“Deeply Sorry” NYT Publishes Two in a Row

It seems that anti-semitism may have infiltrated the New York Times. This past week the New York Times (NYT) had some pretty questionable publications. By questionable, I mean images that are unarguably anti-Semitic. The first of these images published this past Thursday in the NYT international version. The image is of a blind Donald Trump being led by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. They depicted the Prime Minister as a wiener dog with a blue star of David collar around his neck. This image is quite reminiscent of a piece of 1940’s propaganda put out by Germany in which a Jewish rabbi leads Winston Churchill.

The Times needs to take a good hard look at itself.

That Sunday the NYT came forward with an apology for the comic, claiming that “The image was deeply offensive and was an error of judgment to publish it.” Thousands of commenters voiced their discomfort at the comic. Additionally, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) made a statement. “The offensive image published in the New York Times international edition was anti-Semitic propaganda of the most vile sort” said the National Director of the ADL.

Apology? What Apology?

Along with the online apology from the NYT, they made a promise to also publish a written apology in print, put out on Monday. Perhaps this was a simple oversight on the part of the editors at the NYT. After all, everyone deserves a second chance, right? Even if the people were to forgive the New York Times, however, and afford them a second chance, it would not matter.

On Monday, the day that the acclaimed newspaper planned to publish its written apology, they published yet another offensive image of the Israeli PM. This time depicting Netanyahu as the prophet Moses, who lies very close to the center of the Jewish faith. However, the comic is far from respectful of this fact. They portrayed Netanyahu as a blind man holding a tablet with a star of David to replace the ten commandments. All while holding a selfie stick, trying to take a picture of himself.

How can we accept this behavior a day after the NYT professes to be “Deeply sorry” for its actions? The Times needs to take a good hard look at itself. They need to do some internal work. If they don’t, this kind of behavior is sure to continue.