New York Times Fails to Disclose Possible Conflict of Interest
EmailABC's Bruno Nota reports from Jerusalem: Mention the Middle East and many immediately think of conflict, occupation, humanitarian crises, failed peace initiatives or other such words. All of them carry with them the weight of years of tragedy, death and animosity. For most people who have not travelled there the main sources of information are the media reports, television and print, coming from journalists assigned to cover the region. One of those journalists has lately become the focal point of a debate over objectivity of the news coverage of this long lasting and divisive conflict. Ethan Bronner is the Jerusalem bureau chief for what is considered to be the one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world, the New York Times. Mr. Bronner’s son decided to enlist in the Israeli Defence Forces. The publication of this fact has triggered this debate. The information was disclosed by a web site called The Electronic Intifada, an “independent publication committed to comprehensive public education on the question of Palestine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the economic, political, legal, and human dimensions of Israel's 40-year occupation of Palestinian territories” as it introduces itself to the visitors of the site. The Electronic Intifada posted the response it received from The New York Times when it queried Bronner’s position. The New York Times stood by their man when the website asked whether the paper considered the fact that its Jerusalem’s bureau chief’s son is serving in the Israeli military a possible conflict of interest : “Mr. Bronner's son is a young adult who makes his own decisions. At The Times, we have found Mr. Bronner's coverage to be scrupulously fair and we are confident that will continue to be the case." This statement was emailed to The Electronic Intifada by Susan Chira , the foreign editor of the New York Times. The New York Times published a column written by Bill Keller, the paper’s executive editor, who is of the opinion Mr. Bronner should remain the paper’s trusted correspondent in Jerusalem despite of his son’s decision to join the IDF. Mr. Keller says that he was informed by Mr. Bronner of his son’s decision and there was no reason to start doubting Mr. Bronner’s ability to continue his work in Jerusalem. Mr. Keller suggests in his column that part of the problem could be found with the people contesting the journalistic integrity of Mr Bonner, hinting that sometimes readers too can bring their own prejudice when reading an article. Clark Hoyt, the New York Time’s public editor disagrees with his executive editor. Despite his respect for Mr Bronner and his work, Mr Hoyt considers that even the appearance of a possible conflict of interest should be enough to convince the paper to reassign Mr Bronner for the duration of his son’s service in the Israeli military. Mr Bronner hopes his work will speak for itself: “I wish to be judged by my work, not by my biography. Either you are the kind of person whose intellectual independence and journalistic integrity can be trusted to do the work we do at The Times, or you are not.”
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Bronner is impossibly conflicted, and the Times’ Keller is either arrogant or stupid for not seeing it (or both). Imagine if Bronner’s son was one of the IDF pilot firing white phosphorus bombs on women and children in last year’s horrific Operation Cast Lead, in which 1,400 innocent women and children were incinerated. If Junior might be subjected to allegations of war crimes by the United Nations, how would the father cover the conflict? Also, it suggests that Bronner fully supports his son’s decision to enlist in the army of a foreign nation, rather than the American military where our country is fighting two wars. It’s not even a close call, Bill — two words for you: Judith. Miller.
Posted by: Ellie Light | February 8, 2010, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
No one takes Bronner’s, or any New York Time’s report on the Israel/Palestine conflict seriously anyway. Their coverage of the Goldstone report focused more on Israel’s denials than on the findings of the report. Every utterance, every headline from the Times is from a Zionist perspective. No Arab need apply.They keep their readers in ignorance of what the whole world already knows.
Posted by: paul | February 8, 2010, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
Readers should also note that Bronner’s wife is Israeli.
The other reporter, Isabel Kershner, is described by Goldberg as “thoroughly Israeli”
http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/120159/
Posted by: Bob | February 8, 2010, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm
they don´t treat conservitives well either
Posted by: madmax | February 8, 2010, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
What about the conflick here in the USA with these people over building here in the United State’s? I’d like to know where the jewish people’s green cards are? Also who gave them the right to build on state land’s, and federal lands also? Sick of seeing woods get cut down because no one has built a house that can stand threw storm’s? Thats right we have to support lowe’s and home depots? Wheres the tax payers money from the sale of the tree’s off these lands? I’ve about had it with hearing they were the first people on earth thats what gives them the right! More like they where the ones who started the Mafia.
Posted by: Duane Lake | February 8, 2010, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
The New York Times lost credibility with Miller, Blair, et. al. a LONG time ago. What sould you expect from a PIG but a grunt…
Posted by: jafo | February 8, 2010, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
What’s to report????
There can be no resolution to the conflict, because the Palestinians refuse to accept peace.
After 40 plus yrs. of trying to engineer peace, time for the US to admit it isn’t workable.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | February 8, 2010, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
Rick McDaniel said: “because the Palestinians refuse to accept peace.”
The story is about the conflict of interest at the NYT. Please stay on topic.
Posted by: JD | February 8, 2010, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm
Bronner was thoroughly pro-Israel before his son joined the IDF. Just got don reading his “Bullets in my inbox” and its notable for a couple of things: acceptance with no skeptism of the Israeli claim that the sole reason for the Gaza assault last year was to stop the rockets; mischaracterization the statements of critics of Israel, to the point that they’re nothing I could agree with. I guess it’s considered “balance” to say that the sides have “narratives” that conflict. To him, its only a “narrative” that (his paraphrase of Israel’s critics) “A group of European colonialists came here, stole and pillaged, throwing hundreds of thousands off their land and destroying their villages and homes.” But that did happen, Israel’s founders used mass murder and terror to expel hundreds of thousands from the homes they coveted, and they were even called colonists when they first came. This is factual history, unlike the Israeli “narrative” which says “the Jewish nation has returned to its rightful home” – that claim is based on religious myth. Bronner terms both the religious myth and the historical fact as “narratives”
Posted by: lyn | February 9, 2010, 3:08 am 3:08 am
Does anybody on any newspaper, magazine, tv news show, radio, etal. have a son or a daughter in the U.S. military?
Should that reporter resign or be re-assigned if they report on the Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan war?
What if the reporter was Jewish? Should that reporter be banned from the media?
What if that reporter was a Muslim?
Should that reporter be banned from working on a newspaper or magazine?
Any reporter’s work speaks for itself.
We should all take the media with a grain of salt. Everybody, but everybody, puts a spin on what’s happening in the world.
Use your common sense when reading or listening to the news.
Posted by: ddg | February 9, 2010, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm
Re “Does anybody on any newspaper, magazine, tv news show, radio, etal. have a son or a daughter in the U.S. military?
Should that reporter resign or be re-assigned if they report on the Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan war?”, the commentator fails to understand that Bronner’s son joined a foreign army, on whom Bronner is supposed to report in an unbiased way. Indeed, if his son was part of a platoon that bombed Gaza, what would he say?
Posted by: tina | February 10, 2010, 3:24 am 3:24 am