25 thoughts on “NY Times Public Editor Proudly Announces Jodi Rudoren’s Tweets Will Be Censored – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Ali Abunimah: “Responding to New York Times Public Editor’s smear against me,” Electronic Intifada [ei], 11/28/12. Excerpt: “In other words you laundered Goldberg’s inflammatory accusations against me as fact, and you never bothered to contact me to discern their accuracy or discuss them with me. What I advocate is full equality for Palestinians, full implementation of their human and political rights, and the abolition of all laws and practices by Israel that discriminate against them just because they are not Jews.” For the full article: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/responding-new-york-times-public-editors-smear-against-me

  2. American MSM’s prevalent code-of-disregard concerning Palestinians’ rights to be treated as equal humans is a continuous, mostly successful, attempt to lie to most people most of the time The rare exceptions are utilised to gain unwarranted credits.

    This usually works but it does take its toll.

  3. Sorry, Richard, but I disagree. Rudoren is right next to Tom Friedman on my personal shit list for journalists. Her racism and unprofessional reporting merit her dismissal, not her pardon. That piece she wrote about the Gazan funeral was so condescendingly racist and ignorant as to be toxic. Any responsible journalist would have asked about what they didn’t understand, not merely report their observations like some kind of 19th century missionary in the jungle. In the midst of that horrible attack on Gaza, she missed an opportunity to bring some humanity to her reportage but opted to remain comfortably in her New York Jew worldview, not only then but in everything she has written about Palestine. Rudoren has, by being in Gaza, a precious opportunity to write from a fresh perspective, but she chooses not to. So I’ve got very little use for Jodi Rudoren.

    1. I support your comment, Mary. In her response to the furor, she never apologized for or acknowledged the racist
      basis for her comments. To miss the exceptional pain of the parents whose children died, as well as the horrific manner of their deaths, is to truly dehumanize and delegitamatize those individuals as well as all of the civilian deaths in Gaza. Her world view is only millemeters apart from those of Danny Dayan, Moishe Feiglin, etc. She should have had the courage to resign; the NYT the spine to fire her. She is the touchstone for the low standards that currently exist in US journalism. Walter Lippman would have scalded her in an editorial above the fold and the NYT as well as its affiliates would have printed it. In any armed conflict, the death of a child, a women, a civilian is never – “Ho Hum.” In virtually every case it is a preventable tragedy. I would close with IDF officer Gantz comment which summarizes the Israeli
      position: “In war there are no civilians.”

      1. I honestly think that had she been reporting anywhere else she would have been fired. The NY Times was actually better off with Ethan Bronner; at least his bias was more subtle.

        Ignorance is not something that should be acceptable in journalism. It is the journalist’s responsibility to relate facts, not ponder why a child’s funeral seems so “ho hum.” I absolutely agree with you that Rudoren’s level of journalism is the nadir of the profession, and shame on the NY Times for publishing her dreck.

        1. Surely it’s occurred to you that she was chosen for her dreck?

          I’m not trying to be clever. Imagine, for a moment, if Richard Silverstein was reporting for the NYT… well, why not? In that answer is why she was hired.

      2. She tweeted “ho-hum.” She didn’t publish this in the NY Times. I don’t much like the idea of firing people because of a tweet unless it’s egregious.

        You could take her to task for her comment. Bronner wouldn’t have even cared. At least Rudoren responds most of the time when you take issue w her.

    2. This is the first time she’s set foot in Gaza. If I didn’t know what I know, the first time I went to Gaza I’d probably say something stupid too.

      I too was very critical of that piece especially calling the funeral “militant paegentry.” But Bronner never even went to Gaza. Do you understand the difference?

  4. “Appointing a censor to tenderize her tweets defeats the entire purpose of the enterprise. It neuters her. Turns her into a journalist made of stone.”

    Yes. Turns her into something not entirely human.

    I agree, let the tweets fly. We are all flawed. A flawed person who demonstrates growth is so much more palatable than a flawed person who turns toward denial. Are any of us really shocked that Rudoren has racist ideas about who the Palestinians are? An unreflected life of hasbara has (possibly) reached a turning point. Her racism is probably news to her, the Times should let her explore this racism in a public way.

    1. As always, Zionist Jews are so egocentric as to think something as absurd as a journalist working her way though her bigotry in a public way is “palatable” as it concerns Palestinians and Arabs. Tell me, would you be as willing to watch a southern cracker “work her way” though her racism against African Americans? Or, pray tell, through her anti-semitism?

      To what level has journalism descended if you believe it is acceptable to forgo professionalism and a semblance of fairness? And, don’t you think it’s high time the Palestinians were treated with some professionalism and fairness and that this standard should not be sacrificed to the idea of some navel-gazing idiot’s personal growth? As always, are they to pay a price for Jewish zionist narcissism?

  5. I agree with Richard. I expect prejudice from NYT reporters and I’d prefer it be out in the open. And also, Rudoren, for all her flaws, seems willing to listen to people who point them out, at least to some degree.

    And more important, she’s the first NYT reporter I’ve seen who reports the legitimate grievances of Gazans regarding the shooting of Palestinian fishermen, and the shooting of Palestinian civilians inside the buffer zone that Israel has declared INSIDE GAZA. The NYT editorialists don’t acknowledge the issues at all–to them the storyline is that Gazans shoot rockets at Israel and Israel reacts.

    1. But in the process she dehumanizes the people she writes about, so she defeats any ostensible purpose other than to further alienate the Palestinians from the minds of her readers.

      1. As you know, in the US people are bombarded with anti-Palestinian opinions and anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice and obviously with a great many people it becomes part of how they think. I think Rudoren has shown some indications that while she obviously has these prejudices, she is capable of listening to critics and trying to improve. But time will tell. In the forseeable future I don’t think the NYT is likely to have a reporter like the late Anthony Shadid covering the Israel/Palestine beat.

  6. Mary, i am neither a zionist nor a jew. And yes, i do think people have a right to work their way through their own racism. Also, had she said such insensitive things towards Israelis, i do believe she would have been fired.

    All the same, she is a product of her upbringing. I am simply not shocked that she is racist, are you? And if she were to be fired, she is only going to be replaced by another racist. So what is the point signalling out one racist reporter in a racist company like the NY Times? The Times should be signaled out. The whole of the lame stream media should be signaled out. Jodi is a very small part of this, and if by chance we can watch her grow, then let those tweets fly.

    If i want real coverage on Israel/Palestine, it won’t be the Times i turn to.

  7. that “former Kahanist’ stuff is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO completely full of shit that I pity you for clinging to it.

    1. Actually, I don’t give a damn what you think. Comments containing no substance or argument violate the comment rules. If I’d wanted opinions devoid of fact I’d read Arutz Sheva or the National Enquirer, not you. Next violation, you’re moderated.

        1. I’ve written an entire article on it which is linked in this blog. I don’t need to discuss it further here since I’ve already said my piece. You on the other hand as someone clearly ignorant of that, need to read what I wrote before you make an even greater fool of yourself than you already have.

          1. yes, Richard I read that essay and am not ignorant of it.

            your opinion offered there was truly terrible and based on the flimsiest of pretext.

            saying that a man is a “former Kahanist” because as a teen he read something written by Kahane that he really liked….. is so unsound and so without sufficient logical base that it a “Mccarthy-like” smear would be a disservice to the late Senator Joseph McCarthy.

            If the guy read Karl Marx as a teen and liked some of the historical points…would you call him a “former Marxist”?

          2. I’m sorry but you are an idiot. Jeffrey Goldberg in his own memoir concedes he was a follower of Meir Kahane. He didn’t say he “liked” Kahane. He worshiped him and his views. And as late as his mid-20s again in his own words, he found his ideas “profound.” All in his own words. And you call that “flimsiest of pretexts?” I consider this arguing in bad faith. I don’t mind arguing with someone who does so honestly & forthrightly. But someone who can see words printed on a page & either lies about their meaning or distort their meaning, is not someone I can ever take seriously.

    1. How can simeone so clearly in the thrall of neocons, who in turn are riddled with Islsmophobia, be said to be a distinguished scholar of Islam? I’d feel much more comfortable if he confined himself to the fields he really knew best, rather than wandering off the reservation into fields where he has no expertise.

  8. and I’m very sorry, Richard, that you’re about half as intelligent as an idiot.

    and too dim to understand that liking some of the things that Kahane said is neither liking all of them or in any way following Kahane in any fashion…..and nothing at all akin to meriting being described as a kahanist.

    the term has a specific meaning which does not include people who liked some things that he said…..were you not engaging in half-wittedness and petulant pique you would be able to produce some substantial evidence of actual association rather than early partial admiration.

    put on your dunce cap and think

    1. And I’m not at all sorry that you’re banned. Tell the next hasbra warrior to prepare for his landing at Ben Gurion. And don’t slam the cockpit door on your way out.

      Goldberg didn’t say he “liked some of the things Kahane said.” He was a disciple. There’s a difference. He never said he was critical of anything Kahane said until he became older. Even then, his criticism couldn’t prevent him from continuing to express his admiration.

      As for whether or not my judgment is right: Tikkun Magazine thought I was & published it. When you have a pulpit as popular and distinguished then someone might credit yr judgment on these matters. Till then, not so much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link