Why Are Non-Abusive, On-Topic, Online Comments Censored by The Times? Open Letter No. 1 to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times

Dear Mr. Hoyt,


Although you have never personally responded to any of my e-mails, you are surely aware of the various issues I have sought to bring to your attention, inasmuch as members of your staff have requested information from me and provided assurances that these issues are under review. However, the months go by, and your column relating to these issues has yet to appear.


My work teaches me that when a problem goes untreated, it grows larger, and the original problem that I sought to bring to your attention has indeed grown larger, so large, that I will divide the problem into three "open letters". I would add that there are many other readers of The Times who are asking the same questions and avidly await your answers.


Of course, it could well be that these questions cannot be answered by you and must be taken "upstairs". That's okay. Just say so, and I will leave you in peace.


A little history: Back a year ago, I noticed that several of my online comments critical of "candidate" Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright were being "rejected", i.e. censored, by The Times' online "moderators". I sent you e-mails asking the reason, and lo and behold, one of your staffers wrote back:

Mr. Hoyt is thinking about addressing the issue of comment moderation in an upcoming column. Do you have a record of the comment that you tried to post but was rejected? He would need to have the specifics.

I was happy to provide you with the "goods". In fact, I was so happy, I continued to send you my comments as they continued to be censored. Censorship of intelligent dissent at The New York Times, that shining beacon of free speech? Surely a fluke. I was confident that the problem was being addressed and that it was only a matter of time until it would be resolved.

An example of a comment censored by The Times? Here's one I submitted in response to Qaddafi's January 2009 op-ed:

The author of Lockerbie is provided an op-ed pulpit by The New York Times to proselytize his newly discovered moderation. A New York Times scoop? Not.

As already reported by Reuters, Muammar Qaddafi spoke yesterday via satellite with Georgetown University students, and in addition to recommending a conciliatory dialogue between President Obama and Osama bin Laden, Qaddafi called for the establishment of a single state to be called "Isratine" to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What does not appear in the NYT op-ed, however, is Qaddafi's recommendation to the students of Georgetown that if the Jews did not accept a one-state solution, they should move to Hawaii, Alaska or an island in the Pacific, where "they could live peacefully in an isolated setting."

What does Mr. Qaddafi have in mind? Much can be learned from his speech broadcast by Al Jazeera on April 10, 2006:

"Some people believe that Muhammad is the prophet of the Arabs or the Muslims alone. This is a mistake. Muhammad is the Prophet of all people. He superseded all previous religions. If Jesus were alive when Muhammad was sent, he would have followed him. All people must be Muslims. . . . We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. . . Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey and adds it to the European Union. That's another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. Fifty percent of its citizens are Muslims."

In his January 14 op-ed, "Magic and Realism", Roger Cohen wrote: "The world view shaped in the Middle East by Al Jazeera is not amenable to Western logic." My guess is that Mr. Cohen does not speak Arabic, but what is reported above by Al Jazeera is amenable to almost any one's logic, Eastern or Western, and leaves little question as to the future Qaddafi foresees for Europe and "Isratine".

It might also be worth noting that following Qaddafi's 1969 coup, Qaddafi confiscated all Jewish property in Libya and cancelled all debts owed to Jews.

But let bygones be bygones. I would like to invite Mr. Qaddafi for coffee and cake at my Caesarea, Israel residence on Saturday at noon, and Roger Cohen is invited to write the exclusive report of this historic meeting. Rest assured, I am already polishing the silverware and dusting the cupboards in avid anticipation of our "sulkha". ("Sulkha"? Sorry, Roger, if you ever want to breach the logic of Al Jezeera, you will need to learn the lingua franca of the region.)

According to The Times: "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive." This rejected comment attempted to provide critical information to New York Times' readers concerning the underlying intentions of Qaddafi. There was nothing "abusive" about the comment; it was on-topic, and there was no reason for it to be censored.

I sent you this and other censored comments, but you did not answer. And then the rabidly anti-Semitic and violent comments started to appear, but this is the subject of my next open letter to you.

I asked for information concerning the educational background and experience of The Times' moderators, who were censoring my comments. It was never provided.

I asked whether these same moderators were responsible for choosing "Editors' Selections". I was never answered.

I asked whether truthful content was a prerequisite for "Editors' Selections" (I remember one Editors' Selection claiming that Israel stood behind the Pakistani atomic bomb effort). No one responded.

Last week one of your staffers wrote to me:

I have written to you many times telling you that Mr. Hoyt is planning a column on comment approval. He is planning to and will write one. I imagine that he will get into your claims. But, it is one of many he is planning.

Mr. Hoyt, I understand from your staffer that you do not view the censorship of online comments and the suppression of intelligent dissent as critically important. I disagree.

As mentioned above, when you do not deal with small problems they grow larger, and in my next open letter to you, I would like to discuss the rabid anti-Semitism and a particularly revolting call for violence against a former Vice President that found their way into New York Times online comments.