Why I read The New York Times

After I watched a documentary (Page One) about the news room of The New York Times, I kept thinking about my habit of reading this publication. When I first came to the US in 1983, I was in the habit of reading Lebanese newspapers. I had a subscription to a Lebanese newspaper that arrived ten days late. While there was no Internet, there were services that offered translations and summaries from the Middle East press.

So, I quickly developed a habit of reading The Washington Post, and then the NYT. As I moved from one city to another, the NYT was the only national newspaper available (there were others, like USA Today and The Wall Street Journal but they did not serve the purpose for many reasons). But do I have a daily (almost obsessive) habit of reading the NYT?

The NYT is read by different people for different reasons. Some people read the NYT because it speaks for them and represents their political orientations. Others read it in order to get a perspective on an influential newspaper. I realized that I read it for a very different reason. I have often described my reading of the NYT as “homework”: in the sense of a compulsory exercise that one does not enjoy, or enjoys to the same degree of one’s enjoyment of dental work. I read the NYT not even to learn about the news of the last day. In the age of the Internet and international satellite news channels, one does not wait for the next day newspaper to learn about news. That purpose was fulfilled in a different era and under different technologies.

I read the NYT in order to see not what the news is but how the news is covered. I read the paper in order to understand more about the US government and its motives. On foreign policy, I read this paper merely in order to understand the foreign policy project of the US government. In matters of foreign policy, US media just follows (with rare exceptions) the orientations and agendas of the government.

On the Middle East, I don’t read the NYT to understand what is happening in the region. Any person who knows Arabic can get so much more about the Middle East from the various Arabic newspapers. The weekly section on the Middle East in the Economist is far more informative and original than the weekly collection of articles on the Middle East in the NYT.

The NYT serves as the mouthpiece of the Israeli government and its champions here in the US. It is part of learning about the enemy. One learns from the NYT not from what it covers, but also from its decisions on what not to cover: i.e., from news omissions.

For example, it follows the instincts of the Israeli government in disregarding the growing protest movement in Jordan. Jordan is too dear to the heart of Zionists around the world. Similarly, as Saudi Arabia joined a regional alliance with Israel, coverage of the Kingdom became far more favorable in the NYT. Profiles of the Saudi King and of the Saudi ambassador in the US are more like propaganda fluff pieces that could theoretically carry the signature of the Saudi press office in Washington, DC.

What is revealing about the NYT for a Middle East expert is that its Israel-centric thrust and motive permeate all sections of the paper. If a chef cooked a meal in Israel, he/she gets covered. If somebody dies who had a tenuous connection to Israel, his/her obituary gets wider space. Books on Israel or by any Israeli and on any topic, get reviewed (they get favorable reviews because books that are fundamentally critical of Israel and its war crimes don’t get reviewed).

In sum, the NYT is not an enjoyable read for an Arab anti-Zionist. It in fact serves to provoke the reader at different level. What is most provoking in the NYT is its fake and transparent attempt to disguise its strong political biases (very much like Fox News but from a different angle).

So if the current trend continues, and if published newspapers continue to lose revenue, and if the NYT ceases to publish, I won’t mourn its demise. Although, I will have to find new motives for my daily blogging.