It seems like 'The New York Times' is leaving out a bit of the story.
Explain to me how the NYT published this post insinuating that a Palestinian author was unfairly being targeted for her views without detailing the actual posts that led to the concerns?
— AG (@AGHamilton29) September 22, 2025
Why would "journalists" intentionally omit central information from a story? pic.twitter.com/yqofIrYtLQ
Of course the answer is that if they had detailed the posts, then the concerns of the community would make a lot more sense and the narrative being sold would fall apart. They want to tell readers what to think, not inform them.
— AG (@AGHamilton29) September 22, 2025
This isn't journalism. https://t.co/gg0Da7ffGo pic.twitter.com/iz02AioJCX
The most glaring omission: Jenan Matari’s social media.
Matari herself directed the Times to her feeds. Yet reporters Taylor Robinson and Samantha Latson apparently didn’t bother looking.
Just a sampling of her posts (all publicly available):
- Comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and calls Israelis “Nazis.”
- Accusations that the U.S. is under “Zionist occupation.”
- Posts just hours after October 7 describing Hamas’s atrocities—massacres, rapes, and the murder of children—as legitimate “resistance.”
- Explicit celebration of the Hamas attacks as a “Palestinian uprising” against “colonialism.”
Oh, so maybe that was the problem and not that she was a 'Palestinian author'. That's a bit of a different story.
The scare quotes are the icing on the cake. If the author was spewing disgusting, violence-promoting rhetoric, then yes, there would be concerns from other communities.
— Sour Patch Lyds ن (@sourpatchlyds) September 22, 2025
It's almost like if you call whole communities 'Nazis', they won't want to work with you.
“Young Adolf was doing what most first-time authors do, promote his book at local retailers. But the bookshop canceled over ‘community’ concerns led by a local rabbi, who took a few out-of-context comments from the author’s ‘My Struggle.’” - today’s NYT in 1925, probably.
— BearFlagFan (@BearFlagFan) September 22, 2025
Basically.
Journalists now assume that people won't read past the headline
— James David Dickson (@downi75) September 22, 2025
They're mostly probably right.
Again - they are coming with whatever they can to push/encourage their readers towards hate.
— justathreeringcircus (@ezroll234) September 22, 2025
They know their readers have a letter limit when reading. Once the limit is reached, next headline.
stop using the word journalist, it's narrativist.
— EpsteinListDidNotHangItself (@tinleyharrier) September 22, 2025
Fair point.
"Democracy Dies in Darkness" isn't a warning, it's an aspiration.
— David Gerstman (@soccerdhg) September 22, 2025
— NC Optimist (@NC_Optimist) September 22, 2025
Because it’s the @nytimes. They have an agenda to push
— KoolRock🇺🇸 (@JF_Adams73) September 22, 2025
Their agenda is always what the Left wants to put out. That's their agenda.
A lot of NYT journalists probably aren’t quite ready to grapple with the reality that most Americans don’t want to associate with someone who celebrates a horrific terrorist attack, or—worse—calls for it to happen “on a global scale.” https://t.co/dKM4hz6oYK pic.twitter.com/3cVCVDF1tk
— Kathryn Paisner (@KathrynPaisner) September 22, 2025
Imagine that.