New York Times under fire for asking if ‘Jared & Ivanka are good for Jews’
A pretty long piece issued by the Gray Lady appears to be in fact another thinly veiled jab at President Donald Trump as it mostly focuses on the fact that Trump’s presidency somehow led to the rise of anti-Semitism in the US while his staunchly pro-Israel policies had not found support, even among some parts of the US Jewish community.
All these issues are carefully wrapped up in speculation on the fact that his essentially Judaist daughter and Jewish son-in-law, who both act as the president’s advisers, do not make the situation any better … including for themselves and the US Jewish community, which is divided over the whole issue.
Regardless of whether the role Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner play for the US Jews was up for debate, the New York Times’ attempt to speculate on an increasingly complicated topic of intra-ethnic relations, mixed with the already pretty-much divisive issue of Trump’s policies, apparently backfired. After all, even though the online community might be divided on some issues, it mostly agreed that the NYT piece on this issue was no good.
Many commenters said that the NYT actually does not understand the Jewish communities, as “if it is visiting Mars,” as one professor put it in a tweet. Others called the headline “disgusting” and actually accused the media outlet of anti-Semitism.
Some ridiculed the very idea of such a piece and called it “absurd.”
Members of the US journalism community also joined the overall wave of criticism, saying the article is “beyond questionable” and calling its headline “outrageous.”
A number of prominent members of the US Jewish community and Israeli media figures rallied to Ivanka and Jared’s defense by saying that posing the question that the NYT actually asked would be wrong.
Some also said that the piece is in fact just another attack by liberals on Trump and his inner circle.
Apart from the backlash the NYT received over its choice of topic, some people on social media also criticized it over an entirely different perceived bias, i.e. the lack of women in its choice of people the media quoted in its article.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!