web analytics
March 27, 2015 / 7 Nisan, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


Underreporting The Holocaust At The ‘Paper Of Record’: An Interview With Student Filmmaker Emily Harrold

Emily Harrold (center) with her "Reporting on the Times" team.

Emily Harrold (center) with her "Reporting on the Times" team.

If you asked someone to outline the profile of a director making a film on The New York Times’s coverage of the Holocaust, “non-Jewish,” “college student,” and “South Carolina native” would probably not be the first descriptors he would use. Yet, they perfectly fit the profile of Emily Harrold, a 21-year-old senior who is currently completing “Reporting on the Times,” a film inspired by Laurel Leff’s 2005 book, Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper.

Working together with 20 fellow students at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts, Harrold hopes to finish the documentary by the fall and then submit it to various Jewish and documentary film festivals nationwide.

The Jewish Press: What inspired you to make this film?

Harrold: Well, I sort of fell into it. I was in a class about minorities that were persecuted during the Holocaust, and my professor mentioned, really offhand, that the U.S. government knew about the concentration camps as early as 1942. I latched onto that because it was really unbelievable that the government could know about something as terrible as the Holocaust and decide not to do anything about it.

So that germinated in my mind for a couple of months. I did a bit of research, came across the book Buried by the Times by Laurel Leff…and it just evolved from there.

Most people who work on Holocaust research are Jewish. You, and a great deal of your team at NYU, though, are not.

The thing that really struck me was this alternate understanding of history that I had never learned. The Holocaust – regardless of whether you’re Jewish or not – is a really big part of history, and my understanding of the American involvement was that we were the great liberators and knew nothing about the Holocaust until 1945 when the camps were liberated. But that wasn’t the case, and it’s unbelievable that most people don’t know that.

Your documentary argues that The New York Times underreported the Holocaust. And yet, the newspaper ran over 1,000 articles on it during World War II. How do you square those two facts?

Well, of those 1,000 articles, less than a dozen were on the front page, and in even more instances, they didn’t have titles. So, for example, an article on July 29, 1942 reports on the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto – which was a very big deal – but it’s on page 7 on the very bottom of the page with no headline. So if you’re an average reader in the 1940s, the likelihood that you’re going to see this story is very, very small.

In your film’s trailer, a woman asks, “Would placing those articles on the front page…with strong titles [have] change[d] the course of history?” Would it? And if not, does the Times deserve the opprobrium that’s been leveled at it?

That’s what historians call “what if history.” We’re never going to know, but we could always ask. Would it have made a difference? Well, it probably would’ve. The New York Times was one of those go-to papers. Roosevelt read it every morning, and he used papers like the Times to sense how society was feeling about different events.

But then again, the U.S. government and U.S. society were really anti-Semitic at the time. Also, they were really focused on the war; they had brothers and sons fighting.

Some people argue that it’s not a great moral failing for non-Jewish Americans to have focused on a brother or son fighting overseas rather than a persecuted European Jew they never met.

I don’t know if I can make that call. … To a certain extent there’s almost no good answer.

It’s not uncommon for Jews to have heard that the New York Times underreported the Holocaust. You interestingly point out, though, in an interview with the JTA, that the Times was hardly the only newspaper to do this.

The American press seems to have felt this was not something American society was really interested in. [What I’ve been told by experts] is that Americans were interested in hearing the score of the baseball games. They were interested in hearing about the tide of the war and whether soldiers they knew, or their families knew, were doing okay.

The New York Times was definitely not alone, but I’m looking at the Times because it was such a prominent newspaper and also because it was owned by a Jewish family – so you would think they would’ve been sensitive to the issue.

What do you, in fact, make of Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who was the publisher of the newspaper at the time? Why, as a Jew, didn’t he give the Holocaust greater coverage?

Both he, and the publisher before him, Adolph Ochs, were anti-Zionist. They really believed that they should be seen as Americans, not as Jews, and tried distancing themselves from issues that would be seen as specifically Jewish.

They were also really concerned, I think, with not being seen as engaging in special pleading for the Jews. They worried the newspaper would be looked on poorly – maybe the readership would fall or the credibility of the paper would diminish.

I’ve also heard it argued – and it’s an interesting thing to think about – that prior to December 7, 1941 there was concern that if the war was seen as “the war to save the Jews,” America would not enter WWII. So the Sulzbergers – The New York Times – were trying to be smart about it. [They perhaps were thinking], “We want American involvement in this war because ultimately that will help the Jewish people of Europe, but if we project this as a war to save the Jews, that might actually work against American involvement.”

In your JTA interview, you mentioned that you had to pay over $700 for a 12-second clip of Sulzberger for your film. That sounds like a bit much.

That footage is the only motion picture clip I’ve found of Sulzberger, and it’s him sitting at his desk in the New York Times building. Archival material is really expensive. I’m actually working on a film right now separately from “Reporting on the Times” and our budget is over $60,000 for a 90-minute film for archival material.

It’s definitely a challenge because I’m right out of school – hopefully – by the time this film is finished, and we’re in a recession. It’s really difficult to get funding for the arts. Right now I have a little bit of money from the Bronfman Center at NYU and I have a [fundraising] campaign going on right now on KickStarter.com that ends on Friday. I’ve also been self-funding, but it’s a really big challenge.

About the Author: Elliot Resnick is a Jewish Press staff reporter and author of “Movers and Shakers: Sixty Prominent Personalities Speak Their Mind on Tape” (Brenn Books).


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Underreporting The Holocaust At The ‘Paper Of Record’: An Interview With Student Filmmaker Emily Harrold”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Palestinian Authority TV broadcasts incitement from children's school theater.
Palestinian Authority School Children: Boycott Israel by Killing Jews [video]
Latest Indepth Stories
Islamic Relief Worldwide Logo

In November 2014, Islamic Relief Worldwide was classified as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

Safran-032715

Too rarely appreciated for its symbolic weight; it can represent freedom and independence.

Erica Pelman is a spiritually-driven woman. She is founder and director of “In Shifra’s Arms” (ISA), an organization that offers aid to pregnant Jewish women of all religious backgrounds practically, financially and emotionally. Its arms are open to any pregnant woman in need whether single, divorced, separated, or from a financially-strapped family. “Presently, we are […]

Gerstenfeld-032715

Many so-called “humanitarian NGOs” frequently abuse Israel by applying false moral equivalencies

Israeli history now has its version of “Dewey Defeats Truman” with headlines from 2 anti-Bibi papers

In God’s plan why was it necessary that Moses be raised by Pharaoh, away from his own family&people?

In their zechus may we all come to appreciate that life is a fleeting gift and resolve to spend every precious moment of it as if it were the last.

In any event, Mr. Netanyahu after the election sought to soften his statement on Palestinian statehood and apologized for what he conceded were remarks that “offended some Israeli citizens and offended members of the Israeli Arab community.”

A worthy idea any way you look at it.

There is something quite distinctive about the biblical approach to time.

The Waqf kept control of the Temple Mount due to Dayan’s “magnanimity in victory” after 6 Day war

The event promotes “1 state” solution (end of Israel as a Jewish State), BDS, lawfare against Israel

I rescued you?! You’re doing me a favor letting me help you!

“Tzedakah tatzil mi-mavet: Charity saves from death”; No death & a tax break? Where do I sign up?

More Articles from Elliot Resnick
Dr. Yael Ziegler

What I think is going on here is the Midrash is making a comment about Rut’s love for Naomi being some sort of reflection of how we have to love God.

HarperCollins’s omission was especially egregious because it is a major general and educational publisher.

I said to myself, “This story has got to be told. We’re losing this generation of World War II and if we don’t listen to them now, we’ve lost it.”

Nouril concluded he had no choice: He had to become more observant.

I was very pro-Israel, I was very proud of being Jewish, and I was living in New York at the time as a single man in my 20s and I was just looking for a little bit more.

A school voucher means the state is giving you a voucher to send your kid to whatever school you want. That might be problematic as far church-state issues are concerned.

It’s not an admiration. It is simply a kind of journalist fascination. It stands out, it’s different from more traditional Orthodoxy.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/interviews-and-profiles/underreporting-the-holocaust-at-the-paper-of-record-an-interview-with-student-filmmaker-emily-harrold/2012/02/29/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: