New doubts are emerging about the New York Times’s coverage of sexual violence during the October 7 Hamas-led attack — and the paper owes its readers an open and transparent explanation.
The latest questions are centered around Anat Schwartz, an Israeli who co-authored several of the paper’s most widely circulated reports, including the now well-known and scrutinized December 28 article headlined: “‘Screams Without Words’’ How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7.”
Independent researchers scrutinized the online record, and raised serious questions about Schwartz. First, she has apparently never been a reporter but is actually a filmmaker, who the Times suddenly hired in October. You would expect the paper to look for someone with actual journalistic experience, especially for a story as sensitive as this one, written during the fog of war. Surely the paper had enough of its own correspondents on staff who could have been assigned to it
Next, the researchers found that Schwartz had not hidden her strong feelings online. There are screenshots of her “liking” certain posts that repeated the “40 beheaded baby” hoax, and that endorsed another hysterical post that urged the Israeli army to “turn Gaza into a slaughterhouse,” and called Palestinians “human animals.”.
Just this morning, more evidence emerged online; Schwartz apparently also served in Israeli Military Intelligence
Finally, one of her co-authors on two of the reports was Adam Sella, who is her nephew.
The New York Times imposes strict rules on its reporters to maintain the appearance of objectivity. Reporters are not supposed to attend demonstrations of any kind, wear campaign buttons, or post opinions on social media. By hiring Anat Schwartz, the paper clearly violated its own guidelines, and it should publicly explain and apologize.
For fuck sake are you serious scrutinizing someone’s social media likes in order to push your agenda?
Yeah her liking pro Genocide posts is very relevant. And the fact that she served in the IDF. And doesn’t have a journalism background.
And that it has been proven that she falsified multiple claims.
Consider reading the chapter “Information Warfare” of this intercept article: Israel’s Ruthless Propaganda Campaign to Dehumanize Palestinians
Then fucking lean on the false claims ffs.
Her liking shit on social media is NOT something that has relevance to the validity of her claims.
Are you at all capable of thought? Change “Israel” to “Nazi Germany” and see how quickly your non-argument crumbles.
… Did you just try to Godwin this? The internet argument fallacy meme of all memes!
If this woman liked some nazi posts it doesn’t change the facts or lies she wrote in her article. That is not how facts work.
But it tells you she’s a fucking Nazi, you dimwit. It literally doesn’t matter what the argument of a Nazi is, you just punch them.
Which makes you feel good and superior but ultimately does nothing to help anyone.
Addressing the issues at hand does a lot more to change people than just being a complete dick.
Here’s an example:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/daryl-davis
So help us out, you be Daryl Davis pushing your ideals: what are they?
To us, we see someone who pushed a false narrative and that their social media likes bolster the evidence that this person wasn’t being objective or reasonable. That seems newsworthy and worth discussing.
My impression is you think we should not discuss this. I’m not sure why.
deleted by creator