The New York Times has published an exchange between its public editor Clark Hoyt, who says that Ethan Bronner should be taken off the Jerusalem beat (the outcome I thought would ensue when Bronner’s son entered the Israeli army and the fit hit the shan), and Bill Keller, the executive editor, who digs in his heels on Bronner’s behalf and protests too much. Keller makes the following statement:
If we send a Jewish correspondent to Jerusalem, the zealots on one side will accuse him of being a Zionist and on the other side of being a self-loathing Jew, and then they will parse every word he writes to find the phrase that confirms what they already believe while overlooking all evidence to the contrary.
There are a couple of problems with this hypothetical. 1, It’s not a hypothetical: The Times has sent not one but two Jewish correspondents to Jerusalem! 2, I believe that Bronner is a Zionist. I’m not certain, but I believe that if he were at all honest about his ideas about the Jewish state–ideas that we as readers have a right to know about, given the place we’re all in in history right now, and the dual-loyalty issues that Zionism created, and that Arthur Hays Sulzberger the late publisher of the Times anticipated that it would create–then we would know him to be a Zionist. That was the vibe I got at his lecture the other day: he’s emotionally invested in the idea of a Jewish state. He should talk openly about this. Many, many American Jews are Zionists, and Keller shouldn’t put them on the defensive. Why is it an "accusation" to say someone is a Zionist? Many people think that’s a good thing; Dershowitz says supporting Israel is the secular religion of American Jews.
I think Keller’s decision not to move Bronner (for now; we still might get a trainwreck/climbdown) is defensible; but consider: both Jerusalem correspondents are Jewish, one is Israeli, and both are married to Israelis. That’s a lot of Israelness. I bet a few members of that menage are Zionists.
This controversy, and Keller’s stand, leave the Times with no choice: It must assign an Arab-American reporter to Jerusalem. Or not even an American. If it had any stones, it would seek to elevate Taghreed El-Khodary, the fabulous correspondent it has in Gaza. And I wonder what the Israelis would do when she applied to enter the country.
Give her a body cavity search by the two youngest IDF security guards available, and film it and put it on YouTube titled Hamas propaganda?
‘Why is it an “accusation” to say someone is a Zionist? Many people think that’s a good thing;’
Every person, Jew or non-Jew, who broadly understood, recognizes, and strongly appreciates with conviction both the historical and spiritual origin of Jews, as well as to its future… take it or leave it, become a Zionist…
You may turn in or turn out views like a dough, the said person remains a Zionist…
To oppose this Zionist view, by a Jew or non-Jew, towards both Israel and Jerusalem, one needs to an anti-Judaism or at most in principle an anti-Semitic…
Sad but a realistic fact; could there be a another just and sound reason (otherwise)? None!…
That wasn’t as linear a logic as you’re used to, kudos.
The linear logic is if you trace back Nazi philosophy from its origins in the latter part of the 19th Century, you will find a spin-off copycat in the origins of Zionism in the same time frame and place. A most special peoplehood, lebensraum, ancient mythical justification.
If the NYT has an Arab-American (also Muslim?) correspondent in Gaza I think it’s already well ahead of most of the UK press in presenting an important point of view on the region, though we do have Robert Fisk, who is no catspaw of Israel.
But Phil said, “…both Jerusalem correspondents are Jewish, one is Israeli, and both are married to Israelis. That’s a lot of Israelness. I bet a few members of that menage are Zionists.”
Which place is the epicenter of world interest, Jerusalem or Gaza? I don’t know about England, but in the USA, every American has at least heard of Jerusalem, even in the most hick town anywhere–remember Christianity? In my experience at least, very few in the heartland have ever hear of Gaza. And so, now moving on to the higher educated class–they won’t miss the Super bowl tonight either. Fisk is good, but a bomb tossed into the Superbowl tonight, followed by a TV add called
GAZA–What You Should Know–would be interesting. (Irritable joke)
Here’s (pretty much) what I posted earlier after reading through a bunch of Ethan Bronner articles and listening to his NPR interview. I have to say that his “big picture” outlook is entirely pro-Zionist, pro-Israel, and it absolutely creeps into his reporting on facts. On the positive side, he seems to be OK on human interest – even when the subjects are Palestinian.
One example from Nov. 26 news analysis – he says (regarding requirements of the “roadmap”):
‘“a casual observer could have concluded that each had carried out its duty and that peace talks would move forward. [...]
‘“But the casual observer would probably be mistaken. There are unlikely to be peace talks soon. In fact, tensions seem set to rise, partly because the claims of each side amount to half-truths, as the other is the first to note.”
‘In this article, Bronner notes that the half-truth the Palestinians accuse the Israelis of is that their settlement “freeze” excluded East Jerusalem, settlements already authorized and was only for 10 months.
‘On the other hand, the half-truth the Israelis accuse the Palestinians of is that the Palestinian security efforts are inadequate because without constant Israeli raids into Palestinian territory there would be rockets fired from the West Bank.
‘This seems like the classic “balanced” reporting. The Palestinians are stating an obvious fact, the Israelis are making rather dubious claims about the future, and failing condition it with other possibilities such as Israel actually offering an honest, just peace (OK, maybe that’s not realistic, but it is a possibility), yet Bronner reports both as equivalent half-truths.
Bronner is prone to accusing the Palestinians of anti-semitism, yet when the Israeli army spokesperson refers to their actions in regularly killing a few people in the West Bank as “mowing the grass” he has no comment. Reports on settler violence are buried in human interest stories sympathetic to the settlers.
In another article he admits there are Jewish terrorists, the people who killed Rabin. Again, classic “balanced” reporting. When it comes to Israel committing war crimes, as with all the evidence provided by numerous human rights organizations, suddenly he’s an agnostic, its all “fog of war.” He certainly reminded me of RW.
The assumption is that by replacing the reporter, the NYT’s tone and bias will change. But, since editors and owners of the NYT have their own agendas, it makes little difference, really.
Now that’s a recipe for hope.
‘The Times’ now owes it to its readers to assign an objective reporter. The assignment of an ‘Arab’, and your inference that this magic Arab would improve the quality of reportage by his/her mere presence is naive or worse. I say worse, because of the public relations value of such a hire.
‘The Times’ has made no pretence of being objective in its reporting on the ME for years, although the bias has arguably worsened since 9/11. I still buy the Sunday Times, more for the dessert of its Arts/Travel/Style sections, than its nutritional value. For the most part, analysis of its analysis is valuable only so far as it provides insight into a mindset.
Yeah, if the NYT hired an Arab reporter for their Israel beat it would not surprise me if not that much changed–chances are good they’d hire an Arab with views like Fouad Ajami who is always publishing in the New Republic about how backwards the Arabs are.
They have picked up Anthony Shahid, but he’s reporting on Iraq, I think. Which is fine, since he wrote a great book about Iraq, but it would be interesting to see whether their Israeli coverage would change if he were assigned that beat. Shahid might find his copy altered before publication, or he might start self-censoring, or maybe he’d quit, or maybe even he’d manage to get some truly good articles printed, only to become the object of a concerted effort to have him removed.
All that said, the ethnicity of the reporter is secondary to the sort of biases they actually have. The problem with Hoyt’s column is that he doesn’t see any bias in Bronner and is treating this as a purely unfair conflict where two sides jump on him, and in the grand tradition of mainstream media types everywhere, he takes this to mean that Bronner must be doing an okay job. I think it was inevitable that Hoyt would ignore all the criticism he’s obviously been receiving about Bronner (from both sides) until it became personal. Then he can write about it, with Bronner in the role of martyr unfairly criticized because of the decision of his son.
Here, by the way, is an example of Bronner in action. It’s about Benny Morris’s work on what happened in 1948. To his credit, Bronner is more stunned by Morris’s advocacy of ethnic cleansing than some of Morris’s defenders around here. On the other hand, Bronner thinks that there is some sort of moral equivalence between Arabs warning Arab civilians to flee and Israeli acts of ethnic cleansing, because he says the issue is morally gray, with both sides sharing blame. That’s so stupid it doesn’t deserve refutation. If one wants to look for moral equivalences, then compare Arab atrocities to Zionist atrocities–don’t compare acts of massacre with Arab leaders warning Arab civilians to flee from a war zone.
What’s interesting about this is that I doubt it would ever occur to Bronner to say responsibility is shared if the ethnicities were reversed–that is, when Arabs did kill Jewish civilians in cold blood and expelled others I don’t think Bronner would say Israeli leaders were also to blame if they had advised those civilians to flee. In such a case he would, quite rightly, put all the blame on the Arab murderers. It’s only Israeli atrocities that have to be seen as morally gray.
Bronner’s discussion of Morris
“…I don’t think Bronner would say Israeli leaders were also to blame if they had advised those civilians to flee.”
Interestingly enough, Jonathan Cook, the independent reporter living in Nazareth, made a similar point after the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. Large numbers of Israelis, mostly Jewish ones, fled from northern Israel during the firing of Hezbollah’s rockets at that area, some under the encouragement of the Israeli government. Afterwards they were of course all allowed to return to their homes and no one insisted that because they fled voluntarily and were not expelled, that they did not have any right to return to their homes after the danger was over. And of course, the Israeli government never blamed itself for those who fled. Such morally obtuse “arguments” are only applied to those Israel considers as enemies.
I can’t find the particular article in which Cook mentions the Israeli double standard in regards to who is doing the fleeing, but this article gives a good overview of the numbers involved and the two-tiered system of governmental help for those communities, with the Arab communities again getting the shaft.
Deception as a Way of Life:Israeli Myths
Keller’s conclusion, with roles reversed:
“My point is not that Ethan’s family connections to the Palestinians (the fact that his son has joined the militia of Hamas) are irrelevant. They are significant, and both he and his editors should be alert for the possibility that they would compromise his work. How those connections affect his innermost feelings about the country and its conflicts, I don’t know. I suspect they supply a measure of sophistication about Palestine and its adversaries that someone with no connections would lack. I suspect they make him even more tuned-in to the sensitivities of readers on both sides, and more careful to go the extra mile in the interest of fairness.”
Very amusing in a grim sort of way! What I said about the UK press was only to say that I don’t think we are that much ahead of you in the US. Though it comes back to me during the 06 war in Lebanon the BBC deployed a reporter called Fergal Keane who really annoyed Zionist opinion by reporting from Qana with, as one of them said, a lump in his throat, rather I suppose than with a voice of steel.
Thanks for the reminder about the Superbowl, I’d better time my call to the family in New England so as not to interrupt.
Israel would reject El-Khodary, and the NYT would fail to report the story.
The way things are going in Israel now, they would probably reject any reporter who is not known to be a Zionist Jew, and the NYT would fail to report that story.
Clark Hoyt:Bronner wrote in The Times last year after the three-week Israeli assault on Gaza, intended to stop rocket fire into southern Israel.. Is this fact or opinion? The justification is redundant, except for giving cues on whose side you’re on – to protect yourself from criticism.
tuyzen, that exact line jumped out at me. for the most part the ceasefire ended the rocketfire into israel months before israel invaded gaza. intended to stop rocket fire into southern Israel is idf speak, not reality.
And Hoyt probably wouldn’t even realize what he had done, so entrenched is the bias.
Perhaps ‘extended to deter a resumption of rocket fire’ after Israel had conveyed its refusal to loosen the abominable blockade, directed against the only genuine expression of Palestinian self-determination – the blockade in itself being a deadly weapon.
Exactly, Israeli action is always a reaction to Palestinian militancy. Palestinian militancy appears out of thin air. They fire those rockets for no reason at all, those ungrateful wretches.
The NYT featured fascist opinion (e.g., Benny Morris) from the start of the Gaza Turkey Shoot, when it covered it all at the time. Here’s an article on this–ignore the last few sentences tying it up with Socialism POV in a very untidy bow:
link to wsws.org
Here’s an Overview of Gaza given by the NYT last September. See if you can spot
all the key information left out in this pristine piece of hasbara masked as objective reporting for gullible readers –one hint: November 4.
Oops, here’s the link:
link to topics.nytimes.com
given the place we’re all in in history right now, and the dual-loyalty issues that Zionism created, and that Arthur Hays Sulzberger the late publisher of the Times anticipated that it would create
phil, could you please provide a little more background on what sulzberger said?
He was anti-Zionist because he knew, as many early Zionists themselves said, the issue of dual loyalty was enmeshed therein–here’s a slight clue:
link to ww3zionism.blogspot.com
thanks citizen, i’ll check out the link.
Here’s a little more on Sulzberger, from a review by Alfred Lillienthal of a book about Times editor A.M. Rosenthal:
In 1946, Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger publicly declared: “I dislike the coercive methods of Zionists who in this country have not hesitated to use economic means to silence persons who hue different views. I object to attempts at character assassination of those who do not agree with them.”
In the same year, Sulzberger told a congregation of fellow Jews in Chattanooga, TN: “I cannot rid myself of the feeling that the unfortunate Jews of Europe’s DP camps are helpless hostages for whom statehood has been made the only ransom.”
During the ferment that preceded the 1947 UN partition of Palestine and the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel, the elder Sulzberger cancelled an advertisement submitted by the “American League for a Free Palestine:’ a US alter ego and fund raiser for the terrorist Menachem Begin-led Irgun Zvai Leumi. The action, prompted by Sulzberger’s personal convictions, brought him into confrontation with American Zionists and led to a costly boycott of The New York Times by department store advertisers. The boycott was referred to as the “frightening experience” by Times executives, who locked away all of the correspondence referring to it in a safe in the Times’ offices.
link to wrmea.com
Slightly off topic, but ‘The Boston Globe’ has a brief article today about Lebanon’s record year (2009) for tourism, and its construction boom. How long until the light unto nations fashions a pretext to bomb the sh#t out of Lebanon?
Not long. Israel is already ramping up the provocations. They kidnapped a 17 yr old shepherd from Lebanon last week, although they released him next day.
link to almanar.com.lb
Not long before they send a few IDF soldiers into Lebanon, get them captured or killed, and have a good excuse for this year’s war. Israel has little compunction about losing a few assets to get a war started.
I know Lebanon reasonably well, but not the Shebaa Farms area, which is in the extreme south-east, and has been occupied by Israel since their 1978 incursion (no, not their wholesale invasion of 1982; their earlier one).
Or they might manage to get a plane shot down. Israeli overflights of Lebanon seem to be back to their usual arrogant level. Probably seeking out suitable targets for destruction.
Sorry, got that wrong. Israelis have been occupying the Shebaa Farms area since 1967. It is a very good water source.
Richard,
your asshole called, it wants to give us your head back.
Hey, RW, ignore yonira–he’s just a child as no doubt you’ve plainly seen, and wants to cling to romantic delusions
when faced with hard facts about Israel. You can be sure he wouldn’t call you names if you were standing in front of him.
I have another good question, what should we do about this?
Joachim Martillo came to the same conclusion as Israel Shamir and James Petras–and David Duke? How long will Duke remain on the fringe? Is he crazier than Dershowitz or Lieberman? We know who has the power, and don’t we agree that the crazies with the power are the ones to worry about? Isn’t it time for the SPLC to go after Dershie? I know, I know, it won’t–that’s the problem.
I’m glad Phil’s already on this. You guys should post over at NYT’s comment section:
link to bit.ly
Especially you, Citizen. Your parody was perfect.
Keep up the pressure.
Those living in New York, active in the I/P issue or politics know the NYT’s reporting favors Israel but the rest of the US is clueless. They look upon information from the Times as being TRUTHFUL; without bias or they scratch it off as being a liberal or leftist newspaper.
Taghreed El-Khodary would be an excellent addition in Jerusalem. We met her in Gaza, all indications pointed to her being an excellent reporter. As I remember, she didn’t come right out and say her byline is often missing and her articles are heavily edited by Bonner…….however her careful answering of questions led us to believe that’s quite possibly the case.
The NYT is as liberal or leftist as my left foot. And about as TRUTHFUL as my right one.
Unfortunately, Taghreed El-Khodary could not be an excellent addition in Jerusalem, simply because she would not be allowed out of Gaza.
Richard Silverstein has very astutely handled this situation at:
link to richardsilverstein.com
An example of bullshit and double speak by Keller:
Keller said that if Israel launched a new assault into Gaza and Bronner’s son were a foot soldier, “I don’t think I’d have any problem with Ethan covering the conflict.” It would be a tougher call if the son rose to a commanding role, he said, and if the son’s unit were accused of wrongdoing, Keller said he thought he would assign another reporter.
I don’t believe a word of it.
Nor do I. If Bronner’s son was sent in with the rest of the mob, then OK. But here we are being given a different picture.
which he will be, as I assume Bronner’s son is an Ashkenazi Then he will be the person calling in airstrikes and UAV bombings on whever he thinks fit.
Hoyt again (and Keller says something similar):I have received hundreds of messages heatedly contending the opposite: that his coverage is slanted against Israel. This is undoubtedly true, and provides exactly no indication on whether you’re doing right.
Keller has a point in not making too big a deal of this isolated case of Bronner’s son’s ties to the IDF. By itself that’s not enough reason to disqualify Bronner. Khadouri has ties to the Palestinians, anyone want to disqualify her? What about the people at Haaretz? But part of the reason Keller makes sense is because he isolates the case.
When you move back and see the bigger picture, you can see an annoying pro-Israel slant with Bronner and with the paper. Mind you, you still need to use the reporting of other papers as a reference: they haven’t been doing well either . The difference in judgement relies a lot on the context. Without acknowledging that context I don’t see much of a case.
Sorry, html error adding closing quote
“Khadouri has ties to the Palestinians, anyone want to disqualify her?”
If her son is fighting for Hamas, yes. How is that different than Bronner’s son fighting for the IDF?
Admittedly, if you put it that way…
Apologies if someone’s already said this, but hiring an Arab-American reporter would not change anything. Taghreed’s reports still had to go through the bureau chief and through the foreign desk in NY, where they can be massaged in any direction the editor wants. Didn’t we already have a post here about Ashraf Khalil’s experience at the Los Angeles Times? Reporters who try to present even a slightly even-handed approach get tremendous push back from the assigning editors. They’re urged to insert weasel words about every Israeli action being a retaliation against militants and listing rocket attacks and civilian casualties.
Look at the LAT’s new Jerusalem correspondent, Edmund Sanders. He was brilliant in Africa, but in Israel, his reports are becoming increasingly hasbara-like.
He began with stories like this < a href="link to latimes.com Highway that divides and reached here on the New Israel Fund which gives more time to the critics than the group.
Damn, I need a preview button
Sorry, there isn’t a preview option here, unlike most comment sections on other blogging systems. Whoever operates the Mondoweiss blog’s comments needs to get that, and also a WYSIWIG system that allows you to bold or do other HTML tricks like
without going through all the HTML hassle yourself.
The Ashraf Khalil post
Donald Fouad Ajami may have an Arabic name, but he’s a phony
link to en.wikipedia.org
The United States is currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with American solders dying every day. And yet, Bronner’s son signs up to fight for Israel. If Bronner’s son won’t fight for America in time of war I wonder when he would fight for this country. Probably never. If these are the kinds of values Bronner is transmitting to his son I wonder why anyone thinks his reporting is remotely fair.
Good point. Makes you wonder how many Jewish American families have sons and daughters in the IDF and not in our army. Not that they HAVE to have any in either.
Of course, the Ziocons will say that Iraq, Afghanistan and the ‘war on terror’ is the same thing as what Israel is fighting against in Occupied Palestine.
I wonder what the end-game is for these freaks. Are Arabs supposed to be enslaved forever?
They want that religious extremism. It’s a good way to control the people.
If anyone wants to see what a real journalist shows the Israelis did in Gaza, see:
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
Interesting video people should check out.
Richard Parker….thanks! It’s excellent film and excellent reporting.
People are shocked when they find out our house is a “no TV zone” They wonder how in the world I manage life with out TV…if our TV offered reports similar to this…I’d consider purchasing one.