NY Times Writer Exceeds Annual Quota In 2nd Acknowledgment Of Palestinian Fault

It is an observation that only token right-wing op-ed columnist Bret Stephens is allowed to make.

New York, February 22 – An editor for the Paper of Record faces potential disciplinary action for going beyond the permitted limit in an editorial draft of one acknowledgment per twelve-month period of the fact that Palestinian leadership bears primary responsibility for its people’s troubles, a source within the organization disclosed today.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, did not reveal the name of the New York Times editor, but reported that the offending member of the roster was called onto the carpet by Managing Editor Dean Baquet for violating the policy in an editorial draft that almost made it into publication last week, by devoting more than a perfunctory half-paragraph to the deceptions, corruption, intransigence, incitement, and general unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to arrive at a negotiated peace agreement with Israel. It also, according to the source, acknowledged the relative unimportance of Israeli policies in Palestinian daily life under the autonomous Palestinian Authority, an observation that only token right-wing op-ed columnist Bret Stephens is allowed to make.

“This person got in some real hot water, because the same thing almost happened last June,” recalled the source. “I think the only reason there wasn’t a dismissal on the spot is that there was another editorial waiting in the wings to replace the one that they had to pull out. You should have seen the fury on the managing editor’s face when this was brought to his attention.”

The Times has long maintained a quota system for slanting its editorial positions on Israel, limiting to once a year the mention of salient facts that contradict the narrative of Israel as the primary culprit in Palestinian suffering. To maintain a veneer of objectivity the paper allows sentences that pay lip service to Palestinian volition and far-more-restrictive Egyptian control of Gaza Strip crossings than that by Israel, but otherwise insists its opinion writers not exceed the annual quota.

Similar tension arose several years ago at the Times when an editor allowed through an article that did not take a dismissive enough tone in reporting the concerns of Iran nuclear deal skeptics. That article did make it to publication, and the paper was forced to run a barrage of pro-deal articles to counter the possible effect on reader opinion. The barrage was scheduled to take place in any case, but the source recalled that the board had agreed with the White House to coordinate propaganda efforts, and the launch of the barrage threw the echo chamber off schedule and created numerous administrative headaches.

Please support our work through Patreon.