NY Times Blames Bowman’s Defeat of “Flood of Pro-Israel Money” Changes Headline as to Not Appear Anti-Semitic

NY Times Blames Bowman’s Defeat of “Flood of Pro-Israel Money” Changes Headline as to Not Appear Anti-Semitic

Edited by:  Fern Sidman

The New York Times recently found itself at the center of a controversy over its coverage of New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s primary election loss. According to a report that appeared on Wednesday in The New York Post, the initial headline of the article regarding Bowman’s defeat attributed his loss to “a flood of pro-Israel money.” This framing was met with significant backlash and accusations of anti-Semitism, prompting a quiet revision of the headline.

Jamaal Bowman, a progressive member of the Democratic “Squad” known for his critical stance on Israel, lost the primary election to George Latimer, the moderate and pro-Israel Westchester County Executive, by a substantial margin, as was reported by The Post. The initial New York Times headline, “Bowman Falls in House Primary, Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money,” suggested that Bowman’s defeat was primarily due to financial contributions from pro-Israel groups.

This wording immediately drew sharp criticism on social media. Critics argued that the headline perpetuated an anti-Semitic trope, insinuating that Jewish money was manipulating political outcomes. The Post report said that Aviva Klompas, a writer and co-founder of Boundless Israel, tweeted her discontent, suggesting that the headline ignored potential dissatisfaction among voters regarding Bowman’s performance as a congressman. Klompas sarcastically remarked, “Has the New York Times considered that the people of New York were unhappy with Bowman’s performance as a member of Congress? Of course not. It must have been the Jews,” The Post reported.

Human rights lawyer Arsen Ostrovsky echoed this sentiment, accusing the Times of using a “vile anti-Semitic trope” and asserting that Bowman’s loss was due to his extremist positions and unpopularity within his district, as per the information in The Post report. Ostrovsky’s tweet included a screenshot of the original headline, further amplifying the criticism.

By Wednesday morning, The New York Times had altered the headline to read, “Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats.” Noted in The Post report was that this new headline shifted the focus from external financial influences to the broader implications for progressive politics. However, the report in The Post also said that the change was made without any public acknowledgment or editor’s note, which is a departure from standard journalistic practice that usually demands transparency in such editorial decisions.

The Times did not respond to requests by The Post for comments regarding the headline change, leaving many to speculate about the motivations and internal discussions that led to the revision. The absence of an explanatory note or acknowledgment of the initial controversy only added to the criticism, with some accusing the publication of trying to quietly sidestep the backlash.

 

As Bowman’s reelection campaign progressed, his attacks on Israel became more pronounced. He labeled Israel an “apartheid state” and, at a rally, controversially dismissed reports of rapes and child murders during Hamas’ October 7 terror attack as fabrications—remarks he subsequently retracted, according to the information contained in The Post report. Bowman also accused Israel of committing “genocide” in the Gaza Strip in retaliation for the attack that resulted in the deaths of over 1,200 civilians.

These statements not only amplified his reputation among certain progressive circles but also drew significant ire from pro-Israel advocates and organizations.

One of the most influential groups opposing Bowman was the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Alongside other pro-Israel organizations, AIPAC targeted Bowman and other politicians, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar, who have made anti-Israel remarks. Indicated in The Post report was that AIPAC invested a record $14.5 million in efforts to unseat Bowman, launching an aggressive advertising campaign in mid-May that flooded New York City with pro-Latimer messages.

While Bowman’s supporters argue that AIPAC’s financial influence unfairly tipped the scales in Latimer’s favor, the congressman’s campaign was already in trouble. The Post report said that by April 3, six weeks before AIPAC’s intensified spending, Bowman trailed Latimer by 17 points. Despite this deficit, Bowman continued to escalate his anti-Israel rhetoric, a strategy that seemed to backfire as the primary drew closer.

In a last-ditch effort to rejuvenate his faltering campaign, Bowman organized a rally in the Bronx just two days before the primary. The event featured prominent progressive figures such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders. However, The Post report indicated that the rally failed to attract significant attendance or generate the desired momentum. Instead, it highlighted the struggling state of Bowman’s campaign, drawing more attention to his vulnerabilities rather than bolstering his support.

In a surprising turn of events, the political landscape of New York witnessed a rare moment of bipartisanship as both Republicans and Democrats celebrated the ousting of Bowman from his congressional seat, the Post report added.

New York Republican Party chair Ed Cox’s reaction was blunt and unequivocal, capturing the sentiment shared by many within his party. “Good riddance,” he remarked, according to The Post report. The GOP’s disdain for Bowman has been well-documented, given his progressive stance on various issues, which often clashed with the conservative agenda. However, the reaction was not limited to the Republicans alone.

On the Democratic front, former New York Governor David Paterson articulated a critical perspective that went beyond mere ideological differences. “Being a little bit to the left is not necessarily a reason to just run against someone,” Paterson explained to The Post. He emphasized that Bowman’s positions on certain issues were perceived as not being beneficial to his constituents, suggesting that the lawmaker’s approach was more ideological than service-oriented. Paterson’s comments highlight a significant critique within the Democratic Party regarding the balance between progressive ideals and practical governance.

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s response was perhaps the most scathing. In a pointed critique posted on X (formerly Twitter), Cuomo likened Bowman’s political judgment to that of a pre-teen. “Tonight middle school children who pull fire alarms & do it while denying rape as a weapon of war lost. And progress won,” Cuomo stated, as was reported by The Post. This comment alludes to an incident where Bowman pulled a fire alarm to delay a government shutdown vote, an act that drew widespread criticism and became a symbol of his contentious tenure.

The underlying theme in the reactions from both sides of the aisle is the tension between ideological purity and effective representation. Bowman’s loss, according to Paterson and Cuomo, was not just a rejection of his progressive policies but also a repudiation of his approach to governance, according to the information in The Post report. This sentiment was echoed by many of his constituents who felt that Bowman’s actions, such as the fire alarm incident, were more theatrical than substantive.

Bowman’s tenure was marked by a strong adherence to progressive ideals, which, while resonant with a segment of his base, often alienated others who prioritized tangible results over ideological posturing. His defeat suggests a broader dissatisfaction with representatives who are perceived to prioritize ideological battles over pragmatic solutions to constituents’ everyday problems.

Bowman’s ouster raises important questions about the future of progressive politics in New York and beyond. It serves as a cautionary tale for lawmakers who might prioritize ideological purity over constituent services. The celebration of his defeat by both Republicans and Democrats indicates a shared desire for representatives who are seen as more focused on practical governance rather than ideological grandstanding.