The family of the Israeli-born financer had the following post-mortem eulogy written in his memory: “loved his family, his birth and adopted countries, finance, skiing, opera, ballet and biking in Central Park. Loved everything about NYC, except The New York Times,” his death notice read.
Schuchman’s son, Daniel, told the New York Post that his father was “deeply committed to principles of individual freedom and to the security of the United States and Israel.”
Born and raised in Tel Aviv, the senior Shuchman was a self-proclaimed Zionist who “fought bravely” in the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organization in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. Plain and simple, the devoted Israelite was not a fan of the Times’ coverage of Israel.
“To put it diplomatically, he did not believe that the Times provided honest and objective reporting on these and other important matters,” the son said.
And Daniel’s father isn’t alone. For its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many claim that the paper is pro-Palestinian. For one, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has criticized The New York Times for printing cartoons regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were claimed to be anti-Semitic.
Likewise, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected several proposals to write an article for the paper on grounds of lack of objectivity. An example presented, where Thomas Friedman commentated that praise awarded to Netanyahu during a speech at congress was “paid for by the Israel lobby”, elicited an apology and clarification from its writer.
Then there’s the 2011 study conducted by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) called “Indicting Israel – New York Times Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.” The dominant finding of the study was disproportionate, continuous, embedded indictment of Israel that dominated both news and commentary sections. It further stated that “Israeli views are downplayed while Palestinian perspectives, especially criticism of Israel, are amplified and even promoted.”
While the Shuchman had canceled his subscription to the Times years ago, it turns outs he was a fan of one New York paper after all— The Post.
“We think he is in heaven now with a New York Post and a falafel sandwich, having a good chuckle over this notoriety,” his son told the Post.
Daniel Shuchman alluded to the fact that his father may not have liked the notice because he wouldn’t have wanted to further “generate revenue for the Times. [But] he would have laughed heartily at the irony and the posthumous attention the obituary is getting.”
When reached for comment by the Post, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy called the notice “amusing.”