American Thinker, a well-respected website that publishes views and opinions on a large volume of global issues, has criticized a recent article published by The New York Times, which is written by NTY’s Afghan-born pro-Taliban journalist and South Asia bureau chief Mujib Marshal.
Andrea Widburg, commenting on the NYT article in an op-ed titled “The Times worries about a government using lawfare against opponents in the lead-up to a ‘crucial election’” wrote in American Thinker, “The New York Times is very worried. In the lead-up to a “crucial election”, the government is arresting dozens (or even more) of its opponents and tying them up in court cases. The Times understands what’s going on: The government that controls the criminal justice system is “quietly crushing a democracy”. The only problem with this legitimate worry about what happens when a government criminalizes its political opponents is that the Times isn’t worried about the Biden Justice Department or various state prosecutors. It’s worried about elections in Bangladesh.
“The above words are from the same outlet that has cheered on the arrests, detention, and disproportionately brutal sentences for hundreds of people who walked through the Capitol or even went further and tore down fences or urged the completely unarmed crowd to come to the Capitol itself”.
Widburg in her article has criticized NYT for its extremely partisan role which has been enthusiastically supporting the Biden administration’s hostility targeting Donald Trump and the dubious role of the Department of Justice (DoJ) and federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in politically intimidating Trump by abusing state machinery.
American Thinker in the article has reminded the readers that NYT has been cheering and supporting notoriety of BLM (Black Lives Matter) and Antifa (the Democrat party’s paramilitary organizations) that had wrecked across the United States including attacks on the White House, federal buildings, and police stations.
Andrea Widburg termed the role of NYT and its journalist Mujib Mashal as “hypocrisy on an epic scale”. She wrote: The New York Times evinces the smug satisfaction that rules are for the little people and that its values are so transcendently important that it is above the rules.
The Times hive-mind would agree that, in principle, the norms in representative democracies are that political parties engage in a battle of ideas before the people, who then vote depending on which ideas appeal to them most. The Times Borg also freely admits that it’s bad that the government in Bangladesh is violating those norms by abandoning the debate in favor of brute force. But in America, shriek the apparatchiks at what was once the nation’s preeminent news outlet, government crackdowns are appropriate because the Democrats control the police state and are using it for “the greater good”.
I doubt that readers of the Times are disturbed by this grotesque political narcissism. I devoutly hope, though, that ordinary Americans are getting fed up with Democrats who support free elections abroad but, in America, redefine “democracy” to mean “we always win, no matter how many norms, institutions, and lives we must destroy to achieve total victory”.
Commenting on the American Thinker article, Robbi-Lee Allen wrote: “It’s amazingly ironic that one-half of our citizenry that still vote these corrupt assclowns into power cannot see or choose not to acknowledge the overwhelming hypocrisy that exists within the Marxist establishment that currently controls our democracy, as the left theatrically bemoans the travesty of politically-motivated court cases that threaten free elections in Bangladesh, yet simultaneously, apparently applaud efforts to incapacitate Trump’s campaign, Biden’s main political opposition, through fictionalized and unconstitutional criminal charges, paradoxically mimicking the exact political corruption that is happening in Bangladesh; and equally absurd, again illustrating the left’s inability to grasp their own hypocrisy, is how the Biden administration has steered BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, without any accountability, into protecting the Ukrainian border, yet is allowing, encouraging, and condoning MILLIONS of unvetted illegals to criminally cross over our Southern border to go anywhere they please while taxpayer monies fund their every need, whether ‘We the People’ want to or not.
“The left has succeeded in “dramatically transforming” our once great nation into a country no better than the ones we label “Third-world””.
Commenting on Mujib Mashal’s article titled ‘Quietly crushing a democracy: Millions of trial in Bangladesh’ which first appeared in The New York Times and then in Indian Express, Muzaffar Ahmad Noori Bajwa, Editor-in-Chief of The Eastern Herald in an article titled ‘Unveiling The New York Times and Mujib Mashal: A masterclass in biased reporting on Bangladesh’ wrote:
In the realm of journalism, credibility is often considered the gold standard. However, when a publication like The New York Times, which has long been viewed as a paragon of journalistic integrity, publishes an article that is not only biased but also riddled with glaring omissions, one has to question the motives behind such reporting. The recent article by Mujib Mashal, the South Asia bureau chief for The New York Times, on Bangladesh’s political landscape is a case in point.
Mujib Mashal, an Afghan national, has been conspicuously silent on the dire human rights situation in Afghanistan, especially after the Taliban’s takeover. His lack of criticism towards Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir is equally puzzling. Yet, he finds the audacity to criticize the government of Bangladesh, led by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and even goes as far as to question India’s support for her. This selective outrage not only undermines his credibility but also raises questions about the editorial standards of The New York Times.
The New York Times has a long history of biased reporting. From its initial support for the Iraq War based on false information to its overly sympathetic portrayal of Fidel Castro, the publication has often been criticized for its skewed perspectives. This pattern of bias is evident in Mujib Mashal’s article, which fails to provide a balanced view of Bangladesh’s political situation. The article conveniently omits the Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s (BNP) designation as a tier-3 terror outfit in a US. court. The BNP has been involved in acts of terrorism and insurgency, not just in Bangladesh but also in India. By ignoring this crucial information, the article misguides its readers into viewing the BNP as a mere victim of political suppression.
Mashal’s article paints a grim picture of Bangladesh’s judiciary, citing the high number of cases against opposition members. However, it fails to mention that many of these cases involve serious charges like arson, bombings, and other forms of violence. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has made it clear that these legal actions are not politically motivated but are a response to the “brutality” of the BNP. The article also fails to consider the geopolitical complexities involving Bangladesh, China, and India. Sheikh Hasina has skillfully balanced relations with both Asian giants, which is no small feat. Western sanctions and threats have limited impact when a nation has fostered such strategic alliances.
While the article briefly acknowledges Bangladesh’s economic success, it doesn’t delve into how Sheikh Hasina’s policies have contributed to this growth. The garment export industry has thrived, lifting millions out of poverty and increasing women’s participation in the economy. This economic stability is crucial for any form of democratic governance and should not be overlooked. The battered opposition saw an opportunity in anger over rising food prices and power cuts, and, fearing an unfair election, was eager to take the showdown to the streets after PM Hasina refused to appoint a neutral caretaker administration to oversee the vote. During a rare large rally in June, BNP. speakers demanded free elections and the release of political prisoners. But as supporters marched across Dhaka, their chants offered an indication of the bubbling tensions: “Set fire to Hasina’s throne” and “A flood of blood will wash away the injustice”.
In its coverage of Bangladesh’s political landscape, The New York Times presents a skewed narrative that fails to capture the complexities of the situation. The paper highlights how the US government has imposed sanctions on Ms. Hasina’s senior security officers and threatened visa restrictions. Yet, it glosses over the fact that despite these Western pressures, Bangladesh has managed to maintain a balanced foreign policy, strengthening ties with both China and India. The NYTimes’ portrayal of a single rally and its aftermath as evidence of an “unsettled” leadership is not just misleading but also reductive. It ignores the broader geopolitical context in which Bangladesh operates and the challenges it faces. The New York Times’ focus on Western sanctions and warnings as the ultimate barometer of democratic health is a narrow and Western-centric view. This selective framing serves to undermine the sovereignty of a nation that has successfully navigated complex international relationships. It’s another example of how The New York Times’ reporting often lacks nuance, serving instead to propagate a particular narrative that aligns with its own biases…
Following the re-publication of Mujib Mashal’s article in anti-BJP left-leaning newspaper Indian Express, award-winning journalist Manjeet Kripalani on her ‘X’ handle @ManjeetKrip wrote: “Dear @IndianExpress, why run a front page story by the New York Times on our neighbour Bangladesh when you could easily send a correspondent to report it first-hand? Why see South Asia through a Western lens? Let talented reporters do the hard work and analysis instead”.
Dear @IndianExpress, why run a front page story by the New York Times on our neighbour Bangladesh when you could easily send a correspondent to report it first-hand? Why see South Asia through a Western lens? Let talented reporters do the hard work and analysis instead pic.twitter.com/TUqR44IGE5
— Manjeet Kripalani (@ManjeetKrip) September 4, 2023
On Kripalani’s tweet, a user named Jagdish wrote: “Newspaper [Indian Express] is mouthpiece of Congress [Indian National Congress party], printing this story has a different intent. They have to oppose every step of this [ruling Bharatiya Janata Party] government”.
Another user wrote: “Indian media is the only one who works against interest of their own country. Well aware that Awami League government which US wants to impose to keep Indian policy in check”.
‘X’ user named Yaji wrote: “Name is Indian, funded and internally owned by white masters like their editorial board”.
‘X’ user ‘Shadow Bann’ wrote: “Sorry to say but Indian Express is not a “news” paper anymore, now it is a[n] advertisement booklet…all you need to throw money (preferably dollar from white master to be precise) to their face they will publish whatever sh1t you want to print them”.
‘X’ user Nabendu Gupta wrote: “The US facilitated the genocide and crushing of democracy in East Pakistan in 1971 and now shedding crocodile tears!”
Sanjeev Sawhney wrote: “The west has nothing better to do but meddle in other affairs. That is their shop”.
Sajith wrote: “Democracy may be declining in Bangladesh but if Sheikh Hasina loses we may well have an Islamic Republic on our east too”.
Kathy wrote: “NYT (New Woke Times) is not respected in America itself … Indian express probably did it for some quid pro quo”.
ABM Nasir wrote: “Yunus lobby has been paying heavily to publish such opinion pieces on multiple outlets. The idea behind such a republishing is to convince readers what is published in NYT must have credible content. But what about the bias of the writer?”
DP Dheer wrote: “NYT is a propaganda arm of the regime changer arm of the CIA. Won’t surprise the IE [Indian Express] may be doing the same dirty function for them in the subcontinent. CIA has deep history with the English language media in India for nefarious propaganda”.
