It turns out that the New York Times’s tendency to obfuscate Zionist violence against Palestinians has a precedent that goes back nearly one century earlier:

During the 1920s and 30s, as [Fascism] formally emerged on the political scene in Germany, Ochs found himself taking a more cautious approach on how news from Germany was being reported. In much the same naïve manner that Ochs failed to formally understand the rôle of anti‐Semitic sentiment in the United States, Ochs repeatedly assured readers that there was “no warrant for immediate alarm.” Ochs was convinced that Germans could never “…be seduced by Hitler’s corrupting charisma.”²⁷

Remarkably, his position persisted into an interview with The Jewish Journal in 1931 when he stated that, “The German people are being informed about Hitler.” “Gradually,” he continued, “those who have supported him are realizing the kind of man he is.”²⁸

[…]

Repeatedly, the New York Times failed to inform the American public of the significant events taking place [under Fascism]. For example, in 1933, Frederick Birchall, the chief of the New York Times Berlin bureau, “…assured listeners in a nationwide radio talk broadcast on CBS that Germany was interested only in peace and had no plans to ‘slaughter’ any of its enemies.”

Although he acknowledged that the Jews had been persecuted, in his opinion “German violence was ‘spent’ and predicted that ‘prosperity and happiness’ would prevail.”⁴⁷ Even when the New York Times did accurately describe the plight of German Jews, they often “fell prey” to what Lipstadt described as the “weakness, not strength” interpretation of their crimes.⁴⁸ This approach was not unique in the American press.

[…]

Journalist Laurel Leff followed in the direction suggested by Lipstadt, with one major exception; Leff focused exclusively on the rôle of the New York Times, rather than on the American press as a whole. Despite the differences in their arguments, both agree that the New York Times failed to accurately and appropriately present the events surrounding the Holocaust.

According to Leff, the New York Times, as “America’s most important newspaper,” had a more important mandate than other newspapers; it had a responsibility to report the events taking place in Germany and Europe in an accurate and more complete fashion. In doing so, their stories might have re‐directed the attention of the public, the press, politicians, etc… Unfortunately, the New York Times did not fulfill their implied rôle.

As a result, Leff claims, they not only misled the American public, but the New York Times’s example enabled other newspapers to mask the plight of the Jews.⁵² They were largely to blame for the direction and focus of the news about the developing Holocaust during the 1930s and 1940s.

[…]

Only sporadically did the Times mention the Jews directly, choosing instead to speak of the “German” problem, of “refugees,” of the “…problem of mankind,” or other euphemisms that could be used to hide the fact that they were referring to Jews, a direct result of Ochs and Sulzberger’s influence on the paper.⁵⁶

Leff points to the fact that Sulzberger, despite being adamant that the New York Times not be perceived as a “Jewish paper,” strongly opposed […] the [German Fascists], and the persecution of the Jews. Yet, in his opposition to [German Fascism], Sulzberger chose not to speak up publicly against the Jewish plight, instead responding in a “philosophical” manner stating that:

In doing what I can to help distressed German and Austrian Jews, I must act as an American and not as a Jew, […] As a Jew, in my judgment, I have no right to cross national boundary lines in a manner which may involve nationalism.⁵⁷

[…]

[D]espite all evidence pointing against him, the New York Times also ran a piece in which a Berlin Jew, Hans Priwin, a member of the executive committee of the Association of German National Jews, denied the atrocity stories originating from Germany. In addition, he pleaded with individuals abroad to cease the “anti‐German sentiment.”⁶² The stories regarding the persecution of the Jews, he stated, were “…despicably false, a groundless misrepresentation of the facts.”

We have had a revolution in Germany — a revolution so bloodless and so quiet as has not been seen in centuries. […] The German Jews are pictured as the victims of a deliberate, despicable incitation of pogroms. It is even foolishly asserted that the national revolution in Germany was the work of a group whose only aim was to massacre Jews.⁶³

The boycott against German products was not only affecting Germans, but Jews as well — a point he felt was grossly overlooked. The best way to help was “…to help Germany and you will have helped also the Jewish Germans.⁶⁴

(Emphasis added.)

This is another perfect example of how the upper classes merely look out for theirselves, not ordinary people who are (distantly) related to them in some way.