New York Times covers for Jamaal Bowman's denial of Hamas atrocities

Shortly after Hamas’ October 7 massacre, Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York expressed doubt about reports that Israeli women were raped . He called those accusations “propaganda.”

Bowman, who is locked in what’s thought to be a tight primary race, finally apologized for these comments last week. However, as John Sexton points out, Bowman never explained why he made them in the first place.

There’s not much doubt about the reason. Bowman hates Israel, sympathizes with those who terrorize it, and probably has little use for Jews. It’s no wonder that, when pressed for an explanation, he offered none.

You might think that Bowman’s denial of Hamas atrocities would be news in the New York City area. After all, his congressional district encompasses the southern part of Westchester County and a portion of the Bronx. Furthermore, as noted, he’s facing a serious primary challenge.

Yet, as Sexton points out, a former opinion editor of the New York Times could not find a single instance in which that paper reported Bowman’s denial that Hamas terrorists committed rape. Not one, in more than six months.

How would the Times have responded to a statement like Bowman’s if he were a Republican? The paper’s former opinion editor has the answer:

I have to think, if [Bowman] were a Republican who went around publicly and loudly denying rape, there would be unequivocal denunciations in the mainstream press.

To support this obvious point, the former Timesman recalls the case of Todd Akin, a candidate for a Senate seat in 2012. Akin said that women who are victims of what he called "legitimate rape," i.e., actual rape, rarely get pregnant. On a single day during the 2012 campaign, the Times ran seven stories about Akin’s comment.

And Akin wasn’t running for office in New York. He was running in Missouri.

Sexton notes that the Times had the perfect opportunity to mention Bowman’s atrocity-denial in an article about how "progressive Democrats” are “scrambling” to save Bowman from defeat. The subhead of the story said that "Representative Jamaal Bowman’s views on Israel made him a top target.”

True. But when it came to identifying these views, the Times conveniently excluded his rape-denial, even though that comment was on video and had been reported by Politico. The Times said only that Bowman has “emerged as one of the leading champions of the Palestinian cause in Congress” and “was among the first House Democrats to call for a cease-fire and to accuse Israel of genocide.”

Clearly, the New York Times is among the “progressive Democrats” who are “scrambling” to save Bowman from defeat.

It’s not that unusual for a liberal paper to cover up embarrassing statements by hometown politicians they favor. The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota raised this practice to an artform when it ran interference for Tom Daschle all those years ago.

Reading that paper, which has the largest circulation in the state, you would have thought that Daschle, a leading Senate liberal, was a moderate. It took a South Dakota blogger to inform South Dakotans of Daschle liberal record. He was defeated in the next election.

One might expect better from the New York Times than from the Argus Leader. But not if one has been paying attention.