The Times decides to profile, get this, a rich Jew who not only controls the media but controls it so as to further his interest in Israel. He has political connections and, of course, is married to a shiksa, and says of former presidential candidate Howard Dean being married to a Jewish woman, "'Governor, the fact that your wife is Jewish is your problem.'" Aside from eating Palestinian babies with matzo, it seems this Haim Saban character fits everything anti-Semites hate about Jews, and is probably browsing through his Protocols as we speak.
The article begins with this lovely image: "Haim Saban, one of the nation's richest and most improbable media magnates, was slouched in a leather seat aboard his Gulfstream jet during a trip from Los Angeles to New York this spring, rattling on about his support for Israel. After devouring a bagel covered in lox, he leaned forward and launched into his favorite story from the Democratic presidential primaries."
Argh! I mean, is the paper going out of its way and trying to make otherwise tolerant people anti-Semitic, to confirm stereotypes, to make Jews look ridiculous? The whole article continues along these lines:
"He has since emerged as perhaps the most politically connected mogul in Hollywood, throwing his weight and money around Washington and, increasingly, the world, trying to influence all things Israeli."
"He and his wife, Cheryl (who, by the way, is not Jewish), slept in the White House several times during President Clinton's two terms."
I'm sure people like Saban exist--as do living stereotypes of every group--but who's served by this man's profile being in the paper? In general there's nothing sinister and manipulative about pro-Israeli sentiment in Jews, but by portraying a pro-Israeli Jew who happens also to be a rich asshole, one who conveniently fits every negative Jewish stereotype to a tee, the Times does a damn good job of implying it.
Yuck, yuck, yuck.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Next week in the Times: Profiles of a black mugger and an Asian violin prodigy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Saban, though, is a loyal Dem.
Yes, but this is less about Saban than his pro-Israel position. Rich Democrats who oppose Bush can be found anywhere to be held up for adoration. Therefore when someone like Saban comes along, someone who they can use to support their "Jewish cabal" fantasies, he is more useful to them as a target than an ally.
And besides, any Democrat who believes a country should forecfully defend itself against Islamic terrorism, whether it is Israel or the United States, is highly suspect by the Times. They probably view Saban as some crypto-neoconservative (as if that's not a redundancy to the Times) anyway, who is covertly backing Bush but remains pledged to the Dems so as not to hurt his business.
Look, Jews who still read the New York Times are like Jews who still go to France - they are risking exposure to hateful abuse. I'm almost surprised they didn't airbrush horns into that picture of Saban.
Maybe you find what you're looking for? For me, the article was an inspiring success story. His biography sent him from a tenement in Israel to the top of Los Angeles.
He's chosen, (I think), to represent himself in the way the article has. We all know the type -- the obnoxious Israel-chauvinist who doesn't know how to talk about anything else. Well, he's not THAT bad -- but buying the German firm was emotionally powerful in his life, and that's one other thing he talked about which they put down on paper. But this is all besides the point --
At the very least, the New York Times being a democratic paper probably was aiming to inspire with their representation of Saban's political influence. Democratic Jews like him are the NYT's only hope for 2004.
Again, I'm only saying that if you are LOOKING for biased coverage in the Times, you're more likely to find it.
PS I'm not really anonymous, I'm Andrew and I'm lazy.
Andrew,
Or maybe the Times finds whatever it's looking for.
Post a Comment