The war from over here, part 3
Following the New York Times’ recent campaign of antisemitic incitement, in which it falsely and without evidence accused Israel of bombing a Gaza hospital, I fell into conversation with a friend of mine on precisely why the Times survives at all.
It isn’t just that the Times broadcast a blood libel that led directly to antisemitic violence, issued a non-apology apology, and continued to imply that there was at least something in the accusation. It’s that the Times in general is a bad newspaper. As in, it simply isn’t good at its job and hasn’t been for a very long time.
This is a paper, after all, that whitewashed Hitler, Stalin, and Castro—among other notables—and covered up the Holocaust, Stalin’s massacres, and a great deal more. Recently, revelations by former employees like Bari Weiss have exposed a pervasive, vaguely Maoist atmosphere of left-wing totalitarianism and general antisemitism among its staff.
Yet somehow, the remarkable halo effect the paper enjoys persists and has, if anything, grown stronger. By rights, the Times should have been forced by scandal and cancelled subscriptions to close up shop years ago. But it has remained popular, universally read among the American aristocracy, and decisively influential over the entire media landscape in the US. It is, in effect, the world’s most prestigious and omnipotent gutter rag.
My friend had a fairly decent explanation for this, which is that the Times is not, in fact, a newspaper, but a status symbol. It signals ones membership in or aspiration to join the American aristocracy, and thus carries with it a whole host of connotations that make it irresistible to the members of that class and its admirers.
Those connotations include an elite education, high intelligence, considerable or at least comfortable wealth, and a general disdain for one’s class inferiors. It also signals adherence to a series of ideals like compassion, equality, tolerance, and general love for mankind.
Thus, it displays one’s membership in a caste of saints who are not only materially successful, but consider themselves the finest and most moral people who have ever existed in the entire history of the universe. One can then feel comfortable sitting in judgment of anyone who doesn’t belong to that caste and even enjoy doing so.
All of this would be fine, and frankly amusing, if weren’t for the fact that people are getting hurt. The Times’ prestige isn’t just risible, it causes real world violence. The paper was forced to admit that it lied about the Gaza hospital explosion, but it doesn’t matter. Large sections of its readership will continue to believe it, and blame the Times’ capitulation on a Jewish conspiracy. They will do so because the Times told them to.
What can be done about this is unclear, but in recent years there have been some fairly successful lawsuits against media outlets that engaged in false accusations and distorted reporting that damaged individuals, groups, and their reputations. Perhaps something similar can be pursued against the Times by those with more resources and expertise than I.
A large number of people have contacted me about my recent column advocating for a new Jewish self-defense organization. This is heartening, but its fairly clear that none of them—including me—know precisely how to go about organizing one.
Thus far, I’ve been sending them to Magen Am, a Jewish defense organization operating in California and Arizona that seems to be pursuing something along the lines I described. If the group could go nationwide, or at least begin opening chapters in other cities, some progress might well be made.
If you’re interested in this issue, you can contact Magen Am at admin@magenam.com or via this page.
One of the few things that has comforted me during the recent turmoil is rereading George Orwell’s non-fiction. His clarity, moral fortitude, and extraordinary prose style—very close to a kind of English-language haiku—are a constant inspiration.
This is a bit ironic, since Orwell was reportedly a petty antisemite to a certain degree, as in he didn’t really hate Jews, but had a very British instinctual xenophobic dislike of them. He seems to have been aware of this, however, and at least in certain essays sought to grapple with his own prejudices. Sometimes that’s the best we can hope for, and it’s more than a great many people today are willing to do.
If you’re prepared to shell out a little bit of cash and reading time, Orwell’s four-volume Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters is well worth the investment. Particularly if you’re an aspiring writer yourself, it’s better than a degree in English literature by orders of magnitude.