MJ Rosenberg lands on the Bronner story and says that the son’s decision reflects the family’s devotion to Israel, and puts a huge question under Bronner’s objectivity. He draws the most important lesson from the drama, a lesson that is very heartening indeed:
Suddenly the New York Times feels the need to deal with its critics who argue that an intense attachment to Israel obscures objective judgement on the Middle East.
This is new. Until very recently the assumption was that the Israeli position was, by definition, the neutral, disinterested position.
Read any Tom Friedman column on the Middle East. The underlying assumption of any Friedman column is that if it’s good for Israel, it’s good for America. It’s right.
This is truly a door-opener, and a new world. We’re coming in. I repeat that this drama will not end without Bronner’s reassignment (but executive editor Bill Keller is dug in) or the addition of an Arab-American or Palestinian reporter to the Times’ (West) Jerusalem bureau. Or this idea from public editor Dan Okrent writing on the issue–"The Hottest Button"–four years ago, and making a reasonable suggestion. Four years have passed; and the Times has not done the right thing.
It [claimed objectivity] is limited by geography. The Times, like virtually every American news organization, maintains its bureau in West Jerusalem. Its reporters and their families shop in the same markets, walk the same streets and sit in the same cafes that have long been at risk of terrorist attack. Some advocates of the Palestinian cause call this "structural geographic bias."
If the reporters lived in Gaza or Ramallah, this argument goes, they would feel exposed to the daily struggles and dangers of life behind Palestinian lines and would presumably become more empathetic toward the Palestinians.
I don’t know about empathy, but I do know that the angle of vision determines what you see. A reporter based in secular, Europeanized Tel Aviv would experience an Israel vastly different from one living in Jerusalem; a reporter with a home in Ramallah would most likely find an entirely different world. The Times ought to give it a try.
