More about the NY Times

 

bs"d

 

Dear Friends, amv"sh

 

Please read discussion below.  We'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

In a message dated 7/12/06 12:46:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sarasl21@yahoo.com writes:

Dear Robin,

 

I halted my subscription of the Times almost ten years ago, when it was not yet fashionable to do so! I couldn't take the bias back then and the aggravation it gave me was not worth reading any part of the paper. I actually went through a withdrawal of sorts after I cancelled my subscription, and I only found a wonderful substitute with the New York Sun.

 

You are right about not knowing whether they will distort any info on the sorry situation of the Gaza refugees. Since their foremost aim is to slant all news into their own radical bias, they may use any material you (or others) send them to do the same. Any article they print really ends up being a feature article rather than a news one. But, at the chance of embarressing the Sharon/Olmert government, it might be worth a shot. You never know!

 

What do others think?

 

Kol tuv,

Sara

bs"d

 

I don't know.  I'll ask around.  Meanwhile in my letter to the Times I focused on the positive contributions of the settlers to society before the disengagement and not only on their unfortunate homelessness at the present.  I made it a point to emphasize that they grew flowers and bug free lettuce.  That is in stark contrast with what the Palestinians have been doing with Gaza once it was given to them.  They literally destroyed equipment, buildings, infrastructure and many of the profitable farming enterprises that were handed over to them for free.  The chose instead to send Kassam rockets and attack Israel.  I am sure documentation for this can be found.  Perhaps it pays to focus on papers like the New York Sun that are less biased and not expect much from the Times.

 

What do others think?