Decoding the New York Times‘ Attack on Roy Singham and the Anti-War Left
Recent reporting by the New York Times leveled accusations against Roy Singham, a progressive donor, and the network of anti-war organizations he supports. The article alleges a hidden Chinese influence operation, claiming these groups amplify Beijing’s narratives.But a closer look reveals a potentially flawed investigation and raises questions about the Times’ motivations. Let’s break down the key points and explore what might be realy going on.
The Core Allegations: Terrorism Links & Chinese Influence
The Times piece centers on the claim that individuals connected to Singham and his funded organizations have ties to groups linked to terrorism, specifically the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). The article suggests these individuals, having allegedly trained in China, returned to commit acts of terrorism within the country.
This isn’t a new accusation. The ETIM has been officially designated a terrorist organization by both the United Nations (since 2008) and the united States (since 2002). You can find official listings here:
Council on Foreign Relations - ETIM Backgrounder
Notably, Code Pink, one of the organizations scrutinized in the Times report, has publicly maintained it does not support Beijing’s policies regarding the Uyghur minority.
Why This Article feels…Off
While the allegations are serious, the Times’ execution appears sloppy. This raises concerns about the true intent behind the piece. Here are a couple of theories:
Demonizing Dissent: The article could be part of a broader effort to discredit not just china, but anyone in the U.S.who questions the escalating tensions with Beijing. This includes organizations like Code Pink and Tricontinental, and anyone associated with them. Essentially, it’s a way to silence critical voices.
Strategic “Balance”: The times was simultaneously investigating Justice Clarence thomas’s financial dealings. Perhaps the Singham piece was rushed out as a way to create a sense of “balance” - a counterweight to the potentially damaging Thomas coverage.It’s a striking contrast. A thorough investigation into Hunter Biden’s affairs,wich might have offered a similar counterpoint,was seemingly avoided. Instead, the Times chose to focus on Singham, Jodie Evans, and their allies.
A Serendipitous Discovery: the Singham Family Legacy
Interestingly,the Times article inadvertently led to a captivating discovery. It linked to a tweet by Vijay Prashad (from December 2021) which,in turn,led to an article Prashad wrote about Roy Singham’s father,Archibald Singham.
You can find the tweet here: vijay Prashad Tweet
And the article about Archibald Singham here: new Frame – Archie and I
Archibald Singham, a Sri Lankan intellectual, was a notable influence on Prashad and many others involved in Third World liberation movements. This provides valuable context to Roy Singham’s own political commitments and the motivations behind his philanthropic work.
What Does This mean for You?
This situation highlights the importance of critical media consumption.Don’t accept headlines at face value.Consider:
Source Reliability: Is the source known for unbiased reporting?
Evidence Presented: Is the evidence strong and verifiable?
Potential Bias: What motivations might the source have?
The Times’* reporting on Singham raises legitimate questions about journalistic integrity and the potential for political agendas to influence news
