimes frames the #IronDome vote as pitting ‘principles’—-the honorable goal of Israeli civilians getting murdered by Hamasand the raw naked power of the evil Jew Lobby. Including rabbis! It’s that bad!” journalist Gary Weiss 반응.

AOC, 이스라엘 아이언 돔 하우스 투표에 울고 나서 '악어의 눈물' 흘리기 위해 구운 것

“97% of the members of Congress supported a resolution to fund the #IronDome because it saves lives. But the @nytimes wants people to believe it was a tough call, between *principles* & *powerful lobbyists* What a sick way to frame the issue of protecting civilians from missiles,” Joel M. Petlin, a contributor to the Jewish newspaper The Forward, 반응.

I do think most #Jews find it offensiveif not outright #antisemticto frame #rabbis as coercive conspiring emotional blackmailers into true belief@AOC can make up her own minddo better @nytimes,” 박사. Sara Yael Hirschhorn, a visiting assistant Israeli Studies professor at Northwestern University, scolded the Times.

When rabbis identifying antisemitism arepowerful pro-Israel voicesbut hateful bigotry isprinciple,” the @nytimes has gone the way of Izvestia & Der Sturmer,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken of the Coalition for Jewish Values 트윗, referring to the Soviet Union and Nazi propaganda newspapers.

‘caughtbetween their principles and, 어, powerful jews?” Washington Examiner commentator Becket Adams 물었다.

Rabbis made AOC cry,” National Review senior writer Michael Brendan Dougherty 썼다.

NYT would like us to feel sympathy for tearful @AOC. That pressure from ‘powerful pro-Israel voices and rabbis’ must have been hard for her to bear. But probably more bearable than a direct hit from a Hamas rocket on your family without any defense,” Michael Dickson of the pro-Israel group StandWithUs 썼다.

Times editor forgot to take out the open antisemitism. Whoops!” Jerusalem Post correspondent Lahav Harkov exclaimed.

AOC CONSOLED BY OTHER MEMBERS AFTER ISRAEL IRON DOME HOUSE VOTE

After Twitter backlash, the paragraph was later changed to simply read, “The tableau underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party.

There was no editor’s note or official retraction listed on the article to document the change. 하나, there was a correction listed for an error that accidentally misstated the final vote as “490 to 9instead of 420 ...에 9.

The New York Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Former Times opinion editor Bari Weiss declared last year that Twitter was becoming theultimate editorof the liberal newspaper in her scathing resignation letter.

지난주, the Times was similarly caught stealth-editing a report involving the Hunter Biden laptop story, scrubbing the wordunsubstantiatedthat was initially used to describe the New York Post’s reporting.

The Times spokesperson told Fox News after the laptop story, “We regularly edit web stories—especially breaking news stories—to refine the story, add new information, additional context or analysis. This story was completely revised to incorporate the news regarding Snapchat.

When asked if the Times regrets calling the Hunter Biden laptop reportingunsubstantiated,” the spokesperson did not comment.

댓글이 닫혀 있습니다..