For NYT’s public editor, Bronner’s a tarbaby

Today, Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the NY Times, devotes his column to reaction to his suggestion that his newspaper reassign Jerusalem correspondent Ethan Bronner due to a conflict of interest relating to his son’s enlistment in the IDF. The column will appear in the print version of the newspaper and a longer version will be on the Web.

I learned about this the other day when an associate of Hoyt contacted me about including a letter I had written in Hoyt’s public editor column. I was actually quite surprised that the Times would consider publishing this letter, which I was sure was outside the boundaries of what the editors would accept as “legitimate criticism” of their star writer.

I had a very pleasant ten minute conversation with the associate, who telephoned me to verify that I indeed had written the letter. He said that the Times was happy to receive “passionate letters” such as mine, written by people who cared about the issues. Gee, I thought the Times would think of me as a “savage partisan” – that’s how editor Bill Keller characterized critics of Bronner.

Alan, the associate, was a smart, gracious and gregarious young man. I asked him if he thought Keller may be reconsidering his hasty decision on Bronner. He did not know anything that would indicate that was true. I asked if the Sunday column would only present letters that supported Mr. Hoyt’s suggestion. Alan said that they would include a sample of the full spectrum of opinions expressed in the letters they received. That would not be good.

I had hoped that Mr. Hoyt would argue the case for reassigning Mr. Bronner. The full spectrum of opinion tends to reinforce the status quo. “Hey, they’re attacking us from all sides, we must be doing something right.” Maybe Hoyt will be using the varied opinions as a way of retreating in the face of the editor’s summary dismissal of his suggestion.

Friday I received an edited version of my letter. Alan is a fine editor and he tightened up the text as promised. The only problem is he edited out the “passionate” and substantive part of the letter. I thought of negotiating, but in the end decided to give the Times permission to print it as edited.

H/T to Ali Abunimah, As’ad AbuKhalil, Richard Silverstein and all the other people in the blogosphere who forced the Times to acknowledge the Bronner story. I hope my letter will play at least a small part in getting Bronner reassigned.

Here is the letter I sent to the NY Times with some minor editing for grammar and misspelling. The deleted text is marked in red.

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

I was one of the 400 people who wrote you about what I believe is an obvious conflict of interest for Ethan Bronner.

I would also like to inform you that I am a Jewish-American, speak Hebrew, conscientiously read the Hebrew press and have volunteered in the Israeli Defense Forces. I also have now come to believe that the Israeli occupation is illegal, immoral and not in the best interests of the US.

First, I would like to praise your column about Bronner and for recommending that he be reassigned.  I imagine many people in your place would have chosen to ignore the issue.

However, your judgment that Bronner’s coverage is fair and evenhanded is not accurate. Even compared with previous NY Times correspondents, I believe Mr. Bronner’s coverage is clearly more biased in a way that reflects the degree that he and his family are embedded in the Israeli culture.

An example of this is, "Weighing Netanyahu As Peace Maker" (December 15).  This article is so full of quarter-truths, questionable attributions, false implications and inaccuracies that it in and of itself is sufficient evidence that Bronner’s writings are egregiously distorted.  By the way,  Mr. Benn, whose article is the basis of this piece, is known among Israeli journalists for being a government scribe.   I guarantee you that few Israelis took his column seriously.  The idea that Netanyahu is a peace maker is simply absurd.

You are correct that appearances are important. It appears that The NY Times does not care if its Jerusalem correspondent has a conflict of interest. This does not surprise me, since I occasionally read Bronner’s columns. What does surprise me is that after it became public that Mr. Bronner’s son enlisted in the IDF, Mr. Keller would choose to make the paper’s bias so public by summarily rejecting your advice to reassign Mr. Bronner.

Yours truly,

Ira Glunts, Madison, NY

You can read the published version here. Mine is the first letter.