What do you think?
Rate this book
Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America's Most Important Newspaper
An in-depth look at how The New York Times failed in its coverage of the fate of European Jews from 1939–45. It examines how the decisions that were made at The Times ultimately resulted in the minimizing and misunderstanding of modern history's worst genocide. Laurel Leff, a veteran journalist and professor of journalism, recounts how personal relationships at the newspaper, the assimilationist tendencies of The Times' Jewish owner, and the ethos of mid-century America, all led The Times to consistently downplay news of the Holocaust. It recalls how news of Hitler's 'final solution' was hidden from readers and - because of the newspaper's influence on other media - from America at large. Buried by The Times is required reading for anyone interested in America's response to the Holocaust and for anyone curious about how journalists determine what is newsworthy.
444 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2005
About the author
Laurel Leff
5 books11 followersLaurel Leff is associate director of the Jewish Studies Program and associate professor of journalism at Northeastern University. She is the author of Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
November 2, 2019
One of the unfortunate casualties of the media’s war on Donald Trump and his ‘fake news’ response is a clear-eyed assessment of the extent to which outside factors influence what newspapers choose to print or not print. As a case in point, consider Laurel Leff’s thorough analysis of the New York Times coverage (or lack thereof) of the Nazi’s murderous campaign against the Jews of Europe. Leff exposes the Times’ intentional downplaying of what was happening out of a fear of being criticized for playing favorites due to the fact that the Times’ owner and publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, was Jewish.
Sulzberger was a proponent of the idea that Judaism is a religion and not the cornerstone of a people, a nation. He was opposed to Zionism, the movement that sought to re-populate the land where Jews had once lived as a separate nation, and he was opposed to any references in the Times that might be seen as special pleading for the Jews of Europe. Thus, an editorial about the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto did not mention those murdered were Jews.
Leff catalogs in news story by story and news bureau by news bureau the extent to which the Times either did not report on events, downplayed the extent to which Jews were the target of Germany’s policies, or buried references to Jews on the inside pages or at the bottom of stories.
An argument has been made that the Times coverage can be explained in part due to the fact that the world had never seen the like of Hitler’s war on the Jewish people. Yet, the policy of mass extermination was only implemented after a decade-long campaign that included policies targeting Jews specifically. The Times’ reporters had plenty of opportunity to get the story––events such as Kristallnacht––when mobs were encouraged to attack Jews and Jewish businesses, or the ad hoc exterminations carried out by a special branch of the German army called the Einsatzgruppen which traveled across German occupied Eastern Europe lining Jews up next to pits and mowing them down. The facts were known, but the Times elected to minimize their significance.
A second criticism, offered in a review published in the Times own book review section, implied that lives would not have been saved had the Times been more forthcoming about the extent of the problem. Does that mean a newspaper should not report a murder or horrible plane accident since it’s too late to save the victims? Of course not. Whether lives would have been saved had the Times’ reporting been more balanced is not the point. The bottom line is information the public deserved to know was withheld.
Sulzberger found various reasons to justify the Times’ failure to report the extent of the Nazi’s singling out the Jewish people for extermination. He along with the Roosevelt administration believed calling attention to what we today called the Holocaust would dampen the enthusiasm of the American people for fighting the war. Although Sulzberger did work to rescue a few members of his own family, he rejected involvement in large-scale attempts to save Jews as Jews.
What comes through in Leff’s analysis of the Times bureaus was how a policy from the top gets implemented in the hiring and management of reporters, in the handling of reports submitted by bureau reporters, and in decisions about where stories are placed in the paper.
The New York Times has been for more than a century the leading newspaper in the country––the paper looked to by millions as the source of “all the news that’s fit to print.” Leff’s history takes the lid off and shows us how newspapers are not unlike other social institutions. Lacking sufficient oversight they can become unbalanced, biased and swayed by self-interest. Fear that being more vocal about the plight of the Jews would affect revenue was clearly a concern. Leff demonstrates that newspapers can claim they practice objective journalism while violating the precepts of that ethnic on a daily basis. Readers beware.
Sulzberger was a proponent of the idea that Judaism is a religion and not the cornerstone of a people, a nation. He was opposed to Zionism, the movement that sought to re-populate the land where Jews had once lived as a separate nation, and he was opposed to any references in the Times that might be seen as special pleading for the Jews of Europe. Thus, an editorial about the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto did not mention those murdered were Jews.
Leff catalogs in news story by story and news bureau by news bureau the extent to which the Times either did not report on events, downplayed the extent to which Jews were the target of Germany’s policies, or buried references to Jews on the inside pages or at the bottom of stories.
An argument has been made that the Times coverage can be explained in part due to the fact that the world had never seen the like of Hitler’s war on the Jewish people. Yet, the policy of mass extermination was only implemented after a decade-long campaign that included policies targeting Jews specifically. The Times’ reporters had plenty of opportunity to get the story––events such as Kristallnacht––when mobs were encouraged to attack Jews and Jewish businesses, or the ad hoc exterminations carried out by a special branch of the German army called the Einsatzgruppen which traveled across German occupied Eastern Europe lining Jews up next to pits and mowing them down. The facts were known, but the Times elected to minimize their significance.
A second criticism, offered in a review published in the Times own book review section, implied that lives would not have been saved had the Times been more forthcoming about the extent of the problem. Does that mean a newspaper should not report a murder or horrible plane accident since it’s too late to save the victims? Of course not. Whether lives would have been saved had the Times’ reporting been more balanced is not the point. The bottom line is information the public deserved to know was withheld.
Sulzberger found various reasons to justify the Times’ failure to report the extent of the Nazi’s singling out the Jewish people for extermination. He along with the Roosevelt administration believed calling attention to what we today called the Holocaust would dampen the enthusiasm of the American people for fighting the war. Although Sulzberger did work to rescue a few members of his own family, he rejected involvement in large-scale attempts to save Jews as Jews.
What comes through in Leff’s analysis of the Times bureaus was how a policy from the top gets implemented in the hiring and management of reporters, in the handling of reports submitted by bureau reporters, and in decisions about where stories are placed in the paper.
The New York Times has been for more than a century the leading newspaper in the country––the paper looked to by millions as the source of “all the news that’s fit to print.” Leff’s history takes the lid off and shows us how newspapers are not unlike other social institutions. Lacking sufficient oversight they can become unbalanced, biased and swayed by self-interest. Fear that being more vocal about the plight of the Jews would affect revenue was clearly a concern. Leff demonstrates that newspapers can claim they practice objective journalism while violating the precepts of that ethnic on a daily basis. Readers beware.
August 20, 2019
This book was excellent but very disturbing at the same time. In an age where the media is suspect for having an agenda rather than being a source of unbiased journalism, the author clearly demonstrates that what we see in the present is not at all new. During the late 1930s, before the US had entered WWII, the publisher of the NY Times, Arthur Sulzberger, himself a descendent of German Jews, had valuable first hand eyewitness information about the persecution of Jews by the Nazis. Not only was this information reported back to the NY Times by foreign correspondents, but Sulzberger had personally quietly financed the emigration of a number of close as well as distant relatives out of Germany. Sulzberger used both his money and considerable influence in the government to make it happen, and these relatives shared with him what was happening in Germany. The NY Times, considered the paper of record across the nation, if not the world, buried stories of Nazi persecution of the Jews on the back pages, such as page 20 or 39 rather than featuring these stories on the front page or in the editorial column. Journalists were often told not to identify the victims of mass murders as Jews, but as refugees from Poland, Hungary, Germany etc. without identifying that Jews were the number one target of the Nazis. When Jews were mentioned in an article, it was usually in the last paragraph of an article at the bottom of page 32. Slaughter of Jews was not considered worthy of “front page” coverage. Even after the US entered WWII, the NY Times continued to try to minimize the actions of the Nazis specifically targeting Jews. As such, many Americans did not fully comprehend the extent of the Nazi persecution of the Jews and what became known as the Holocaust until after the war ended. Other NY newspapers such as the Herald Tribune (owned by protestants) did publish far more front page stories and editorials about the Nazis “final solution” to the “Jewish problem” but they did not have the prestige of the NY Times and were not as widely read. Even after the war was over, Sulzberger did not support the Zionist movement to establish the state of Israel. He was a vehement anti Zionist who believed that Jews that had been displaced should just go back to their home countries. Sulzberger publicly fought with those who wanted to establish a Jewish homeland. But what would these people go home to? They had lost their homes, their money, and every possession they ever had. Most of the people who somehow managed to survive the concentration camps were walking skeletons.
This is an extremely well researched book and very informative. It’s also an excellent example of how the press manipulates the public by the choice of what stories are covered, what emphasis is given to them, and how word choice and placement of the article have tremendous influence over public perception. Worth reading.
This is an extremely well researched book and very informative. It’s also an excellent example of how the press manipulates the public by the choice of what stories are covered, what emphasis is given to them, and how word choice and placement of the article have tremendous influence over public perception. Worth reading.
March 8, 2014
I strongly recommend “Buried by the Times,” by Professor Laurel Leff of Northeastern University. It’s an agonizingly powerful indictment.
Professor Leff’s research is impeccable and the book is actually an unexpectedly exciting read. On occasion, I found myself getting so overwrought and outraged, that I actually felt feverish.
Perhaps to story struck to close to home, for while my father and his comrades were struggling to escape from the German advance, hoping to find refuge in America, The New York Times' Jewish publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, was doing all that he could to forestall any help from the USA.
For the story of my father’s escape, together with the entire Mir Yeshiva, across the USSR and through Japan, see my presentation to a Holocaust class at...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pooH2i...
Professor Leff’s research is impeccable and the book is actually an unexpectedly exciting read. On occasion, I found myself getting so overwrought and outraged, that I actually felt feverish.
Perhaps to story struck to close to home, for while my father and his comrades were struggling to escape from the German advance, hoping to find refuge in America, The New York Times' Jewish publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, was doing all that he could to forestall any help from the USA.
For the story of my father’s escape, together with the entire Mir Yeshiva, across the USSR and through Japan, see my presentation to a Holocaust class at...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pooH2i...
October 3, 2024
This book was not read in a vacuum. While it is specifically about the New York Times and the Holocaust, it is impossible not to remember them doing the same thing with AIDS, taking both sides with former slaves and owners during Reconstruction, and falsifying facts while ignoring others to turn the murder of Kitty Genovese into a tale of apathy when problems with the police were right there.
For the Holocaust specifically, part of the problem appears to be the owner's feelings about his own Jewishness, but even if you disagree about the Jews being their own race, Hitler's perception that it did drove the persecution. Maybe they are a convenient scapegoat, but that is not a separate issue from antisemitism. (And concerns that focusing on those aspects might make people less interested are also directly connected.)
Also, reading about the way Jewish businesses and possessions went to other people makes it hard not to think about the property and wealth loss suffered by Japanese-American internees, and the USA's colonialist beginnings, and the Naqba and how those displaced persons so easily displaced other persons.
Leff doesn't really go into it, but comparison of coverage of the elimination of Roma and homosexuals could have also provided some context.
All of that seems to complicate things, except there is a very clear responsibility, to be as truthful and as committed to each other's welfare as possible, with so much work to be done.
There is a tragedy here, but it is part of a larger whole. The book focuses on how a part of that whole was obscured, and that minimization ultimately favors the spreading of abuse.
For the Holocaust specifically, part of the problem appears to be the owner's feelings about his own Jewishness, but even if you disagree about the Jews being their own race, Hitler's perception that it did drove the persecution. Maybe they are a convenient scapegoat, but that is not a separate issue from antisemitism. (And concerns that focusing on those aspects might make people less interested are also directly connected.)
Also, reading about the way Jewish businesses and possessions went to other people makes it hard not to think about the property and wealth loss suffered by Japanese-American internees, and the USA's colonialist beginnings, and the Naqba and how those displaced persons so easily displaced other persons.
Leff doesn't really go into it, but comparison of coverage of the elimination of Roma and homosexuals could have also provided some context.
All of that seems to complicate things, except there is a very clear responsibility, to be as truthful and as committed to each other's welfare as possible, with so much work to be done.
There is a tragedy here, but it is part of a larger whole. The book focuses on how a part of that whole was obscured, and that minimization ultimately favors the spreading of abuse.
March 15, 2012
This study, of the impact that the New York Times and its "systematic" relegating of news concerning the Holocaust to the inside pages and not to the front page, provides a fascinating look at how the manner in which the media covers a news story impacts the public's perception and subsequent reaction to said news. I would most definitely suggest this book to anyone truly fascinated with the Holocaust and WWII, but it is most definitely not a light or easy read but more of a scholarly or academic work, and reads as such.
June 19, 2009
I think only a self-proclaimed scholar of the Holocaust or a nerd like me would truly appreciate this book as much as I did. I had the opportunity of meeting the author and hear her lecture on the book. The experience only increased by respect for the text and the subject matter.
Read
February 19, 2016A fascinating account of how major newspapers downplayed news of the Holocaust, essentially buried it on back pages.
December 3, 2019
I now see that the Times’ Orwellian Israel reporting is a direct legacy of its Holocaust reporting. What a shitty little media company.
Read
February 1, 2022The book explores in disturbing detail why, under the leadership of then publisher Arthur Sulzberger, the NYT gave only minimal coverage to the persecution of Europe's Jews during WWII. An examination of the internal and external factors motivating Salzburger demonstrated his influence within the paper and with how the country learned (or did not learn) what was happening in Europe. At the end of the day, I was left with an impression of a man struggling with his own identity as a Jew as well as with the greater cultural, philosophical, and political forces swirling around the country at the time. Also shed light on the ways that journalists make editorial decisions, and how those decisions effect and are effected by those forces. There was too much detail, too many examples so that it became tedious at times. Unclear too how much was Sulzberger's personal issues in determining his reluctance to cover the slaughter of millions of people and how much was the result of his consideration of the external factors - I wish the author had been more definitive about that.
September 20, 2023
It was very well researched and written. I had one problem with it. The author repeatedly writes the United Nations when it is talking about the allies said or did such and such. The United Nations didn't exist at this point.
December 18, 2021
Heartbreaking
This book broke my heart. To think that this took place from just a few years before and up to when I was born is unthinkable.
This book broke my heart. To think that this took place from just a few years before and up to when I was born is unthinkable.
Read
June 2, 2013Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper, by Laurel Leff, borrowed from the National Library Service for the Blind.
This is a book which, in every word, expresses the author’s frustration and indignation of the coverage given, or not given, by the New York Times to the Holocaust. The Times put forward the idea that the jews were “just one group of people who were massacred in the Holocaust. Occasionally, the Times would admit that the Jews were “first” but other groups would follow. There seemed to be an ongoing attempt by the U.S. in general, particularly its Jews, not to push too hard for help for the Jews. It was part of the whole assimilation piece that ended up by practically decimating an entire race. Very interesting and hard to read in light of what we know these ideas cost the world in the long run. Very well researched.
This is a book which, in every word, expresses the author’s frustration and indignation of the coverage given, or not given, by the New York Times to the Holocaust. The Times put forward the idea that the jews were “just one group of people who were massacred in the Holocaust. Occasionally, the Times would admit that the Jews were “first” but other groups would follow. There seemed to be an ongoing attempt by the U.S. in general, particularly its Jews, not to push too hard for help for the Jews. It was part of the whole assimilation piece that ended up by practically decimating an entire race. Very interesting and hard to read in light of what we know these ideas cost the world in the long run. Very well researched.
November 11, 2012
I wish that Ms. Leff had been a historian writing this book. It is chock full of valuable information and plenteous primary sources. However, her narrative is somewhat confusing and occasionally veers off the topic at hand, NYT contemporary coverage of the Holocaust. The background information is important but could have been presented much better. In fact, I believe that the epilogue (the best part of the book) should have been an introduction. It would have formed an excellent foundations for the rest of the book and a place for her to refer the readers back to.
February 27, 2014
Watched an 18 minute documentary on ShalomTV about the Times reporting of the Holocaust and that sent me to my local public library to find this book. Detailed, well researched.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews