The Times saw a very different op-ed by Goldstone about two weeks ago, just one in a series of articles he'd written trying to clarify and finesse the meaning of the report; the paper rejected it because it said nothing new, the source said.That version didn't contain the crucial repudiation of the report's central thrust, that the Israeli Defense Forces targeted civilians intentionally and as a matter of policy...
Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy emails, "We did in fact receive an Op-Ed submission from Richard Goldstone on March 22, but that piece bears no resemblance to the one that was published in the Washington Post on Sunday."
I also read this justification from the NY Times somewhere, but I am not convinced. Call me skeptic, but did they show the version they received and refused to publish? Did they prove that their version would have been a restatement of a current situation? And when you think logically about it, why would Mr. Goldstone send an article with “nothing new about his findings” just a few days prior to the Washington Post article. Their excuse is not clear, and I am personally inclined to interpret this very negatively.
ReplyDelete