Eli Clifton reports that the NY Times’ Ethan Bronner will speak at a panel discussion hosted by the Clarion Fund on November 7th at the 92nd Street Y in New York. It will mark the premier of the latest Clarion media event, Iranium, which is agitprop posing as “documentary.” It paints Iran as a demon whose nuclear program is a threat to world civilization. Clarion, you’ll recall, with its close ties to the militant settler group, Aish HaTorah, created two previous anti-Muslim films, Third Jihad and Obsession. Among other things they equated Islam with Nazism and claimed radical Islam was seeking to overthrow the U.S. government and replace it with a Sharia regime.
Clarion with $20 million in financial support (funneled through a Koch Brothers non-profit conduit) from right-wing political donor, Barre Seid, circulated hundreds of thousands of one of its DVDs in swing states just before the last presidential election. Clarion’s Radical Islam website compared the terrorism/defense platforms of John McCain and Barack Obama and warned that McCain would keep America safer. When activists pointed out that this was a blatant political endorsement, Clarion removed the offending language. But the group’s partisan political ideology is apparent.
Which raises tons of questions about Bronner’s participation in the program. First, Bronner doesn’t cover Iran, has no special expertise in Iran, speaks no Farsi, and has never covered Iran. He is the Israel correspondent of the Times and his expertise, if he has any, is Israel. His bona fides regarding Iran are non-existent. He will be joined on the panel by other neocon darlings John Bolton and Richard Perle, both of whom have argued strenuously for U.S. &/or Israeli military intervention to prevent an Iranian bomb. These three will be joined by a moderator from Clarion and Iranium’s director, and a pro-Shah Iranian monarchist, Nazie Eftekhari, who was an employee of the former Shah’s son till his suicide.
Max Blumenthal (quoting Gawker) points out that the Times, after another recent Bronner brush with ethical improprieties in which he was represented by a speaker’s bureau run by a West Bank settler, made this statement about the paper’s guidelines for such staff engagements:
Speaking fees are generally not allowed from companies, lobbying groups or other sources that might raise questions about our impartiality.
— Even if an engagement does not involve a fee, we should avoid situations that would create an appearance of favoritism or suggest too close a relationship between a Times journalist and the people or institutions we cover.
Bronner clearly violates guideline #1 above and though he doesn’t explicitly violate guideline #2 since he doesn’t cover Iran, it does raise the question why any NY Times journalist is speaking not just for a partisan anti-Iranian, Islamophobic group like Clarion, but how he justifies appearing on a panel so heavily biased toward the position of attacking Iran. And sorry, the idea that he will provide balance to the other speakers by representing a more moderate perspective doesn’t hold water. What he does do is provide a NY Times imprimatur to a Clarion Fund event. This is how the Islamophobia cartel amplifies and “koshers” its message before the American audience. They co-opt the mainstream media and get that Good Journalism Seal of Approval. The next time anyone hears the words Clarion Fund or Iranium they’ll remember seeing the New York Times name associated with it. It’s the political equivalent of money laundering. Or we could call it blue (and white)-washing in honor of the boost it provides to Israel’s bellicose foreign policy toward Iran?
And what does the NY Times get in return? Notoriety and charges of bias and favoritism toward Islamophobes and pro-Israel forces. Sounds like a pretty bad bargain to me. You may wish to write the paper’s ombundsman, who may not reply or take the issue seriously, but who knows, lightning could strike. Someone’s created a hilarious Bronner spoof Twitter account.
Well stated. And again so much for the sainted New York Times. Remember their neocon journalist, Judith Miller? I think the Times is quite reliable with its articles on food and gardening and such, and I understand its crossword puzzles are among the best, but I would approach its coverage of really important stuff with caution and skepticism. The piece above is an exemplar of why. An irony, of course, is that the right wing considers the Times a bastion of liberalism. Mr. Bronner’s employment there would alone suggest otherwise, and he is often front-page.
Richard,
The Klu Klux Klan holds meetings, too. Let them delude themselves in fantasy in their closed circles.
People only have to hear two things when it comes to the New York Times: (1) if any paper was guilty for getting us into Iraq it was the Old Gray Lady and (2) the Middle East Bureau editor’s son is in the IDF. Granted, the readership is still extensive. That’s because the New York Times has substance as well, and that’s why it’s so suitable for hijacking towards a nefarious government’s interests.
It’s like the Nobel Peace Prize: one dead tentacle of an otherwise healthy octopus. Shimon Peres? Obama? What have these people done to advance peace in the world? Al Gore? I know, I know. He invented Algebra. The point is, we can pretty much assume anything printed in the New York Times section regarding foreign affairs is intended to manipulate public opinion towards ends that are not in our national interests, but in the interests of a few and foreign.
These people only do themselves an injustice when they also underestimate the very people they seek to manipulate. This event is a viewing for a select audience. No one will show up to that hasn’t made up their mind already. They might as well ask John Bolton to tell stories about what’s it’s like to be a boy growing up in Tehran while he sits on Bill Kristol’s lap. I mean, if they want to take it down a notch – it’s already even more heinous and absurd than I can even joke about.