In July, I heard a rumor which claimed that Ethan Bronner’s son was serving in the IDF. I published the item and promptly forgot where I’d read it. Phil Weiss followed my lead, but Antony Loewenstein queried Bronner, who denied it. Since I couldn’t remember my source I apologized to Phil and we both retracted my report.
Now word comes from Electronic Intifada that the rumor may indeed be true (and this may be the first time I’ve sourced a story from EI):
Over the weekend, EI received a tip suggesting this had been the case and wrote to Bronner to ask him to confirm or deny the information and to seek his opinion on whether, if true, he thought it would be a conflict of interest.
Susan Chira, the foreign editor of The New York Times wrote in an email to The Electronic Intifada this morning:
“Ethan Bronner referred your query to me, the foreign editor. Here is my comment: 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.”
There are several astonishing things about this passage. First, when contacted Ethan Bronner refused to respond directly and passed the message to his boss, which has the effect of turning this into an adversarial bureacratic exchange. Second, Susan Chira, instead of answering directly as a professional editor should, chose the “refuse to confirm or deny” approach which her own reporters hate when government officials use it with them. Again, this is a “stick it in your eye” response which dares EI and other blogs to do the scut work to confirm the rumor. When we do confirm it this will make the Times look even lamer than it already does. Third, and most astonishing is that Chira is absolutely tone deaf to the apparent conflict of interest that such news would reveal.
There’s another reason I believe this story to be true. The first time Loewenstein asked Bronner about the rumor, the latter denied it because then it wasn’t true. The second time EI asked Bronner he didn’t deny it as he did the first time. Instead, he kicked it upstairs as if it was a hot potato (which it is for him). Ergo, I’m persuaded it’s true.
In a normal situation, whether or not a reporter’s child serves in a country’s armed forces would be irrelevant to the professional standing of the reporter. But this is not a normal situation. In his job as Israel correspondent virtually all of his work involves covering the IDF. I would say there is almost no story that he will file that will not involve the Israeli military in some fashion. Conceivably, there could come a time when Bronner covers an Israeli war in which his son is fighting or even a battle in which his son participates.
This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem in a normal situation like Iraq or Afghanistan. But again, this isn’t that. Bronner has a duty to report about two nations at war with each other. Since the Times has no full correspondent in Gaza or the West Bank, Bronner is in effect the editor covering all those theaters. As such he MUST be able to report dispassionately from the Palestinian as well as Israeli perspective.
Many of my readers have followed my ongoing critique of Bronner’s reporting, which shows decided, though perhaps not fully conscious bias towards Israel’s narrative. Given this, the possibility that his son serves in the army that maintains the Occupation and is the locus of injustice raises glaring questions of conflict of interest.
Abunimah quotes this important section of the N.Y. Times rules on the subject:
The New York Times’ own “Company policy on Ethics in Journalism” acknowledges that the activities of a journalist’s family member may constitute a conflict of interest. It includes as an example, “A brother or a daughter in a high-profile job on Wall Street might produce the appearance of conflict for a business reporter or editor.” Such conflicts may on occasion require the staff member “to withdraw from certain coverage.”
The IDF is the premier national institution in Israel. There is no way you can escape its influence either as a reporter or an Israeli. It is the equivalent of the Wall Street firm and Bronner Jr. is an employee. His dad is the business reporter and he simply can’t escape the conflict. It is clear to any reasonable person aside from Bronner and Chira. He HAS a conflict if his son is serving. At the least, he should no longer be allowed to report on the IDF (which nullifies his usefulness as a reporter there).
The N.Y. Times owes it to its readers to get down from the high horse Chira exhibited in her reply and deal seriously with this issue. It isn’t likely to go away and it will further tarnish the newspaper’s claim to objectivity in reporting the conflict.
The Chicago Reader raises an interesting ethical hypothetical: could an Israeli reporter covering Beirut continue doing so if his son served in a militia, say Hezbollah? Think about it. It’s a problem. The Reader blogger aptly states:
I hope the Times doesn’t deny it has a situation on its hands, even if it’s confident that Ethan Bronner can successfully negotiate it.
If he’d read Chira’s reply, he’d have realized the Times is doing precisely what he hoped it wouldn’t.
I’ve circulated the rumor to some of my Israeli sources and am eager to hear from anyone who can confirm or deny the rumor.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Ethan, take the buyout (mondoweiss.net)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?w=640)
I don’t agree that if true, it disqualifies him. Gideon Levy’s son serves in the army. Does he have a conflict? Does that mean he should no longer be allowed to report on the IDF?
There’s enough bias as is. I don’t think this one personal tidbit makes a difference either way. He’s not a regulator or a public servant with a financial conflict of interest. His work should be judged on its merits and I believe his personal life should be kept out of it.
Glad you mentioned that. Levy is a CITIZEN of Israel and reports for the ISRAELI newspaper. So his son has a duty to serve that he may not shirk. I do not expect anyone in that circumstance to be excluded as a journalist because neither son nor father have a choice. Also, Levy has spent a lifetime in Israel & so has had a chance to develop a lifetime’s worth of understanding/experience about the IDF & how it operates. Not so Bronner. Further, he is a citizen of the U.S., not Israel. He is a reporter for a U.S. and not Israeli newspaper. As such, he is in a far diff. position.
Conflicts of interest do not only involve financial or government matters. They involve ethical matters as well. And this is one.
And that is precisely what readers will no longer be able to do because they will know that he has a vested personal family interest when it comes to reporting on the IDF.
Further, if Bronner were as a good a reporter as Gideon Levy I wouldn’t have a problem w. his son serving in the IDF because I’d know he could overcome any personal bias that might creep into his reporting. But Bronner is not Gideon Levy. He couldn’t even shine Levy’s shoes. That’s why this conflict looms even larger than it otherwise might.
I wish I could say could say I’m surprised and disappointed by the NYT. Sadly, I’m neither.
Neither am I. This simply puts Bronner in the same boat as Isabel Kershner (the Israeli reporter who also provides coverage on Israel for the NYT).
If I might add a dissenting opinion, though, presumably a paper might want a reporter with at least some experience with the country in question, since it gives them a head start in knowing the people to talk to when writing articles. Bronner appears to take this over the edge into potential “conflict of interest” territory (and Kershner as well), but I do not want to count any and all potential Israeli reporters on Israel as too overly biased.
Everyone is being to kind to Bronner. He is a shill for Israel, pure and simple. Whether it is conscious or unconscious is not the point.
you may wish to note that Isabel kreshner, originally a British Jew, also has Israeli citizenship and she lives many years in Israel with her Israeli Jewish husband and children.
To be an Israeli Jew seems like a pre-requisite for being employed by the NYT to cover the Israel-Arab conflict.
Broner’s wife is Neomi Kehati a sabra psycologist. That’s what she most likely wrote on 31/12 2009 (3 days into the Gaza attack) in a hebrew talkback (number 9) to Yonatan Lerner her former colleague:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/spages/1051486.html
בתגובה לכתבה: יונתן לרנר | במקום דבקות בתוכנית המקורית
שם השולח: נעמי קהתי
עיר: ירושלים
כתובת דוא”ל:
כותרת התגובה: יונתן יופי של כתבה, תיצור קשר
יונתן הי זאת נעמי מן העבר. תיצור קשר במייל אשמח לדבר ולהתעדכן. נעמי קהתי
more hopefully to come but feel free to double check this and investigate further.
I do not know Hebrew, but I always enjoy automatic translations. (Especially when you make them go back and forth a few times, but usually even a one way go is enough for a good laugh.) Here is the result of your quote translated into English by a machine:
In response to Story: John Lerner | instead of Persisting program The original
The sender’s name: Naomi kehati
Sòngxīnqiáo: éøåùìéí
E-mail address: ”
Title Response: Jonathan Great story, You create a contact
Jonathan hyperlin so Naomi.You create a contact In the email I’d be happy Talk Update.Naomi kehati
I guess machines will never really be able to replace us…
By the way, I checked out the funny Pinyin part in the translation: Apparently Sòngxīnqiáo is a famous art market in Chengdu… Does anyone have an explanation?
Bronner’s son is an Israeli citizen, obligated by law to serve in the military.
To prohibit Bronner from reporting in the Times on that basis, would be an ethnic screen, that no individual whose child lives in a country with a draft, could fulfill the ethical requirements.
For a publication like the New York Times, that requires access to officials, defense officials, and dissenters to fulfill its journalistic obligations, it takes moderation in editorial approach.
My sense is that Electronic Intifada, Phil Weiss, you, object to Bronner’s choice of content, and/or that the New York Times exists in a social role that is different from yours.
Before Phil went to Gaza, Bronner spent a week in Gaza in March (I believe), and commented on life there, that was both different than the conventional wisdom on the militancy of Gazan attitudes, and different than the dissenting conventional wisdom of off-the-scale poverty.
I personally give him credit for going there and seeing for himself, and for writing candidly, even when his comments caused some discomfort or confusion.
On a similar note, Michael Lerner’s son joined the IDF (not as an Israeli citizen) and served in elite units. I hope that that does not disqualify him from commenting on Israeli politics for a major publication.
Michael Lerner is a rabbi, not a journalist. When he comments on Israeli politics he writes opinion pieces. He does not pretend to be engaged in objective reporting.
Yes, he wrote one or two excellent articles then. But they don’t negate the 30+ articles he’s written while based in Israel which were essentially divorced fr. Palestinian reality & suffused with Israel’s views on virtually everything.
Michael Lerner is not the NY Times Israel correspondent. If he were I’d have a few questions for him about that.
I would hope that were his son to be involved in a particular conflict, he would disclose his interest and either recuse himself or switch from reporting to feature writing with an unusual perspective.
If his son is doing guard duty on a base somewhere or polishing a tank, I don’t see how that would automatically impact a professional reporter’s sense of ethics. Of course it might and you are free to decide either way, but his employers seem to believe he can manage. You are clearly less generous.
“Since the Times has no full correspondent in Gaza or the West Bank, Bronner is in effect the editor covering all those theaters.” This show a serious lack of understanding about the difference between reporters and editors which may invalidate your entire argument.
All newspapers use partisan reporters on occasion. Some declare it, others do not. It is the news editor’s job to make sure the report is news and not opinion, not the reporter’s. That includes fact checking and the removal of bias. If Bronner was to write every article from the point of view that the IDF is always right and his editors did nothing to stop him then the NYT wouldn’t be a very good paper… which I now see might be your whole point.
Given that most newspapers routinely embed journalists with US troops, meaning that they billet, eat and travel with their compatriot soldiers and then are expected to report back with professional objectivity , I find your objection in this instance to be overstated.
His superiors may think he’s doing a great job. This blog has clearly shown otherwise.
He’s more sophisticated than that. But ultimately after reading his reports you know clearly what the IDF believes & wants you to hear. You have little understanding of what the other side believes whether it be the Palestinians, Hamas, Israeli NGOs or the peace movement.
But are they embedded for three years (or however long Bronner’s stint is going to last as Israel correspondent)?
OK. Let’s accept the racist assumption that a Jewish journalist will automatically report the information fed to him by the IDF and ignore anything offered by “the Palestinians, Hamas, Israeli NGOs or the peace movement”. Are you suggesting that the New York Times is complicit in this or do you think Bronner has them “fooled” as well?
Either way, do you think the readership of the NYT is having the wool pulled over its eyes by either this journalist or NYT editorial policy? Is that your claim? The entire readership of the NYT is being duped and only you guys have spotted it?
It’s a little grandiose, no?
I think you make a fair case for Bronner not being an appropriate correspondent. The rest is just hot air and recycled anger.
I hope you will continue to update this story, which is currently based on supposition and guesswork, as soon as you have confirmation about whether or not master Bronner is serving in the IDF. I also think it’s worth finding out where he’s serving.
As I’m sure you know there is a world of difference between being a grunt in one of Israel’s infantry units and being recruited to one of the elite units or Modiin (Intelligence). I would like to be able to judge for myself the likelihood of a conflict of interest rather than have it dictated to me by you.
Looking forward to hearing more.
When his editors let his bias creep into the text then yes, that implicates the Times itself & makes it complicit though perhaps not in a conscious way.
Yes, I do. Most NYT readers don’t know as much about Israel as Ethan Bronner or you or I. They see him as a journalistic arbiter of knowledge & information. So in a way he is pulling to wool over their eyes though again not in the willful conscious way you seem to imply.
You can be damn sure that Ethan Bronner’s boy is serving in an elite unit. There’s money in the bank on that one.
“Either way, do you think the readership of the NYT is having the wool pulled over its eyes by either this journalist or NYT editorial policy? Is that your claim? The entire readership of the NYT is being duped and only you guys have spotted it?’
This is not so unheard of. It happened in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, concerning the existence of those weapons of mass destruction.
I think you both have a tremendously ungenerous view of the sophistication of NYT readers.
None of the facts printed here are secret. You haven’t uncovered anything new. People reading the NYT are still free to decide whether or not to trust the things they find in the paper. Still, I enjoy your sense of paranoia about New Yorkers’ gullibility. Part of me shares it, but I prefer to think people are smarter about the stuff they read. They may not care enough about it, but they are smarter than you give them credit for.
Richard, be careful:
“You can be damn sure that Ethan Bronner’s boy is serving in an elite unit. There’s money in the bank on that one.”
You have failed so far to establish beyond doubt that he is serving in the army at all. You have “reported” some rumours which have yet to be confirmed. I think this statement of surety based on a rumour is taking things much too far. If you wish to maintain any of the journalistic integrity, (even as a commentator rather than a reporter) that you deny Bronner, you need to be more circumspect. I would hate to think that you are trying to pull the wool over your readers’ eyes before getting confirmation of your story.
They’re confirmed as far as I’m concerned. When you’re asked a question & refuse to answer No or Yes & when you’re told that your refusal to deny it will lead the questioner to consider the rumor true & you still don’t reply, you’ve essentially confirmed the rumor. There’s a principle in law: “Silence is assent.” That’s certainly true here.
I challenge you to prove the rumor wrong. If you’re right I’ll retract my claim. Go to it.
Thanks for being so concerned for my journalistic integrity, which needs no validation fr you.
“OK. Let’s accept the racist assumption that a Jewish journalist will automatically report the information fed to him by the IDF and ignore anything offered by “the Palestinians, Hamas, Israeli NGOs or the peace movement”.”
We don’t have to assume anything so ridiculous–it’s reading Bronner that makes one think he’s biased.
“Either way, do you think the readership of the NYT is having the wool pulled over its eyes by either this journalist or NYT editorial policy? Is that your claim? The entire readership of the NYT is being duped and only you guys have spotted it?
It’s a little grandiose, no?”
Yes, your strawman claims are grandiose. But obviously many people can be misled by a paper if it is biased and they aren’t following a particular issue closely or if it confirms their own biases on a given subject–it doesn’t have to be “the entire readership” and people who see through their biases can be found all over the place, not simply at this blog. Why make such ridiculous claims? There are people who virtually make a career out of criticizing the biases in the NYT and other “liberal” press outlets, and not just from the right–many leftwingers also complain about this on many issues, not just the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. My own bias on this is to think that various human rights groups do a better job reporting on human rights issues than most newspapers, including the NYT.
As for the NYT, I personally know people who repeat cliches about the conflict they’ve picked up from that paper. And I know people who think the world of Thomas Friedman and one very educated person who actually believes he is biased in a pro-Palestinian direction.
On the topic of the Middle East, Ethan Bonner disqualified himself as a true journalist (and the New Jerk Times disqualified itself as an actual news organization) ages ago. So the fact that his son may be serving in the Israel “Defense” [sic] Forces is not that relevant.
I must agree with you whole heartedly, Aram. Bronner’s words speak for themselves, and they say the same thing whether his son serves in the IOF or is the most radical anti-Zionist activist. Either way it does not change the fact that Ethan Bronner is a hack and a shill for Israel, always has been, and always will be.
Another important difference between Gideon Levy and Bronner is that Levy has a proven record of not minimizing ugly Israeli policies, to say the least. On the other hand, there is hardly a piece by Bronner that isn’t slanted to one degree or another, sometimes subtly, sometimes not subtly, to minimize Israeli repression. Therefore, there is some reason to be suspicious that Bronner’s family ties could influence his reporting, whereas no one would suspect that of Levy.
You would think that the New York Times would be concerned about the mere appearance of Bronner’s partiality, even if there was none. In that light, the paper’s denial that there’s even an issue is yet another example of the arrogance and irresponsibility of the Times on matters concerning Israel.
Could this simply be too much fuss over nothing?
Since it is pretty much a given that American newspapers including NYT, are highly biased when it come to Israel or our “War!” against “terror” (Christian Science Monitor is probably THE only exception), what difference does it make whether a reporter’s bias is more or less, exposed?
CSM doesn’t rely on advertising, so no pressure can be applied.
Daniel,
On the one hand you say that Richard and/or I have a ‘tremendously’ ungenerous view of the sophistication of NYT readers, and a ‘sense of paranoia’ about New Yorkers’ gullibility, which amuses you. Next, it turns out that part of you shares this ungenerous view and sense of paranoia. Then you prefer to think people are smarter than Richard, and me and part of yourself give them credit for, and finally, you seem to be sure of it.
Why argue so much against things that you actually do not seem to have a real problem with? What you convey most of all, is an enormous, but not always very thought out sense of irritation with almost anything Richard writes.
I don’t think he’s arguing in good faith–you’d think he’d never even heard of the concept of left wing press criticism. You alluded to the runup to the Iraq War–there were books and articles written about the disgraceful performance of the NYT on that event, so much criticism that the NYT eventually felt the need to write a long partial apology to its readers several years ago (particularly with respect to Judith Miller’s pieces).
Criticism of the NYT and the rest of the mainstream press on how they cover American politics is routine among left-leaning American bloggers.
I’m shocked, shocked to learn that the entire Middle East staff of the New York Times hasn’t already enlisted in the Israel Defense Force.
I’m a regular reader of the Times and, therefore, I know for sure that bias, or the appearance thereof, is irrelevant. It’s much simpler than that. Israel is “the good guy,” and all reporting will reflect that view. The Palestinians and their allies are “the bad guy” and all reporting will, naturally (if ham-fistedly in many cases) reflect that as well. How do I know this? I READ THE NY TIMES!!!
Shouldn’t ALL journalists in the region have relatives in the IDF?
Better yet, no one should be allowed to cover the conflict for the Times unless they personally have killed a Palestinian civilian. (Remember, the civilians HIDE among terrorists, so they’re not always that easy to murder without access to guided missiles or 500 pound cluster bombs.)
What about that don’t some people understand?
That’s vastly overdoing it. I think you can make your pt w/o engaging in rhetorical overkill.