Strike Three? Bronner is violating the Times’ ethics code — again

Israel/Palestine
on 26 Comments

By agreeing to speak at the Islamophobic Clarion Fund’s 92nd Street Y event on November 7 beside neoconservative Richard Perle and uber-hawk John Bolton, Ethan Bronner is explicitly violating New York Times ethical guidelines. After I published my report about Bronner’s unethical business arrangement with a right-wing Israeli public relations firm, the Times‘ Standards Editor Phil Corbett sent out a memo to the entire Times staff reminding them about the paper’s guidelines for speaking engagements. A staffer leaked the memo to Gawker. It included the following stipulations, which Bronner is clearly violating:

Speaking fees are generally not allowed from companies, lobbying groups or other sources that might raise questions about our impartiality.

— Even if an engagement does not involve a fee, we should avoid situations that would create an appearance of favoritism or suggest too close a relationship between a Times journalist and the people or institutions we cover.

26 Responses

  1. Richard Witty
    October 27, 2011, 10:33 am

    Quite a stretch Max.

    He is appearing on a panel, regarded as the liberal on the panel, prospectively to confront and balance misrepresentation by the further right on the panel.

    • ehrens
      October 27, 2011, 11:25 am

      Oh, is *that* what he’s doing? Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

      Sorry, Richard. Bronner is incapable of confronting or balancing bupkus. He’s so deeply in bed with the lobby and all their institutions that every time he moves or speaks it’s to become more deeply enmeshed in them. That’s the problem.

    • Chu
      October 27, 2011, 12:13 pm

      A liberal shill perhaps.

    • jimby
      October 27, 2011, 12:41 pm

      “Quite a stretch Max.”

      Oh boy, mental calisthenics for Witty. Maybe there’s hope after all.

    • seanmcbride
      October 27, 2011, 1:31 pm

      Witty,

      Why would the illustrious New York Times be interested in helping to provide legitimacy to a hate organization like the Clarion Fund? Will it be able to explain itself?

    • annie
      October 27, 2011, 2:16 pm

      seriously richard where do you come up w/this stuff?

      • Richard Witty
        October 27, 2011, 2:19 pm

        You have a very jaundiced view of Bronner’s reporting.

        After cast-lead for example he scooped Phil in asserting that the Gazans were uniquely resilient.

        Others spun his comments as justifying the blockade, that that proved that they weren’t being starved as many here claimed.

        Phil’s similar comments though weren’t spun in the same way. They could have been though.

        See what he says at the presentation. Don’t judge prejudicially. I get that you are in BDS gear, that you think that his even appearing on the stage is a validation of the Clarion Fund, thereby giving them a self-pat of legitimacy.

      • hophmi
        October 27, 2011, 4:14 pm

        Seriously Annie, do you always practice guilt by association?

      • Chaos4700
        October 27, 2011, 6:27 pm

        You’re not allowed to find out, annie, you’re not a licensed proctologist. ;)

    • Philip Munger
      October 27, 2011, 2:35 pm

      If you’re on Richard’s right side – beware and step at least ten feet away! He’s about to tip over from an overdose of vertigo.

    • Shingo
      October 27, 2011, 3:55 pm

      He is appearing on a panel, regarded as the liberal on the panel, prospectively to confront and balance misrepresentation by the further right on the panel.

      Did you read that somewhere Witty or did you simply make it up?

      • annie
        October 27, 2011, 6:39 pm

        he made it up shingo, and when i asked him where he comes up with this stuff both him and hophmi start dancing the hasbara ad hominem 2step boingo woingo.

        lol

    • Cliff
      October 27, 2011, 4:12 pm

      This is a typical, Dick Witty, hit-and-run-like-the-coward-he-is kind of comment.

      Say something idiotic and superficial, then vanish. Thread hi-jacking accomplished.

    • eGuard
      October 27, 2011, 6:51 pm

      Witty: … to confront and balance misrepresentation …

      How or with what does he “balance [a] misrepresentation”?

    • MRW
      October 27, 2011, 8:15 pm

      This is the stretch:

      He is appearing on a panel, regarded as the liberal on the panel, prospectively to confront and balance misrepresentation by the further right on the panel.

      You have zero idea why he’s on that panel. And if you still claim you do, provide proof. The 92StY did not provide that explanation. Your assumptions are not reality.

      • seanmcbride
        October 27, 2011, 10:47 pm

        MRW,

        Something many people have noticed about many pro-Israel activists — they will often make up stuff off the top of their heads and try to pass it off as factual. Very strange behavior: they are only concerned with making short-term points, not with cultivating their credibility down the line.

      • MRW
        October 29, 2011, 1:17 pm

        True.

  2. Chu
    October 27, 2011, 12:15 pm

    from memo:

    “Even if an engagement does not involve a fee, we should avoid situations that would create an appearance of favoritism or suggest too close a relationship between a Times journalist and the people or institutions we cover.”

  3. Kathleen
    October 27, 2011, 12:51 pm

    And the bloody New York Times commercials keep repeating how you get news that is accurate. I have boycotted the NYT’s ever since they allowed Judy “I was fucking right” Miller to spew WMD lies from their front pages. Judy ‘s lies just whizzed by the editors.

    That paper is covered with the Iraqi peoples blood

    • hophmi
      October 27, 2011, 4:11 pm

      “I have boycotted the NYT”

      Kathleen – finding common cause with the hard right, who boycott the Times because they think it’s not pro-Israel enough.

      It’s nice to be reminded once again how much alike extremists are.

      “That paper is covered with the Iraqi peoples blood”

      Oh, really. I didn’t see any blood when I picked up my copy this morning.

      • Chaos4700
        October 27, 2011, 11:47 pm

        So now you’re doing guilt by association by handcuffing Kathleen to yourself?

  4. annie
    October 27, 2011, 2:16 pm

    give em hell max

  5. Chaos4700
    October 27, 2011, 6:29 pm

    Isn’t this more like strike twenty-three? Can we stop pretending like Bronner will ever get fired by the NYT?

  6. eGuard
    October 27, 2011, 6:55 pm

    Here’s a strategy: we let him stay at NYT. Either he writes himself out of it, or NYT has a credibility issue to maintain with every I/P piece.

    Keep him in! And every week a Max Blumenthal update.

  7. POA
    October 27, 2011, 9:58 pm

    Gads, Witty brays like a jackass, and incites a chorus of animal haters.

    Is this thread about Bronner, or Witty?

  8. radii
    October 28, 2011, 2:23 am

    the (calculated?) obsequious bending over by Obama, et al on all subjects israel and zionist these days has perhaps emboldened the neocon crowd to get a little too big for their britches and they can’t help themselves but smugly thump their chests in vulgar machismo about their control – Bronner is a symptom: they feel untouchable

Leave a Reply