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.
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.
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.
A liberal shill perhaps.
“Quite a stretch Max.”
Oh boy, mental calisthenics for Witty. Maybe there’s hope after all.
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?
seriously richard where do you come up w/this stuff?
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.
Seriously Annie, do you always practice guilt by association?
You’re not allowed to find out, annie, you’re not a licensed proctologist. ;)
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.
Did you read that somewhere Witty or did you simply make it up?
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
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.
Witty: … to confront and balance misrepresentation …
How or with what does he “balance [a] misrepresentation”?
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.
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.
True.
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.”
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
“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.
So now you’re doing guilt by association by handcuffing Kathleen to yourself?
give em hell max
Isn’t this more like strike twenty-three? Can we stop pretending like Bronner will ever get fired by the NYT?
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.
Gads, Witty brays like a jackass, and incites a chorus of animal haters.
Is this thread about Bronner, or Witty?
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