The opinions expressed in The Lawrentian are those of the students, faculty and community members who wrote them. The Lawrentian does not endorse any opinions piece except for the staff editorial, which represents a majority of the editorial board. The Lawrentian welcomes everyone to submit their own opinions. For the full editorial policy and parameters for submitting articles, please refer to the About section.
Yet again, good conscience has forced my hand regarding another mainstream journalist pillar falling for the avoidable. Apparently, the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, according to the New York Times, was a man who sought “one Palestine with equality for Jews, Muslims and Christians,” while staying “opposed to Israel,” which he called “‘The Zionist Entity.’” Thus Nasrallah — from the view of the learned, cultured Western liberal, the stereotypical audience of the Times — was a man of noble causes but dark methods; the Batman of Lebanon, if one were to stretch it. This is the latest in a trend of articles from mainstream liberal-leaning media outlets who seem to defend terror organizations which, by their own actions and mission statements, advertise anything but love, peace and freedom.
This comes after a brilliant series of mask-off moments by the British government and their mouthpiece, the BBC, regarding the late Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, whom they called a “moderate and peaceful man, a man who walked amongst the people” despite the fact that he was the head of an organization that committed countless acts of repression, attacks on Israelis (regardless of ethnicity or background) and the Oct. 7, 2023 invasion of southern Israel, which ignited the Israel-Gaza war. Had any other U.S. ally proclaimed such reverence in a different time, they would have been redesignated as a state sponsor of terrorism. It seems such flatteries are now charming in 2024.
Ragging on the BBC aside, the explanations by the New York Times for the late Nasrallah’s positions strike me as the hand-waving gesticulations of a Soviet commissar explaining to a Polish everyman why his family will be evicted and killed: we don’t hate you; we hate the evil state that claims to represent you! We just want to destroy the state so that we can live in brotherly harmony! Now here’s the part where I assault, murder, mutilate and desecrate your persons, people, house and culture.
Why these American journalists did not find the need to fact-check information about a guy who was the head of an organization infamous for bombing anyone they disliked, Americans included, is morally a mystery. Hezbollah has indicated no such change in their ideology regarding the United States since its inception in 1982, which has always been that the U.S. is the ultimate enemy of Lebanon and Hezbollah itself and must be attacked wherever and whenever. Recorded open letters by the organization since 1985 have indicated no sentiments of an equal Palestinian Levant, or any peaceful resolution between itself and the U.S., Israel and other nations and groups it opposes. Perhaps there was a hidden amendment within American journalism stating that only Donald Trump could be factchecked (he crossed the threshold of 1,000 fact checks in summer 2024). I find this curious: that a con artist who has failed many of his businesses, engaged in unsavory affairs and attempted to meddle in the electoral processes can get quite a deserved level of scrutiny, yet the guy who was the face and possible orchestrator of dozens of bombings that have killed thousands is given a complete lack of context or fact-checking. The New York Times article shows a noticeable lack of background information regarding Nasrallah’s sentiments. This is an abject failure for a paper which is still relied on by millions of Americans whose knowledge of Hezbollah and Nasrallah’s ideology is likely minimal at best. The Times choosing to portray him as a Lebanese antihero is a shaping of public opinion in a direction that no one should view in any sense as normal or ethical.
Then again, it seems news organizations like the New York Times and the BBC seem to hold some lovey-dovey fascination with terrorists. The Washington Post’s initial article over the late ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s death simply titled him an “austere religious scholar.” The man in charge of an organization that launched extermination campaigns on Yazidis, Kurds, non-believers and anyone and everyone worldwide was labeled by the Washington Post in the same terms as a small-time preacher. Uri Berliner’s split from NPR, which I have covered, may not be a good representation of all organizations, but the bizarre nature of mainstream big-time and supposedly truthful “guardians of journalism” slipping into worship and veneration of objectively bad people is not doing them any favors in the journalism trust department. Being a propagandist to a morally and financially bankrupt video game company like the Times did is a disgrace; being a propagandist to a morally and existentially bankrupt man and organization is leagues worse.
This, like all other recent problems regarding these news organizations, was essentially avoidable. Just like when NPR peddled Adam Hochschild’s starry-eyed accounts of how the last moments of the Spanish Republic were a defiant spit in the face of fascism, when in reality it was more of a Soviet puppet trying to rape and murder as many Spaniards as possible before being put down by the equally brutal Nationalists; just like WPR subsidiaries broadcasted extremist outlets linked to Russian agents; just like the BBC, teary eyed, reported on the death of Hamas’ Haniyeh as if Jesus himself was crucified again; just like the Washington Post referred to the former head of ISIS in the terms of a strict teacher while simultaneously lambasting Donald Trump, a man of far fewer sins, as a delusional tyrant. And now this — the New York Times bowing its head in sympathy as a man who was rightfully seen by many Lebanese as Lebanon’s plague was atomized by Israeli bombs. In an even more telling fashion, the Times failed to mention Nasrallah’s standing with the U.S. in its article regarding him, not to mention Hezbollah’s doctrine that proclaims the U.S. as a prime enemy.
As I’ve emphasized in many past articles, none of this extremely slanted coverage in the name of some ill-defined “factuality” is going to improve their already failing numbers. Almost akin to a dying snake flailing, these news agencies are compensating for changes in media viewership by trying to cater to extremist tilts, then claiming many of their detractors are nothing but right-wing fascists. I was unaware it was impossible to criticize literal terrorists while not wearing a “MAGA” hat. Perhaps these news bodies should learn that as well.