I must disagree: the jewishness of an institution could matter in some instances and not in others.  It seems to me that it is not corret to say that it is relevant or not relevant without further argumentation.  One reason it is relevant is that it is difficult to otherwise explain why the NYT lacks sensitivity to the plight of the Palestinians...a patently true observation.  It may be simple economics -- circulation would be worse witha pro-Palestinian editorial page. As for the Post, one can look to its conservative politics as the reason for its position.  The same does not hold true for the NYT, so one must turn to another explanation for the NYT's tone deafness on the issue. So, I see it neither as absurd nor irrelevant to point out the jewishness of the NYT.  LIkewise, I do not see the fact that the NYT has Jewish blood, as it were, as meaningful without more.  That "more" is the burden of the person making the point public. Certainly, we are right to point out that the NYT and most papers do not have racial diversity.  By making that point you are saying either (1) they are racist or (2) they therefore lack sensitivity to issues meaningful to other races.  In fact, that is the entire argument in favor of affirmative action: who you are affects what you say, do, and bring to the table. eric   Carrol Cox <cbcox@ilstu.edu> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I think Doug's point (lots of 'points' here -- would avoiding it be Fowler's elegant variation?) -- anyhow, to start over. 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 t! hi! s 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</BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do You Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://launch.yahoo.com">LAUNCH</a> - Your Yahoo! Music Experience