(Photo by Aurora Samperio/NurPhoto via Getty Images) The New York Times appeared to remove a line from a September 23 article stating that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) had changed her vote from “no” to “present” on the Iron Dome funding bill because of “influential lobbyists and rabbis.”
The article stated that Ocasio-Cortez “tearfully” decided to change her vote after a meeting with her fellow Squad members, which the article initially said “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.” It was subsequently changed to say that the matter “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.” As of this writing, the article does not provide an editor’s note explaining the change.
The final version of the @nytimes article on the Iron Dome leaves out the antisemitic dog whistle ("influential lobbyists" and "rabbis") while still framing the vote as one of progressive "principles" versus pro-Israel loudmouths. Supporters have only big mouths, not consciences. pic.twitter.com/f4fyfT5xj1
— Gary Weiss (@gary_weiss) September 24, 2021
The “rabbis” line was met with criticism, and the stealth edit did not quell the criticism.
“Yes it’s commendable that @nytimes removed this antisemitic trope, but the paper seems to have a serial problem of indulging in stereotypes and elevating strident voices,” Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted. “There’s a pattern of bias that merits investigation. Submitting to a 3rd party review would be a good start.”
Yes it’s commendable that @nytimes removed this antisemitic trope, but the paper seems to have a serial problem of indulging in stereotypes and elevating strident voices. There’s a pattern of bias that merits investigation. Submitting to a 3rd party review would be a good start. https://t.co/m9liFc3V0w
— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) September 24, 2021
“As a proud Zionist and Rabbi, I was surprised to learn that we Rabbis have powers far beyond those of mortal men that could somehow cajole AOC to change her anti-Israel vote to ‘present,’” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean and Director of Global Social Action Agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said in a statement to the Journal. “Another explanation is that The Squad’s anti-Israel tropes had exceeded their weekly quota.”
Stop Antisemitism Executive Director Liora Rez also said in a statement to the Journal, “We’re not sure if we’re reading Richard Spencer’s the ‘Daily Stormer’ or a vintage piece from 1939 Die Wehrmacht! Every time we think the [New York Times] can’t go any lower with their disdain for the Jewish people, they shock us with more antisemitism.”
Representative Ritchie Torres (D-NY) tweeted, “Embedded in the story is the assumption that support for Iron Dome, which defends civilians from relentless rocket fire, can only be explained by power (‘influential lobbyists and rabbis’) rather than principle. The causal Antisemitism never ceases to shock me.”
Embedded in the story is the assumption that support for Iron Dome, which defends civilians from relentless rocket fire, can only be explained by power (“influential lobbyists and rabbis”) rather than principle. The causal Antisemitism never ceases to shock me. https://t.co/2obXrBR8Ze
— Ritchie Torres (@RitchieTorres) September 24, 2021
Newsweek Deputy Opinion Editor Batya Ungar-Sargon tweeted that the Times article was “disgusting.” “The [New York Times] remains incapable of writing about Jews without stumbling into the most obvious antisemitic tropes. Who knew Washington was overrun with ‘powerful’ and ‘influential’ rabbis forcing outspoken progressives of virtue to undermine their principles.”
Just disgusting. The NYT remains incapable of writing about Jews without stumbling into the most obvious antisemitic tropes. Who knew Washington was overrun with "powerful" and "influential" rabbis forcing outspoken progressives of virtue to undermine their principles 🙄 https://t.co/7eWBpzpvVS
— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 24, 2021
Writer Melissa Braunstein tweeted that even the stealth edit, the Times article “is still pumping antisemitic stereotypes into the cultural bloodstream.” “The only thing missing from this NYT article is the Internet-famous caricature of the Jewish man with the exaggerated nose rubbing his hands together, as he schemes,” she wrote in a subsequent tweet.
They thought this was better, huh? @nytimes is still pumping antisemitic stereotypes into the cultural bloodstream. https://t.co/KYpNusyjMv
— Melissa Braunstein (@slowhoneybee) September 24, 2021
The only thing missing from this NYT article is the Internet-famous caricature of the Jewish man with the exaggerated nose rubbing his hands together, as he schemes.
— Melissa Braunstein (@slowhoneybee) September 24, 2021
Gilead Ini, Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA, noted in a September 24 piece that the stealth edit did not translate to the print edition of the article, which still has the “rabbis” line intact.
“With no published “correction” to be found on the website, it’s unclear whether the paper will inform print readers that it doesn’t stand by the problematic language,” Ini wrote. “Will editors admit to echoing antisemitic tropes about Jewish power used against good, and apologize? Or will they pretend the edit, made as news of the language was spreading on Twitter, was just an inconsequential change made to save a bit of space?”
So… you know how we've all been saying that the @nytimes edited—stealth edited, but still—its ugly language about "rabbis" are responsible for smothering AOC's principles?
That's only partially true.
Readers of the print edition still learn about the nefarious rabbis. pic.twitter.com/adS11kfyUp
— Gilead Ini (@GileadIni) September 24, 2021
The Times did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.
The bill, which allocates $1 billion in funding to the Iron Dome, passed the House of Representatives with 420 votes in favor, nine against and two abstentions on September 23. The vote came after progressive Democrats refused to vote on a government stopgap funding bill if it included the Iron Dome funding.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.