The Bronner Case

I wouldn’t say it’s a silly dispute. The reader ought to know context and weigh that.

Disclosure seems a reasonable solution. Which is what you, yourself, do.

Joe, you couldn’t be more right. KT, JNS, KP et al., what are your thoughts?

Paging Exiled At Home… an Israeli-related post for your thoughts, bring your inner shogun.

“At the very worst–and even this should be optional–Ethan might throw in a caveat lector if his coverage strays close to his son’s billet.”
.
You don’t tell the reader why this is such a terrible burden. What is your concern with the reader having more information rather than less?

We must never, ever question the objectivity of journalists.
.
Journalists are like Supreme Court justices, in that ideology and personal sympathies never, ever play any sort of role in their professional output.
.
Demanding that journalists always disclose their (and their sources’) potential (and actual) conflicts of interest in linked, updated bio-graphs accompanying each piece would be wrong.
.
Journalists’ disclosures obviously should be optional, since revealing writers’ ideological, financial or personal relationships with the subjects of their coverage might be an unnecessary burden to readers’ limited attention spans at best, and bring the credibility of the writer to the forefront of readers’ beautiful, clean minds at worst.

Not “utter nonsense.” I might come down on your side in the end, but it’s at least a close call. If your son were an Obama campaign operative, would you cover the presidential campaign for Time? You’d *at least* have to disclose.

I have a son who is a litigator. Does that disqualify me from covering malpractice reform?

I’m guessing that he doesn’t practice medmal insurance defense. If he does then, at the very least, I would like to know about it.

More to the point, I have another son who is a U.S. diplomat, currently serving in Iraq. Does that mean I can’t write about U.S. foreign policy, or about the coming elections in Iraq?

Here’s the catch on that one. The difference is that — sorry — I and every other reader expect Joe Klein to have a pro-U.S. bias on his coverage. He’s American. He’s writing for a U.S. publication. I fail to see what about his coverage would change.

However, if Joe Klein was Russian and was writing for a Russian periodical on Iraq, I would assume his Russian readers would want to know that his son happened to be a U.S. diplomat serving in Iraq. They wouldn’t be expecting that bias.

Here’s the question that I would ask. Regardless of whether Bronner’s son is in the IDF, do U.S. readers honestly expect the NYT coverage to be balanced between the Israeli and Paliestinian views? Because if readers assume that the NYT is going to be pro-Israel, no matter what, then who is the ombudsman kidding? OTOH, if NYT readers genuinely expect unbiased coverage, then taking Bronner off the assignment is probably a wise move to avoid the appearance of bias.

Are we really that surprised that Hoyt would make a decision based on appearances? Isn’t that all we seem to do these days? isn’t it for the sake of appearances that the mainstream press insists on bending over backwards to the point of no longer presenting news in order to appease conservatives who will shout bias if any one dares call them out for the thugs they are. Isn’t it for appearances sake that we engage in false equivalency every time a Republican behaves badly. We trot out the perennial both sides do it malarkey when the truth is that while both parties are imperfect, no party is as bad, mean spirited and down right dirty as the Republicans. Yet , every criticism of them comes with the automatic caution for both sides to stop playing politics with…(insert subject here).
.
The fact is that conservatives can’t sell their crap honestly, so they deceive people into believing that it is something that it isn’t and that the other side is peddling something that they are not. If conservatism was so great they wouldn’t have to stoop to lies and if what I am saying wasn’t the truth, we wouldn’t be so quick to embrace appearance over substance. But let’s face it after 40 years of conservative crap we’ve gotten use to it and it has become second nature now. Who cares if the behavior is destroying a country, a newspaper beat, or a man’s life’s work, as long as we keep up appearances all is right with the world. Boy do I long for the days when just laid out the truth and let the people think what they want to think and allowed them to do so without sanctioning lies for appearances sake.

Here’s a better question, since the son joined the IDF, is Bronner Jewish? Because it would seem to me that if Bronner is Jewish and he was on this beat and that his Jewishness was not seen as a a conflict of interest, then why shouldn’t his son’s Jewish identity be a conflict? Obviously, the guy has been living in Israel with his family while covering this beat and the son growing up there joins the IDF to do his service as all Israeli’s must so where’s the conflict?

What I mostly take exception to is Joe Klein’s perfunctory dismissal of any conflict-of-interest issue.

There are two reasons that traditional journalism in the U.S. is dying. The first is obviously economic. But the second is that journalists appear to be completely uninterested in policing their profession for ethical lapses, conflicts of interest, or appearances of impropriety.

Bronner is, arguably, the very best journalist in Jerusalem now–certainly, the best person the Times has for the job

The “best person for the job” isn’t merely someone with the right qualifications. It must also be someone that readers trust to deliver honest journalism. If a significant number of readers question Bronner’s reporting based upon his family dynamic then he, by definition, isn’t the best person for the job.

Please do not tell me that Bronner is, like Blackwater or some other recipient of a no-bid government contract, “uniquely qualified” to do the job.

So after all the babbling Mr. Klein finally offers a meaningful solution – disclosure. Let Mr. Bronner disclose his son’s membership in the Israeli military in each of his NYT pieces and let the readers have the final say on his objectivity.

Oh, and Mr. Klein, this is not a “silly dispute,” I’m sure you’d blow your lid if you found out Bronner’s kid was a member of Hamas.

I’m sure you’d blow your lid if you found out Bronner’s kid was a member of Hamas.
.
Great point.

Given the fact that every writer at the New York Times (front page, editorial page, sports page, the so-called, self-described “business” section, the obituaries, book review section and even the freakin’ food section) is a militant, virulent, hardline, fundamentalist leftist political activist, when can we expect the New York Times to insist that its hundreds of fundamentalist leftists find different lines of work?

Will the New York Times prohibit its fundamentalist homosexualists (aka its “Gay Mafia”) from “reporting” on anything to do with homosexuals, to wit: same-sex so-called “marriage”, homosexuals in the military, “Gay Pride” parades, Frank Rich, etc.?

Well said. But Klein is (apparently) in deep, deep, denial about just how broken his industry’s conventions have become (probably because it leads directly to responsibility for our broken politics and disastrous policies) so it’s not surprising that he doesn’t see the irony.

I need more information before I can properly adjudicate this issue for you, JK. Is Bronner’s son a US citizen? Is he an Israeli citizen? Does he have dual citizenship? If he is an Israeli, then I concede that he is, in fact, bound by law to serve in the IDF, and as such, his father should not be reassigned. If, however, he is American or holds dual citizenship, then his IDF status betrays his obvious loyalty to Israel. In this case, I would be uncomfortable allowing his father to be the chief conduit between his son’s treason and the American public. But of course, we’re not really expecting his replacement to cover the issues at hand impartially, either. He’s an American journalist, and an establishment one at that; therefore, he has no integrity in regard to balance between the Israelis and Palestinians. We know where his loyalties lie.

Great point, indeed.

I’ve known Ethan for more than a decade and have admired him longer than that–he is the very best sort of journalist, fearless and fair. As Hoyt points out, Bronner’s stories have distressed both sides in the dispute.

What a revealing comment. It’s an odd profession, journalism. I can’t think of any other where uniting people, who generally disagree, in a shared dislike of your work is seen as almost irrefutable proof of your excellence.

Rose:
.
It’s so lovely to see your thoughts here.
.
Have you read this masterpiece of press criticism by Prof Jay Rosen (link to “He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User” ) ?
One of the updates to this post reads:

Dana Milbank pens a little masterpiece of he said (link), she said reasoning. He finally reads his comments and discovers—what else?—angry people on both sides denounce him. Of course, Milbank is a columnist and wit as much as a reporter, but he is the sort of columnist who tries to be sandpaper to both sides. The idea is for the friction to be turned to laughs.
.
One of the nifty things about this gadget: when the political reasoning that creates the friction takes withering criticism, the author can just switch to the satire track and gain on the “look ma, no politics” agenda that way. Critics turn into humorless scolds. Thus David Carr of the New York Times said on Twitter that “Dana Milbank seemed to be having fun” with the criticism, not complaining about getting hit from both sides. Give him a break!
.
And after you give him a break read Digby on Milbank (link) because her post is also about this post. She adds a few things I wish I had included.

Nothing advertises your objectivity quite like the hatred of all interested parties –it means you can erase your own professional agenda almost spotlessly from the work.
.
That’s what “Everybody hates us, so we must be good.” accomplishes: the smug advertisement of anthropological objectivity. Everybody yells “You’re blind, Ref!” at the referee, don’t they?
.
Being hated is a straight journalist’s (comfortable) striped shirt.

Wow, I did not realize how old Joe Klein was..

Anyhow, I do agree that to ask Bronner to leave his position because his son is in IDF is atrocious.

He should of course recuse himself when matters regarding IDF AND an objective rendition of opinion arise in the course of his job as Bureau chief there.

Hmmm… what am I writing..Press and Objective in one sentence!!
GASP (insert clasping of pearls and wide eyed shock here)… Press and objective do not go together these days.

The separation of those two words Press and objective seems especially evident with regard to Presidential politics and Washington drama kings aka Congress.
Yep, the lines have been drawn with ink cartridges;Objectivity is on the other side of the line–opinions masked as news rule the day.
Messy Messy Messy

LM
http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

I suppose, Joe, if your son were to hypothetically join the Iranian Basij, there should be no double-standard then regarding your ability to serve as a pseudo-Iran correspondent?