NYT averts its eyes on Mary Robinson

Ed Lasky
The naming of Mary Robinson as a Presidential medal of Honor recipient has ignited a firestorm over her anti-Israel stance, as well as her acceptance of terror directed at civilians. In covering the controversy for the New York Times, Mark Landler helps push Robinson's feeble excuse that she is not responsible for what was said and done at the two Durban Conferences which became anti-Israel hate fests (as was inevitable from their set-up and composition).

Much of the criticism centers on Mrs. Robinson's leadership of an antiracism conference in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. The delegations from the United States and Israel walked out in the middle to protest a torrent of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements, which critics say Mrs. Robinson did little to stop. ....

Mrs. Robinson said she was "surprised and dismayed" by the protests. In a telephone interview on Thursday, she said she had fought unsuccessfully to prevent the Durban meeting from devolving into an attack on Israel.

"This is old, recycled, untrue stuff," Mrs. Robinson, who now runs Realizing Rights, a human rights group in New York, said from California. "I have been very critical of the Palestinian side. My conduct continues to be on the side of tackling anti-Semitism and discrimination."

What has the Times left out? How about interviewing some critics, not just Robinson, and portraying their complaints? They are not hard to find. Consider her attack on American Jews for bullying her; the abundance of evidence of her anti-Israel bias (see NGO Monitor; Jennifer Rubin  of Commentary Contentions;  UN  Watch, among many others).

Do the Times people know how to google? Do they know not to take the words of the person being criticized as the truth?
The naming of Mary Robinson as a Presidential medal of Honor recipient has ignited a firestorm over her anti-Israel stance, as well as her acceptance of terror directed at civilians. In covering the controversy for the New York Times, Mark Landler helps push Robinson's feeble excuse that she is not responsible for what was said and done at the two Durban Conferences which became anti-Israel hate fests (as was inevitable from their set-up and composition).

Much of the criticism centers on Mrs. Robinson's leadership of an antiracism conference in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. The delegations from the United States and Israel walked out in the middle to protest a torrent of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements, which critics say Mrs. Robinson did little to stop. ....

Mrs. Robinson said she was "surprised and dismayed" by the protests. In a telephone interview on Thursday, she said she had fought unsuccessfully to prevent the Durban meeting from devolving into an attack on Israel.

"This is old, recycled, untrue stuff," Mrs. Robinson, who now runs Realizing Rights, a human rights group in New York, said from California. "I have been very critical of the Palestinian side. My conduct continues to be on the side of tackling anti-Semitism and discrimination."

What has the Times left out? How about interviewing some critics, not just Robinson, and portraying their complaints? They are not hard to find. Consider her attack on American Jews for bullying her; the abundance of evidence of her anti-Israel bias (see NGO Monitor; Jennifer Rubin  of Commentary Contentions;  UN  Watch, among many others).

Do the Times people know how to google? Do they know not to take the words of the person being criticized as the truth?