I think Doug's point is crucial. There is NOTHING to be gained by even marginally noting that the ownership of this or that is Jewish. And there is an awful lot to be lost. And his comparison to the Presbyterian owner of the Post is apt. There are very few instances where it is even minimally intelligent to add irrelevant or marginal information about the persons whose positions one is attacking. The NYT is a dreadful -- even criminal -- institution. Would it be one bit better if a presbyterian or an amerindian owned it and followed the same policy.
In political discourse it is reasonable for the reader to assume that information transmitted is relevant and material.
Going out of one's way to speak of "Jewish supporters of Israel" instead of merely "supporters of Israel" does suggest that the fact is relevant. How could it be relevant? The obvious (and vicious) answer is that u.s. policy toward israel is a jewish plot.
It is worthwhile to note that a given critic of Israel is Jewish, because it is necessary to break through the lie that anti-zionism is anti-semitic. Hauling "The Jews" or "Jewish ownership of the Times" in really gives support to Israel. It is objectively anti-palestinian.
And we have had several threads on this list (and the point has been discussed on other lists too) that conspiracy theories are in effect apologies for imperialism.
Carrol
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Chris Kromm quoted Ace Cockburn:
>
> >These days you can't even say that New York Times is owned by a Jewish
> >family without risking charges that you stand in Goebbels' shoes.
>
> And what's the point of making this point in the first place? How
> does the NYT's coverage of Israel differ from that of media outlets
> not owned by Jews (e.g., the New York Post, owned by the grandson of
> a Presbyterian minister)? And how does their editorial stance differ
> from that of the Bush administration?
>
> Doug