Too Close to Home
The New York Times
LATE last month, a Web site called the Electronic Intifada reported that Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau chief of The Times, has a son in the Israeli military. Others, including Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a liberal media watchdog group, demanded to know if it was true and, if so, why it did not create an unacceptable conflict of interest for Bronner and The Times.
Bronner occupies one of journalism’s hottest seats, covering the intractable conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. As the top correspondent for America’s most influential newspaper, everything he writes is examined microscopically for signs of bias. Web sites like the Angry Arab News Service have called him a propagandist for Israel. I have received hundreds of messages heatedly contending the opposite: that his coverage is slanted against Israel. Sometimes the “evidence” is a single word in one news article. Sometimes it is his “failure” to show how one side or the other is solely to blame for what is happening.
The editor
(thanks Legal)
---------------
My take on this is simple. As far as I'm concerned, the NYT, roughly, is a Jewish paper and as such I do not have a problem with it. My only problem is that it's not mentioned anywhere at the top of the paper and this is very misleading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As far as I'm concerned, the NYT, roughly, is a Jewish paper and as such I do not have a problem with it. My only problem is that it's not mentioned anywhere at the top of the paper and this is very misleading.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm tired of some outfit with a few wealthy benefactors(or investors) putting "Jewish" in the title of their organization, and suddenly they speak for me.
I understand that...I read many jews (on blogs and elsewhere) who are "dissenters" when it comes to the I/P issue and they too feel that Jewish organisations in the US and elsewhere do not represent them. The problem with the NYT is that they're denying the evidence. Gay Talese who worked at the NYT for 10 years once wrote that they, at the NYT, do not wish to be a Jewish newspaper. Maybe they do not WISH but unfortunately and judging from the way they operate, it's not about wishes it's about being! The editor here is even denying that Bronner's son joining the IDF is an issue of conflict of interest for the father!! To make an analogy with Sport. Would an American referee from Mexican backgrounds be allowed by FIFA to officiate in a football match between Mexico and Iceland? No bloody way!!!
ReplyDeletei've heard and read a lot about the NYT's bias, but to tell you the truth, I haven't read it in years beyond an occasional glance at their web page and it doesn't have anything to do with politics-it has got to be the most boring newspaper on Earth-from its layout to the long articles, that are filled with data and facts,and either read like propaganda and/or leave me feeling like I'm more confused about the subject than before I read it. But that isn't really fair, since I don't think I have ever finished reading an article in the NYT. Sure it has some residual prestige, but it is a dying newspaper in a dying industry.
ReplyDeletehow odd. first the idf said it disciplined two soldiers for dropping phosphorous on their own (where would it get it from!), then it said that story was false, but now it's back on al jazeera again saying they did!
ReplyDeletePart of Editor, Bill Keller's response to Clark Hoyt: I agree!
ReplyDelete"Readers, like reporters, bring their own lives to the newspaper. Sometimes, when these readers are unshakeably convinced of something, they bring blinding prejudice and a tendency to see what they want to see. As you well know, nowhere is that so true as in Israel and the neighboring Palestinian lands. 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. So to prevent any appearance of bias, would you say we should not send Jewish reporters to Israel? If so, what about assigning Jewish reporters to countries hostile to Israel? What about reporters married to Jews? Married to Israelis? Married to Arabs? Married to evangelical Christians? (They also have some strong views on the Holy Land.) What about reporters who have close friends in Israel? Ethical judgments that start from prejudice lead pretty quickly to absurdity, and pandering to zealots means cheating readers who genuinely seek to be informed."
You actually think the New York Times should have 'Jewish Paper" at the top of its masthead? Why on earth? I do not get your reasoning here.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times is still one of the great newspapers. If you have never finished an article, then you are the poorer for it. There have been some great pieces publsihed by the Times.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I should have said is I can't remember the last time I finished an article in the NYT. I feel what you get with the NYT is a very detailed expaination of the elite Manhattan corporate position on certain issues. That just doesn't interest me.
ReplyDeleteOh but it has great articles on travel, literature, film, etc.
ReplyDelete<span><span>"I would find a plum assignment for him somewhere else, at least for the duration of his son’s service in the I.D.F."</span>
ReplyDelete--------
Hmmm. Iraq ?</span>
<span><span>You actually think the New York Times should have 'Jewish Paper" at the top of its masthead?</span>
ReplyDelete-----------------------
That would be straightforward, accurate and far less misleading..Would look ridiculous of course but that's THEIR problem and they should find a way to accommodate for it somehow.. When they try to play the "objectivity" card (see the article) and deny the evident, blatant bias (see who the majority of the writers and the executive and directors, something I don't have a problem with until they proclaim objectivity and neutrality in the I/P conflict) that could only hightlight their laughable attempts at misleading the reader..
</span>
What he's saying is that it's a very complicated issue and difficult to manage. I agree, but Looking back at Bronner's reporting the language and choice of words say it all. "settlements" are "neighbourhoods" , and "stolen lands" are "disputed lands" and "occupied West Bank" is either the "territories" or "Judea and Samaria", the "separation wall" is a "security barrier" etc.
ReplyDeleteIs that a Jewish problem or a pro-Israel problem? That is my point. Identifying the newspaper as "Jewish" seems a bit creepy, frankly.
ReplyDeleteOf course there is a bias. With few exceptions, one could say that about most of the newspapers in the United States. There is a decidedly pro-Israel slant to most reporting. Just as there is a Pro-Palestinian bias in Arab journalism. If you are truly interested in the purity of objectivity, then you would also rail against the Arab newspapers, no?
<span> Identifying the newspaper as "Jewish" seems a bit creepy, frankly. </span>
ReplyDelete-------------------
Why?
I spend a lot of time on blogs like Mondoweiss and Antony's Jews Sans Frontieres, Desert peace, Richard Silverstein's and the likes, ALL Jews and they call a spade a spade. Only non-Jews have got this "terror" hovering over their heads that they could be perceived as anti-Semites if they alluded to anything close to that. WHY? I'm sick and tired of this and not only because I'M not an anti semite in any shape or form but because this tactic is used to stiffle debate and silence people who are trying to see through this thick muddled business.
<span>Maybe if you had a look every now and then at Mondo's, you'd see how Philip Weiss approaches this very issue of the NYT, and you'd be very surprised and less likely to see anything "creepy" about opinions that do not beat around the bush. They know what's happening and how it's happening and they won't bullshit you about it. Most Jews, though not all by any means thank "goodness", side with Israel and support and if by chance they have a say in a paper or a media outlet they would not hesitate to use them to consolidate that support and maintain it.
ReplyDelete</span>
<span><span>One revealing or telling detail is linguistic; why (American) anti-Zionist Jews are very commonly referred to as "DISSENTERS"? Because as a Jew you're not supposed to be speaking out against Israel. Molly, Joe and V, to name only those we know here, are "dissenters". A "curiosity" for other Jews more like traitors. Dershovitz called Goldtone a traitor to the Jewish people, a "moser"(yiddish for traitor)..Eli Wiesal said exacxtly the same about Goldstone..Not even dissenters, much worse! Evil(sic) traitors..</span></span>
ReplyDelete<span>I was kicked out of a highly paid job as an illustrator in a Murdoch owned magazine when they discovered one day that I was born in Lebanon<span><span></span></span> (my name doesn't tell my ethnicity) . BTW, all the exceutives, art director and most illustrators (5 out of 6) are Jewish. The quality of my work wasn't by any means the problem<span><span></span></span>. I won more prizes that all of them combined! I was of the wrong ethnicity!</span>
ReplyDeleteAll good examples, Tgia and I do stop by Mondoweiss occasionally but I am not sure I buy the need to identify the NYT as Jewish.
ReplyDeleteYou were fired because you are Lebanese? Disgusting! If this was in Australia, don't they have a commission of some sort, as we do in the States, where complaints can be made about job discrimination?
ReplyDelete<span>It was out of frustration that I wrote that..A mixture of irony, sarcasm, hyperbole and exageration in order to make my point. They make me feel sick, at the NYT when they open wide, big eyes of innocence and say" Who? Us, biased? Why? Because he's a Jew?"
ReplyDeletebtw, as philip highlights in a new post, they set not only one but TWO Jewish correspondents to Jerusalem!! How about an Arab American for a little change?
</span>
I think the best thing would be for reporters to declare up front to their readers what may be perceived as a conflict of interest. It is then up to the reader to decide whether or not to take the reporter's work seriously.
ReplyDelete<span><span><span>I lost all respect for Elie Weisel when he said that about Goldstone. Actually, I did not have much left after I had learned he opposed including the plight of other persecuted peoples of World War II, in the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.</span></span></span>
ReplyDeleteI understand the frustration. How about they just send a good reporter who can rise above any personal biases and report the facts? I suspect even then, both sides would dispute the facts!
ReplyDelete<span> I suspect even then, both sides would dispute the facts!</span>
ReplyDelete-------------
Of course! But that wouldn't be something as outrageous as is the case now. Nitpicking is unavoidable.
This is rather interesting:
ReplyDeleteCensored by the New York Times: The Story Behind a Political Cartoon the Publisher didn’t want you to see
http://usmediaandisrael.com/
<span><span><span>To be fair not all Jews at the NYT are or were pro Israel.
ReplyDeleteArthur Hays Sulzberger a publisher of the NYT in the 40s was anti Zionist..But that was the only case..</span></span></span>
<span>More on Sulzberg:
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
http://wrmea.com/backissues/0689/8906022.htm</span>
How Two Jewish Publishers Who Privately Opposed Zionism Folded
ReplyDeletehttp://www.observer.com/node/33634
My guess is that if they send an Arab reporter who turn out to be fair and objective, criticising what he/she sees as just the NYT would be overwhelmed by the pro-Israeli Zionist readers and the paper would either cave in or close down due to boycott. This is how it works. Always.
ReplyDeleteOk I'll elaborate.
ReplyDeleteI was working for them as a regular free lancer from home, not as an in situ employee. What they knew about me was my work, awards I won, and my name(not Arabic)..We reached a stage when they said they'd prefer me to be present and part of a pool of illustrators working on site. I agreed and went through all the paper work. It's then they discovered my place of birth and I never made it beyond that stage. Not only I was not given the working place I was promised, they stopped calling me altogether. Never answering my calls or just being very vague about what's going on.
Legally I don't have a case.
ReplyDeleteThanks vza..I found an interesting cartoon on this link and made it a post.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely awful.
ReplyDeleteNo, not very nice. It took me ages to recover from the blow, if I really did. It has affected my health mentally and physically in ways that I find hard to describe..For a reason which is beyond my control, I'm a pariah for those people..
ReplyDeleteThey could easily argue that the reasons had nothing to do with my ethnicity. They could advance any reason they want no matter how unfounded it is..Bad job, bad character, not fit to work with others etc. whatever. Strangely enough, I never felt I was legally entitled to anything, though unjust my case was.
ReplyDeleteSure. Thanks.
ReplyDelete<span>
ReplyDelete<p><span>" I never felt I was legally entitled to anything, though unjust my case was."</span>
</p><p>----------
</p><p>I beg to disagree tgia, you had a case and a very strong one.The illustration that you did which appeared on the front cover of the Australian magazine,was of a very high standard , the like of which never appeared in any publication in Australia before , that was the reason behind the editors in question to invite you to be more than a free lancer , they themselves admitted to that NO ?
</p><p>Well how is it then you were dropped before your next assignment , immediately after your ethnicity was revealed.( formal paperwork).
</p><p>I'm not a lawyer , but I can see a clear cut case , taking into account the praise by the editors and the letters to them by readers.
</p><p>IMHO , the question isn't wether there was a discrimination case or not , rather it's perhaps the likely biased decision by the "Anti discrimination board" had you gone through with it. After all the Murdoch's influence can't be underestimated in Australia, even on government's decisions .
</p></span>
<span>
ReplyDelete<span>" I never felt I was legally entitled to anything, though unjust my case was."</span>
----------
I beg to disagree tgia, you had a case and a very strong one.The illustration that you did which appeared on the front cover of the magazine,was of a very high standard , the like of which never appeared in any publication in Australia before , that was the reason behind the editors in question to invite you to be more than a free lancer , they themselves admitted to that NO ?
Well how is it then you were dropped before your next assignment , immediately after your ethnicity was revealed.( formal paperwork).
I'm not a lawyer , but I can see a clear cut case , taking into account the praise by the editors and the letters to them by readers.
IMHO , the question isn't wether there was a discrimination case or not , rather it's perhaps the likelihood of a biased decision by the "Anti discrimination board" had you gone through with it. After all the Murdoch's influence can't be underestimated in Australia, even on government's decisions .
</span>
<span><span>" I never felt I was legally entitled to anything, though unjust my case was."</span>
ReplyDelete----------
I beg to disagree tgia, you had a case and a very strong one.The illustration that you did which appeared on the front cover of the magazine,was of a very high standard , the like of which never appeared in any commercial publication in Australia before , that was the reason behind the editors in question to invite you to be more than a free lancer , they themselves admitted to that NO ?
Well how is it then you were dropped before your started , immediately after your ethnicity was revealed.( formal paperwork).
I'm not a lawyer , but I can see a clear cut case , taking into account the praise by the editors and the letters to them by readers.
IMHO , the question isn't wether there was a discrimination case or not , rather it's perhaps the likelihood of a biased decision by the "Anti discrimination board" had you gone through with it. After all the Murdoch's influence can't be underestimated in Australia, even on government's decisions . </span>
<span>"it's easy to get blackballed if you do sue an employer"</span>
ReplyDelete---------
Exactly guest1 .in Australian's media most employers are one.