Jodi Rudoren
Barely a day went by before Jodi Rudoren, the spanking new Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times (NYT), got her first lesson in how quickly advocates for Israel could raise a media firestorm. Rudoren's offense is writing "cozy" Twitter messages to the likes of Ali Abunimah, Mondoweiss and Peter Beinart.
Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon (whose inaccurate reporting on Iran I wrote about here) fired the first shot with an article decrying Rudoren for playing "Twitter footsie" with some of "Israel’s most extreme non-terrorist critics." Yesterday, Rudoren sent the Electronic Intifada's Ali Abunimah a Twitter message after Abunimah criticized past NYT coverage of Palestine and the fact that she "will get to move into this lovely property stolen from Palestinians in 1948." Rudoren wrote: "@AliAbunimah Hey there. Would love to chat sometime. About things other than the house. My friend Kareem Fahim says good things." This message got her into trouble, which is revealing in and of itself.
The chief of the discourse-police, former Israeli prison guard and writer for the Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg, says today:
Reaching out to Abunimah is normal, of course: He's a player in extremist circles, and someone she might wind-up covering. But it would have been better if she had twinned this reach-out with one to a Kahanist or some sort of radical settler rabbi, for balance
Commentary, the Jerusalem Post's Shmuel Rosner, and William Daroff of the Jewish Federations of North America have also joined in on the fun. And although Goldberg tweeted that there's "nothing wrong with quoting Abunimah, if he's identified as someone who seeks Israel's elimination," more reactionary elements of the Israel lobby disagree. Josh Block, the former AIPAC spokesman behind the recent smear campaign against the Center for American Progress, told Kredo:
These are not people you engage like this, especially your first day as Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the paper of record. You really don’t even want to be seen in public with them—it’s just a mistake.
For now, Rudoren's tweets stand on their own, and it will be interesting to see how she covers the region. But the firestorm itself tells us some important things.
One lesson is that, as Max Blumenthal said at the BDS conference at UPenn, those in solidarity with Palestinians "operate in a racist environment." The hysterical reaction to a nice message to Abunimah reveals the racism at the heart of U.S. media on this issue. Palestinians should not be heard, the message is, especially from one who advocates for one-state with equal rights for all. AIPAC's Block thinks you shouldn't be "seen in public" with them. Good for Rudoren for not sinking to that level.
The second lesson is that ardent advocates for Israel are trying to suppress a discourse and worldview anathema to them. The furious tweets and articles directed at Rudoren are meant to intimidate her into thinking about the conflict through an Israeli prism. Any open discourse on this issue is a danger.
My last point is a question: does the appointment of Rudoren indicate that the goalposts have moved on opening up an honest conversation about Israel in this country? There is no recent coverage from Jerusalem by Rudoren to definitively point to. The fact that she's open to Beinart and Abunimah, though, could be indicative of a person willing to stand the heat and really report on occupied Palestine. We'll see.
Rudoren's latest message on Twitter was a response of sorts: "Thanks for all the new folos, and the advice re Tweeting. Plan to Tweet from all sides of conflict. Welcome suggestions of other books."
Interesting how all of these self-appointed thought police have decided where the boundaries are of what you are allowed to report, or who you can talk to. In the next sentence they will be talking about democracy and freedom, with no noticeable irony. The fact that they are so desperate to contain the debate and smear anyone who might be articulate and offer intelligent proposals on the subject is indicative of the sheer desperation of their effort to patrol any public debate and keep voices from Palestine being heard. No wonder they are scared – when those voices are heard they walk all over the lies and hypocrisies of these so-called ‘commentators’.
Shorter version: in her first 24 hours at the post, Rudoren responded politely to a Palestinian.
For all the sturm und drang in pro-Israel circles, this appears to be less of a political failure than an etiquette failure. It’s like she walked into an old southern mansion and chatted with the black servants rather than properly introducing herself to the white owner. She doesn’t seem to have the appropriate understanding of how opinions are supposed to be discussed among the decent people.
It’s like she walked into an old southern mansion and chatted with the black servants rather than properly introducing herself to the white owner. She doesn’t seem to have the appropriate understanding of how opinions are supposed to be discussed among the decent people.
Apt comparison, BillM!
BillM says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Shorter version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rotflmao…that’s the description all right.
These mad overreactions suggest they think Rudoren’s been appointed to the Court of Israeli Zionism, not to be a reporter on all the issues (and hopefully a more honest one!) of the I/P region.
comparing Ali to Kahane is disgusting
and look at the language:
“non terrorist extremists” LOL
this is why terms like Israel firster are appropriate
so sick of these clowns
OK Alex,
Let’s say Rudoren tweeted back and forth with Josh Block or with a member of AIPAC’s board. Would you be OK with that? No, you’d be all over it claiming it shows how Rudoren is in bed with the pro-Israel community.
I think in general, it’s bad form for a correspondent to be openly communicating with political pundits like Abunimah and Beinart. It gives the appearance of impropriety.
hophmi chiming in with the stupidest equivocation since, about 3 minutes ago when he made another stupid equivocation in the Finkelstein discussion.
Ethan Bronner’s son is in the IDF. He was pictured w/ a settler and was shown on the board of a settler PR firm. He was going to be on a panel discussing some pro-Iranian War propaganda film.
I think we’ll reserve judgment until the new material comes out under this new appointee.
Just because she tweeted someone does not mean she is pro this or that.
For one, she liked some Palestinian documentary (I think it was Palestinian at least).
And second, Ali Abunimah is NOTHING like Josh Block or AIPAC or any other retarded comparison you come up with.
“Just because she tweeted someone does not mean she is pro this or that.”
No, of course it doesn’t. So Cliff, Rudoren just tweeted with Abe Foxman that she’s loved his new book on antisemitism. What’s your response?
“And second, Ali Abunimah is NOTHING like Josh Block or AIPAC or any other retarded comparison you come up with.’
You’re right. Abunimah gets quoted in the Times way more than Josh Block does.
I don’t care if she likes Abe Foxman’s book.
I don’t care whether she prefers Coke to Pepsi.
Why would I even have to RESPOND to her likes and dislikes?
The only thing that matters is whether the reporting she does/others do is honest.
That can be argued and discussed.
@hophmi As opposed to privately communicating with who knows who (i.e. AIPAC, of recent “do it, but do it privately” pronouncements?
Per AIPAC, as reported by Greenwald, the tactics of intimidation and/or direction are most effective when private.
In whNo, but we wouldn’t be shocked or rusprised. After all, that’s what the status quo was with her predecessor.
hophmi ‘s premise assumes most of our congress people take free trips to the WB & Gaza; that our political leaders are always praising the “special relationship” we have with the Palestinian people; that every year a substantial number of our congress people genuflect at some Palestinian version of AIPAC; that the Palestinians have been the biggest beneficiary of US foreign aid in US history, etc
I guess hophmi also believes MW is like NYT, WaPO, WSJ, etc & Phil has a nightly news show on MSNBC while Adam has one on CNN.
“Yesterday, Rudoren sent the Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah a Twitter message after Abunimah criticized past NYT coverage of Palestine and the fact that she “will get to move into this lovely property stolen from Palestinians in 1948.” Rudoren wrote: “@AliAbunimah Hey there. Would love to chat sometime. About things other than the house. My friend Kareem Fahim says good things.” This message got her into trouble, which is revealing in and of itself.”
Very bad way to start out. So much for Ruderons integrity. “will get to move into this lovely property stolen from Palestinians in 1948″
goldberg is such an ass. really, alex, isn’t there some way to report on this issue without dedicating column space to that bloated ignoramus?
i find this remark particularly galling:
But my advice to her (echoing Marc Tracy’s) is to stop tweeting as if she’s a J Street official and remember that she has to develop sources on all sides of the conflict.
briliant. first, if rudoren wanted your advice, she could have asked you. maybe via twitter. next, it feels as if the world’s second dumdest f*cking guy on the planet, coming in a nose behind dougy feith, has adopted a condescending, patronizing tone, when ruderon, for all her apparent shortcomings as a journalist, probably scores a few dozen points higher than goldberg on the IQ scale. last, i will give goldberg credit for his preternatural ability to pack so many errors into single sentences that they are as dense as a black hole. here we are treated to two monumental errors of fact and logic: 1. goldberg assumes/pretends that ruderon’s predecessor did anything but regurgitate GOI talking points; 2. he also assumes that persons of abunimah’s ilk are not worthy of cultivation, even though he advises ruderon to ‘develop sources on all sides’. (actually, those are two sides of the same point. just like goldberg’s two-headed coin is a symbol of his vision of both sides of the conflict.)
Let’s translate that into something that might have been said about South Africa in, say, 1992.
So, Susie from Curb is the new NYT Bureau Chief? niiiiiiiiice…..
Every NYT Israel correspondent has to be “seasoned” by the hasbaradim.
I think judging by her response to Ali, she’s already well-seasoned.
Assuming that she’s aware of this lovely “perfect” fire-storm of “welcome”, well – - hrmmmfff — might we not wait to see how she performs as a , dare I say it in the contect of the NYT-in-Jerusalem, REPORTER?
After all, maybe NYT is a-changing.
Apropos of that lovely hope, did people see Roger Cohen’s wonderful book review of Beinart’s “The Dilemmas of Israeli Power”?
This is of course the name of the game…
“The second lesson is that ardent advocates for Israel are trying to suppress a discourse and worldview anathema to them. The furious tweets and articles directed at Rudoren are meant to intimidate her into thinking about the conflict through an Israeli prism. Any open discourse on this issue is a danger.”
How to counter it? Block, Goldberg et al. have been discredited ad nauseum yet still they feel they authority to pipe up about others. Probably best to keep calling attention to what they are doing…free speech and “discourse-police” don’t go together.
welcome to the madhouse, Jodi – the Loyalty Police are already closely watching you
The thug brigade.
Humph, even I who have no faith in the NYT assignments to Israel did allow that this woman “might be objective”..didn’t say she would, but allowed for the ‘possibility’. de’ thugs are trying to make sure she isn’t.
I recall Tom Freidman saying how the NYT deep sixed some of his critical of Israel pieces early in his career.
American: We’ll never know what she writes home from Israel (to the NYT, anyhow, tweets are otherwise); because every reporter submits to a little editor who submits to a bigger editor who * * *. We will, however, see what NYT prints under her byline.
RE: “…ardent advocates for Israel are trying to suppress a discourse and worldview anathema to them. The furious tweets and articles directed at Rudoren are meant to intimidate her into thinking about the conflict through an Israeli prism. Any open discourse on this issue is a danger.” ~ Alex Kane
FROM Dahlia Scheindlin, +972 Magazine, 2/14/12:
SOURCE – link to 972mag.com
“We Jews, not the goyim, will call you the most painful names, will threaten in various ways to label you as beyond the pale of your people, should you voice your critique”
The lady is right….from what I’ve observered the Israel first Jews are a hell of lot more vicious to their fellow Jews then the goyim are.
wow, that really hit home. thanks for the link dickerson.
So, from the NYT, 2006 link we learn: Jodi Rudoren is born Jodi Wilgoren, married to Gary Ruderman in 2006 (she 35, he 43 yrs), and then they choose a name conflation.
This is how Adam Horowitz yesterday ‘introduced’ her Jewishness (here at Mondoweiss):
Here is an interesting piece from this past December where she discusses her Jewishness, American identity and her kids.
Mentioning the fact that she is Jewish, and why that would matter for this job, is skipped.
re Alex Kane. So a) you write about Zionists reacting with a “firestorm”, and b) in the end you question whether goal posts have moved — “We’ll see”. A strange mixup. At best, I don’t understand. But it is not at best.
Your judgement has nothing to do with Zionists rantings, so keep them apart then. You could have written two pieces. What connection did you make at all between those, here? If you don’t know, then why write about it?
Zionist’s reactions (should) have nothing to do with how we judge her. Whether she is Jewish or not should not be relevant (let’s note: NYT/JR, and MW introduced that — not Ali Abunimah/ei) .
All in all, a strange assessment of JR. While we need a good one.
Uh oh!
Competition.
There’s a NEW “Times” on the block!
“The Times of Israel”
Funded by Seth Klarman
Edited by David Horowitz
link to timesofisrael.com
Yet another English language right wing – er, pro-Israel publication.
Spotted it on Silverstein:
link to richardsilverstein.com
And frankly, it sounds like Richard Silverstein has never read the Jerusalem Report, because if he had, he would realize that David Horovitz is not right-wing at all. This is the problem with applying the simplistic philosophy that every newspaper will reflect the politics of the main investor.
Oh, no…, I’m also a ‘non-terrorist.’ The only democracy in the ME, really?
I hope Rudoren’s deft response to the Zionist inquisition indicates that she’ll be reporting from the Occupid Territories, relating first hand accounts of life under Israeli subjugation. Her predecessor seemed content to repeat what he read off the IDF ticker tape from his cozy home in Jerusalem.
I sent Rudoren a note asking if she’d lke to read a book I once wrote on I/P. She immediately replied that, Yes, She’d be very interested. Which indicates that at this stage she’s interested in learning and knowing more than she does. I’m not a thought police, I can’t force her to listen to me, and my ability to sway her in any direction will be based exclusively on the power of my words, the persuasiveness of my arguments, the fairness of my presentation.
Compare that to the derision I often garner here on MW (when I don’t get deleted completely), and you begin to se why the MW community is destined to remain forever a fringe phenomenon: calm discussion of arguments on their merits are not the coin of the realm here. If the arguments promote the anti-Israeli agenda, they’re welcomed; if they do the opposite, they’re either shouted down or simply deleted.
You garnered that derision my making stupid and ill informed remarks. If you wish to behave like an ignoramus or a liar, then you will be treated as one.
A perfect example if your muddled claim that If the arguments promote the anti-Israeli agenda, they’re welcomed; if they do the opposite, they’re either shouted down or simply deleted , which clearly demonstrates you haven’t got a clue.
Speaking of frienge phenomenon, I had to laugh at your assumption that Rudoren’s willingness to read your book meant that she had something to learn by reading it. I suspect she was being polite. If your infatile posts to this forum are any indication, I suspect she’ll toss it into the dustbin after the first chapter.
As the former Jodi Wilgoren,this alleged journalist issued lie after lie in her coverage at the NYTs.And as these were private tweets,it seems the only time truth matters is off camera,as on camera(her columns),she lied serially.