February 8, 2010
Should NYT Jerusalem bureau chief be reassigned?
Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the New York Times , believes Ethan Bronner, the paper's Jerusalem bureau chief, should be given an assignment somewhere else to avoid a perception of conflict of interest because his son has enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces. I disagree.
As a long-time journalist, I've had many bones to pick with Bronner's coverage -- but whatever criticism I've leveled has focused exclusively on his reporting, which often bends over backwards so as not to cast Palestinians in a bad light. My basic beef with Bronner is that he looks at Israel and the Palestinians through two different lenses -- a sharp, unsparing one when it comes to Israel, abenign one when it comes to the Palestinians. His reporting would be more balanced and objective if he looked at both sides through the same lens, preferably the former.
However, since I've followed Bronner's reportage in some detail for quite a few years, I'm convinced that the views he brings to his stories won't change one whit because of his son's enlistment in the Israeli military. So to remove him from his current post because of spurious expectations that the father would be influenced in his reporting by his son's one-year active duty in the IDF is completely unwarranted.
Nor would I try to seek his reassignment because of the actual content of his writings. Instead, I would hope that Executive Editor Bill Keller might take a more critical look at the general tenor of his reportage -- what he writes and also what he overlooks -- and judge him accordingly, without taking for granted that he's an infallible, unassailable, ideal journalist without any imperfections whatsoever , as Keller alleged in rejecting Hoyt's conflict-of-interest concerns. .
By all means, let the Times keep Bronner on the job -- but don't turn him into the epitome of journalistic perfection. And, since hope springs eternal, perhaps Bill Keller might finally one of these days set aside his institutional arrogance and consider seriously fair and well-founded criticism of his star reporter.
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Massachusetts vs. the Second Amendment
- Florida Voter Fraud Case Could Overturn U.S. House Race
- Not Your Grandfather’s Foreign Aid
- Christian Morality, Migration, And The Good Samaritan
- Shaken, Not Stirred: The James Bond Complex
- Who is the Real Unelected President?
- Democrats Prepare for the Big House
- Democrat Hypocrisy on Born-Alive Care
- Government Downsizing and the Left’s Instinctive Outcry
- Trump is Closing the Border. Now What About Legal Immigration?
Blog Posts
- Trump and Hegseth are killing it
- Uganda upset at lack of condoms, lubricants — blames USAID funding freeze
- Why would anyone be a Democrat?
- Protecting the Second Amendment is protecting the First
- A tale of two tax plans
- Another case of demand for racism exceeding supply
- Corruption in Chicago’s courts
- Memo suggests the City of San Diego's government is loaded with illegals
- Buttigieg insinuates that Trump’s IG firing spree has something to do with promoting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’
- Why is Tom Cotton blocking a Trump DOD nominee?
- The German central bank agrees with President Trump!
- Trump must take on China’s vape smugglers
- CBS's Margaret Brennan scolds Marco Rubio on free speech by suggesting it caused the Holocaust
- Four magical words
- Maybe we could ask Al Gore, John Kerry, and the UN to explain why we should go along with the Paris Climate Agreement?