A new era is beginning at the New York Times (fingers crossed). Jodi Rudoren is taking over as Jerusalem bureau chief. We all hope that this signals some greater opening to the whole story, to Palestinian conditions and the mindbending crisis of a settler state that is ruling people who have no say in their government. Here are two of Rudoren’s tweets from yesterday. Notice the transparency about her own identity and Zionism’s claims on it. Let’s wish her good luck!
Heading to airport shortly for flight to #Jerusalem. Still hard to believe it’s all happening, but can’t wait to plunge in.
— Jodi Rudoren (@rudoren) April 17, 2012
Among the questions asked by #elal security: names of the synagogues my parents and I belong to.
— Jodi Rudoren (@rudoren) April 17, 2012
Okay Jodi,
You’re a journalist first or you not … the eyes of the world are upon you
I hope your first piece and those that follow are blistering accounts of what is actually taking place that blow the minds of the hasbarists
When I see something more than praising with faint damns I might start to take it seriously. If it becomes “but you have to see it from the Nazi (strike that) the tyrant’s point of view” I will tune out instantly with no second chances.
Well,since Abramson? was made editor,how has the coverage changed?In fact,it seems worse now,the NYTs and its various offshoots of pathetic propaganda.
Get your rabbits feet.
crossing my fingers with an open mind, go Rudoren!
I think she herself has good, balanced intentions. The problem is that she is a marked target. She clearly showed from the beginning that she comes with a clear and stated goal of seeing the truggle from both sides. This means openly talking about apartheid-like policies as well as covering condemnations of calls to terrorist violence.
The last guy, who had a son in the IDF; still works for the Times on these issues but from back home. I think in some ways will nullify a lot of concerns the lobby has. Because if she ever veers off track, the folks at home can make sure it doesn’t get to print.
I still think chances are high she won’t serve the full 5 year term. But the Times don’t want to appear weak before pressure and needs her to stay a year or two. She will probably be let go because of ‘inexperience’ or whatnot. She already has too many enemies.