I am as loyal a Jew as the next guy, and much more hawkish and right wing to boot. But, this business of asking for retrocative appologies for things that happened in previous generations does absolutely nothing for me. I don't want appologies from suits who were not born when the offense occured. Its cheap, even meaningless. And I don't care if they don't give back Walter Duranty's pulitzer. Walter, his bosses and the guys who awarded him the pulitzer are all dead.

I do want everyone to understand that men make mistakes and that institutions are human creations that echo those mistakes. I want the NYTimes to understand that Walter Dyuranty and many others acting in its name made mistakes. I want the Germans to understand that there was a Holocaust and that their fathers were responsible for it. But apologies, why? what purpose is served?

Hmm. I doubt there will ever be an apology by the Times, but it does interest me that at this point it is not just *paranoid*, hawkish righties that are starting to wonder about some of the Times *methods* for dealing with Jews, but some big left wingers as well. True, they are looking at an event 50 years ago, but a significant event, and once they are capable of seeing this, it is quite possible that they will begin to question other anamolies of the NYTimes behavior. So it may prove to be a bit of a watershed moment. Or, it may be only a safe way for these people to approach this loaded topic because it is at such a remove. And thus, as you note, effects nothing.

In any case, shifts like this sometimes lead people into new ways of seeing the world.

Besides, it's always enjoyable when the arrogant and privileged Times gets its comeuppance.

As a related recent example, look at Dershowitz. Lately, he seems to be siding more often with the right than the left - or at least the far left. But the far left is the part of the left that thinks of itself as the pure standard bearers. Given the strength of his opinions on issues like Israel, it's made me wonder whether he is feeling himself pushed out of the left these days.

As for Duranty, that's a different case altogether. He wasn't making a *mistake*, he was ideologically committed to communism and was willing to lie and cover up repeatedly in order to help disseminate propaganda.

Does the Times actually believe that that is the gold standard of journalism? The fact that they won't return that award -even symbolically - suggests that they don't see his behavior as problematic; or if they do, they don't have enough integrity to do anything about it.

But apologies, why? what purpose is served?

To keep the acts of the NYT and others in the public eye and get future generations to realise that what the MSM dishes up is not always factual/accurate/truthful.

If all you had was the NYT you would be in a very poor position to take a decision, let alone have a free and independent thought process.

Where is the freedom of speech when the process to concoct that speech is controlled by others?

Pity journalists cannot be held accountable for the suffering of others caused by their and their editor's agendas.

alcibiades:

As for Duranty, that's a different case altogether. He wasn't making a *mistake*, he was ideologically committed to communism and was willing to lie and cover up repeatedly in order to help disseminate propaganda.

Do I understand you correctly? You feel OK being lied to and deceived, and robbed because basically you payed for facts that were not forthcoming.
To make it more material, how many people were deceived into parting with their money to satisfy Duranty's scam to support the party?
So a journalist can scam the people for political reasons but a politician no?

Me: As for Duranty, that's a different case altogether. He wasn't making a *mistake*, he was ideologically committed to communism and was willing to lie and cover up repeatedly in order to help disseminate propaganda.

Cynic: Do I understand you correctly? You feel OK being lied to and deceived, and robbed because basically you payed for facts that were not forthcoming. To make it more material, how many people were deceived into parting with their money to satisfy Duranty's scam to support the party? So a journalist can scam the people for political reasons but a politician no?

I'm a trifle confused how you are reading that from what I said. I was picking up Robert's theme of mistakes and reacting to it. Because Duranty wasn't making a "mistake" in the normative sense. He was acting on ideological grounds, selling communism to the masses because that is what he thought was good for them, rather than reporting the facts on the ground. So while what he did is understandable in a humanistic sense, as a journalist, it is not forgiveable. He committed the cardinal sin.

Nowadays we talk about arrogance of the press which still tries to infantalize the rest of us by regarding themselves as our gatekeepers to information.

Duranty, though, exceeded even that. He wanted to help bring about the revolution. And wrote his copy to reflect that bias, leaving out the difficult facts which might convince a rational person to doubt his conclusions.

I don't consider it okay that the NYTimes has decided to do nothing about this, because it leaves me thinking that on some level that they don't see it as problematic. OTOH, it doesn't surprise me, either, given their ideological bent.

There's a really funny article by Boris Johnson, the former editor of the UK Spectator, about his experience writing an editorial for the NYTimes, where he takes the reader through all the politically correct platitudes in his copy that the NYTimes editors queried as problematic and needed to be changed.

But the absolute funniest line, at the bottom of the article, is that they didn't want him to use the word, "Gee," in his column, because it is an abbreviation for Jesus. In 2003. Who knew?

'OK, Boris, I'll tell you what the problem is. Our problem is that "Gee" is an abbreviation for Jesus. For a century this has been a Jewish-owned paper, and we have to be extremely sensitive about anything that might offend Christian sensibilities.

Besides being funny, it is very instructive. All this supplication and humility on bended knee from the "Jewish owned newspaper" to these theoretical Christians who are going to object to a "Jewish-owned" newspaper publishing the word Gee in 2003. As if. And if that is their attitude, it's no wonder they think that "Christian fundamentalists" are so "scary".

In contrast, help a Jew establish himself in the late 1930s or early 1940s after emigrating from Germany?

Unthinkable.