A New York Times Columnist Even Worse Than David Brooks and Paul Krugman?

Posted on Comments

As impossible as it may seem, apparently it is true:

The New York Times earlier this month announced “an important expansion” of its opinion offerings, adding more than two dozen new contributors from around the world slated to write monthly columns.
Among them is Egyptian best-selling author Alaa Al-Aswany, quoted frequently in the English-language media and described as a “liberal” Egyptian voice . . .
According to Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Aswany is “among Egypt’s most prolific conspiracy theorists, and he often uses his very public platform to reinforce some of Egypt’s most popular bigotries,” The New Republic notes.
Because Aswany voices his more controversial opinions in Arabic, the Western press doesn’t notice.
For example, Aswany told Egyptian television that a “massive Zionist organization rules America,” thus “Obama is not able to go against Israel’s desires.”

More from Eric Trager in the New Republic:

In August, when Senator John McCain visited Egypt to encourage negotiations between the military and the Brotherhood, Aswany tweeted, “The Zionist John McCain, one of the biggest defenders of Israel, threatens Egypt if it does not release [Brotherhood leader] Shater immediately. The only explanation is that Brotherhood rule is in the interest of Israel.”

So yes, Aswany is worse than David Brooks and Paul Krugman.

But not worse than Tom Friedman. Nobody is worse than Friedman.

 

30 comments

  1. Total typo alert: “Aswany is worse that David Brooks” You mean ‘than’. You’re welcome 😉 I know you miss me.

  2. And, starting the countdown to a paraphrase or direct quote from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Vegas as set the over/under at three months. I’ll take the under.

  5. Any time I see anyone use the term ‘Zionist’ negatively (which is about 98% of the time) I know that they’re a complete and utter crackpot.

  9. Krugman is the Friedman of economics. Brooks is the Friedman of the GOP left. All three are of equal “usefulness.”

  10. Of course, and in the mid 70’s the U.N. issued a fatwah proclaiming Zionism as a racist ideology. It’s very cool to be anti-Semitic on the left.

  11. Sure, you can be worse than Brooks, who on a good day is the intellectual equivalent of stale bread soaked in sour milk: lacking in taste or nourishment, but easy enough to avoid. But Krugman? The man is a menace to the world.

    Donald Luskin kept track of the outright errors and lies in Krugman columns for several years, but finally had to stop. The NYT was complaining the proportions of Krugman’s columns he was reprinting to showcase their mistakes far exceeded the limits of “fair use” under current copyright law.

  14. Only the NYT would be stupid enough to pay for open Anti-Semitism when there’s so much available for free.

  16. Adjoran wrote:

    But Krugman? The man is a menace to the world.

    Well, he would be, but actually responsible people, even on the left, have been ignoring his policy prescriptions for years now. The Kos kids and the like, the leftists not in any positions of responsibility, still cite him.

Comments are closed.