New York Times’ Ugly Obama Slur

BSN Search

02-09-12

Terror Vs. Freedom: Has 7/11 Bought More Time For General Museveni?

As we feared, public gatherings have been banned, and it is likely that Gen. Museveni and his lackeys in the security services will wave the security card like a preacher does the Bible, to frustrate opposition gatherings and political organizing. Full Story

Recent Comments

BSN does not necessarily support or endorse view points expressed throughout this site.

Date: July 28th, 2008
Name: Roger Jackson
Subject: Your Editorial Missed The Point
Comment: Ms. Neiman's editorial wasn't nearly as focused on Senator Obama as it was on the difference between Europe's and America's differing views on hope, idealism, realism and pragmatism. She was right in her rebuttal. You didn't read carefully enough.

Date: July 27th, 2008
Name: Cinti Laird
Subject: Dont Let NY Times Divide Us!
Comment: Perhaps the slamming of Presidential hopeful, Senator Obama in the Times Op-Ed has nothing a all to do with Senator Clinton. It may just be an oppressive ploy to call negative attention to Mr. Obama albeit with false claims. I see it as a sly effort to pump up the prospects of the current Republican opposition in terms of the upcoming vote without actually mentioning his name. Mrs. Clinton is not a dumb, vicious, jealous woman as the opponents would like to have you so paint her. She proved to be a fierce opponent, but that war has ended. She is also a brilliant team player who realizes that in 4 years time, she will get another crack at the Presidency and that if Senator Obama wins it now, she can count on a supporting position on the team, now. Don't allow the haters to drag you into the vicious cycle of divide and conquer within the Democratic ranks through underestimating their tactics. The opposition is brilliantly devious and viciously calculating in their efforts. They are masters in the techniques of divide and conquer - stirring up internal strife and misguiding focus. That's the intent of the Op-Ed and at best we should denounce it without questioning our own team or calling any additional attention to it. Simply say it's a lie and let it die. Americans are not so easily mislead after Enron, World Com and the results of the current Republican administration. Sometimes we just have to ponder things a little longer to figure out what they are really trying to hit us up with this time. There it is!

Editor's Note: Point well taken!

Date: July 27th, 2008
Name: Greg
Subject: Ironic
Comment: It`s really surprising to see how misrepresentations become common and meticulously crafted around a target whether is John Kerry or B. Obama. I just came back from Germany and saw with my own eyes how people where going crazy. I'm talking about three weeks before Barack' s arrival.. She is lying, period!
It was like the national holiday. I'm from 100% German background and my wife is African-American and I'm really appalled by the way propaganda is growing in this country ....

Date: July 27th, 2008
Name: ZEGEYE BELETE
Subject: Media Spreading Hate
Comment: What the lady wrote about Senator Obama is indeed a hateful slur. I hope and pray people here in the U.S. will open their eyes and see how mainstream newspapers are being used as a conduit to spread hate messages in the name of free speech and freedom of the press. In particular people should closely watch those newspapers, which claim to be liberal, but in reality have some other hidden agenda.

[Black Star News Editorial]

The New York Times today published a hateful and patently false Op-Ed article about Senator Barack Obama’s European trip.

The article contains scandalous assertions, incredible claims, and in an instance of character assassination of the most malicious and vile order, claims that Obama evoked memories of Germany's mass-murderer Adolph Hitler.

It’s become clear in recent weeks that there is still an entrenched cabal of Hillary Clinton supporters in The New York Times; after all, editors have the right to reject Op-Ed articles that are completely at odds with reality or any semblance of sanity. Perhaps the Op-Ed editors believe that by allowing the author to insult Senator Obama and even diminish his prospects of being elected president, that they are doing Clinton a favor by exacting some form of revenge?

We cannot find any other explanation for The New York Times’ hating on Obama.

The scandalous Op-Ed was authored by Susan Neiman and headlined “Change Germans Can’t Believe In.” Here are some of the unconvincingly stupid assertions the article contains, as when she refers to Obama’s visit to Europe: “But it’s been hard for me to find a European, aside from two Harvard-educated friends in Paris, who confessed to excitement — not just about the visit, but the prospect of an Obama presidency.”

So, in other words, we are to believe that 200,000 Germans showed up to catch a glimpse of Obama and to hear him speak because they all had nothing to do on that day? Why even publish an article that is at odds with reality from almost the very first sentence?

The author then seamlessly moves to petty hatred and bitterness: “It is true that Der Spiegel, the German newsweekly, featured Mr. Obama on its cover, topped by the words ‘Germany Meets the Superstar’ — but the cover was satire, and nasty satire at that. The editors managed to find the ugliest photograph of Mr. Obama ever taken. It caught the senator at a moment that might be exhaustion but looks like conceited smirking.”

Of course the author is entitled to her own reading of the Spiegel cover—but how can she know for fact that that’s what the editors of Spiegel intended? There is a lot of presumptuous malice in her assertion here; malice that some Times editors clearly welcome.

“Mr. Obama makes Europeans uncomfortable,” this nasty author continues, and then slams the senator with a despicable comparison to Germany’s most infamous mass murderer, “In Germany, politicians in front of large, shouting crowds evoke images that nobody wants to see repeated.”

How does The New York Times allow such slander to be published? What kind of brew do they drink at the Times while editing articles?

To allow even a hint of comparison of Senator Obama to Hitler? What other reference could have been intended? Was this meant to scare Jewish voters that are still concerned about Obama’s stance on Israel, when throughout his trip he made it unambiguously clear that he supports the Jewish state and a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian crises? The New York Times owes the senator a big apology for this nasty writing. The man should be criticized based on his stance on issues and on policies--this was however a despicable low blow.

“Mr. Obama’s speech gave Europeans a chance to hear the difference between optimism and idealism,” the nasty author concludes. “Optimists refuse to acknowledge reality. Idealists remind us that it isn’t fixed.”

The author and The New York Times remind us that some old hatreds die slowly.

To comment or to subscribe to or advertise in New York’s leading Pan African weekly investigative newspaper, or to send us a news tip, please call (212) 481-7745 or send a note to Milton@blackstarnews.com

Also visit out sister publications Harlem Business News www.harlembusinessnews.com and The Groove music magazine at www.thegroovemag.com

"Speaking Truth To Empower."