‘New York Times’ nothingburger about Trump and Netanyahu
The purpose of the piece in question isn’t to provide fresh information; it’s to magnify, if not egg on, a rift in the U.S.-Israel relationship.
By Ruthie Blum
JNS
May 28, 2025
The New York Times seems to think
that multiple bylines make for a more credible story. Well, we’ve got
“news” for the Gray Lady: Using several authors to craft a piece merely
adds to its length.
Perhaps the practice serves to pull the
wool over the eyes of readers who tend to skim, rather than scour. In
the apt words of Abraham Lincoln, “You can’t fool all of the people all
of the time.” Certainly not when it comes to coverage of the Jewish
state and its relations with the United States. And that’s despite—or
perhaps due to—having Israeli Pulitzer Prize-winner Ronen Bergman as a
beard.
The latest example of a Times nothingburger, disguised as an in-depth revelation, is a May 28 article
titled: “As Trump Seeks Iran Deal, Israel Again Raises Possible Strikes
on Nuclear Sites.” The headline sounds reasonable—albeit ho-hum, since
everyone knows that Washington is in negotiations with the Islamic
Republic and that Jerusalem is weighing military action, with or without
American assistance.
The trouble is what follows—slanted
speculation based on anonymous sources. Though this journalistic
malpractice is par for many media outlets competing for clicks, the Times pretends to have the kind of access to inside dope that renders the need for facts null.
The write-up in question is illustrative.
“As the Trump administration tries to negotiate a nuclear deal with
Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has been threatening
to upend the talks by striking Iran’s main nuclear enrichment
facilities, according to officials briefed on the situation,” it begins.
It continues, “The clash over how best to
ensure that Iran cannot produce a nuclear weapon has led to at least one
tense phone call between President Trump and Mr. Netanyahu and a flurry
of meetings in recent days between top administration officials and
senior Israeli officials.”
So, “officials briefed on the situation”
claim that Netanyahu “has been threatening to upend the talks.”
Threatening. Hmm. What the Times lacks in verifiable leaks, it makes up for with poetic license.
And then there’s the almost comical
ambiguity about an ostensible “clash” leading to “at least one tense
phone call” between Trump and Netanyahu. At least one? This is the most
accurate number that four authors could glean from their high-level
contacts?
As for the “flurry of meetings” between
administration and Israeli officials, it’s no secret that such
gatherings have been taking place. Indeed, they’ve been reported on and
repeatedly acknowledged by both governments. Having the war in Gaza, the
hostage crisis and Tehran’s nuclear designs on the agenda will do that.
That’s it for the first two paragraphs of
the piece. The rest is a regurgitation of earlier reportage and
statements made by Trump on camera, such as his saying on Sunday that he
would “love to see no bombs dropped on Iran.”
Never mind. The purpose of the piece isn’t
to provide fresh information; it’s to delight in and magnify—if not egg
on—a rift in the U.S.-Israel relationship. In the absence of concrete
evidence that a deep divide is on the horizon, the Times hastens to explain why nobody cited was able to speak on the record.
“This account of the tensions between the
two men is based on interviews with officials in the United States,
Europe and Israel—who have been involved in the diplomacy and the debate
between the American and Israeli governments. They insisted on
anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss delicate
diplomacy.”
In that case, maybe the so-called
“officials” should have kept their mouths shut, especially since their
gossip wasn’t even water-cooler-worthy, let alone the stuff of serious
leaks. After all, Trump himself has been open about his concerns
surrounding a possible imminent Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear
facilities.
During a press conference at the Oval
Office on Wednesday, he said, “I told [Netanyahu] this would be
inappropriate to do right now, because we’re very close to a solution.”
However, he added, “Now, that could change any moment.”
In other words, Trump was reiterating his
position—to exhaust other options before resorting to “violence.” And
Netanyahu has been warning all along that the window of opportunity is
closing.
All “threats” on this score by the Israeli
prime minister are being directed at the ayatollahs, not at the U.S.
president, regardless of how the Times is spinning it.
This isn’t to suggest that the leaders are in total lock-step. On the contrary.
But trusting the Times to get it
right is an exercise in futility, which is why Netanyahu’s office issued
a concise comment on the article, calling it “fake news.” Trump would
undoubtedly concur.
The New York Times seems to think that multiple bylines make for a more credible story. Well, we’ve got “news” for the Gray Lady: Using several authors to craft a piece merely adds to its length.
Perhaps the practice serves to pull the wool over the eyes of readers who tend to skim, rather than scour. In the apt words of Abraham Lincoln, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Certainly not when it comes to coverage of the Jewish state and its relations with the United States. And that’s despite—or perhaps due to—having Israeli Pulitzer Prize-winner Ronen Bergman as a beard.
The latest example of a Times nothingburger, disguised as an in-depth revelation, is a May 28 article titled: “As Trump Seeks Iran Deal, Israel Again Raises Possible Strikes on Nuclear Sites.” The headline sounds reasonable—albeit ho-hum, since everyone knows that Washington is in negotiations with the Islamic Republic and that Jerusalem is weighing military action, with or without American assistance.
The trouble is what follows—slanted speculation based on anonymous sources. Though this journalistic malpractice is par for many media outlets competing for clicks, the Times pretends to have the kind of access to inside dope that renders the need for facts null.
The write-up in question is illustrative. “As the Trump administration tries to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has been threatening to upend the talks by striking Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, according to officials briefed on the situation,” it begins.
It continues, “The clash over how best to ensure that Iran cannot produce a nuclear weapon has led to at least one tense phone call between President Trump and Mr. Netanyahu and a flurry of meetings in recent days between top administration officials and senior Israeli officials.”
So, “officials briefed on the situation” claim that Netanyahu “has been threatening to upend the talks.” Threatening. Hmm. What the Times lacks in verifiable leaks, it makes up for with poetic license.
And then there’s the almost comical ambiguity about an ostensible “clash” leading to “at least one tense phone call” between Trump and Netanyahu. At least one? This is the most accurate number that four authors could glean from their high-level contacts?
As for the “flurry of meetings” between administration and Israeli officials, it’s no secret that such gatherings have been taking place. Indeed, they’ve been reported on and repeatedly acknowledged by both governments. Having the war in Gaza, the hostage crisis and Tehran’s nuclear designs on the agenda will do that.
That’s it for the first two paragraphs of the piece. The rest is a regurgitation of earlier reportage and statements made by Trump on camera, such as his saying on Sunday that he would “love to see no bombs dropped on Iran.”
Never mind. The purpose of the piece isn’t to provide fresh information; it’s to delight in and magnify—if not egg on—a rift in the U.S.-Israel relationship. In the absence of concrete evidence that a deep divide is on the horizon, the Times hastens to explain why nobody cited was able to speak on the record.
“This account of the tensions between the two men is based on interviews with officials in the United States, Europe and Israel—who have been involved in the diplomacy and the debate between the American and Israeli governments. They insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss delicate diplomacy.”
In that case, maybe the so-called “officials” should have kept their mouths shut, especially since their gossip wasn’t even water-cooler-worthy, let alone the stuff of serious leaks. After all, Trump himself has been open about his concerns surrounding a possible imminent Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
During a press conference at the Oval Office on Wednesday, he said, “I told [Netanyahu] this would be inappropriate to do right now, because we’re very close to a solution.” However, he added, “Now, that could change any moment.”
In other words, Trump was reiterating his position—to exhaust other options before resorting to “violence.” And Netanyahu has been warning all along that the window of opportunity is closing.
All “threats” on this score by the Israeli prime minister are being directed at the ayatollahs, not at the U.S. president, regardless of how the Times is spinning it.
This isn’t to suggest that the leaders are in total lock-step. On the contrary.
But trusting the Times to get it right is an exercise in futility, which is why Netanyahu’s office issued a concise comment on the article, calling it “fake news.” Trump would undoubtedly concur.
No comments:
Post a Comment