Why The Ethan Bronner Case Matters
The story this far is that the New York Times is seriously on the defensive because the son of its Israel correspondent, Ethan Bronner, joined the Israeli army.
In the end, the Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
But here's the real story. Suddenly the New York Times feels the need to deal with its critics who argue that an intense attachment to Israel obscures objective judgement on the Middle East.
This is new. Until very recently the assumption was that the Israeli position was, by definition, the neutral, disinterested position.
Read any Tom Friedman column on the Middle East. The underlying assumption of any Friedman column is that if it's good for Israel, it's good for America. It's right.
Friedman is classic. On any issue -- Thai economics, Chinese reform, or Macedonian separatism -- he will invariably find a friend, who happens to be an Israeli, to comment on it.
Until now, that was okay.
But no more.
Israel has become a foreign country. And if the New York Times' correspondent's son joins the Israeli army, it matters.
Imagine if Bronner was covering Latin America and his son joined the Columbian defense forces! And, no, this is not comparable to a reporter's son or daughter joining the American military. Americans who want to serve, can and do serve in their own army, Serving in a foreign army is extraordinary.
I do not accept the premise that a 20-year old makes the decision to serve in the Israeli army (and not the US army or no army at all) independent of the home environment. It is highly unlikely that young Bronner would be devoted to Israel if his parents were not. His devotion is a reflection of theirs. (Much as my kids' dovish liberalism is a reflection of their parents).
I am not happy with this turn of events. I too once believed it was appropriate for Americans to identify with Israel almost as if that identification did not conflict with identification with America.
But that was never true. Those who emigrate to Israel or whose children do (and/or join its army) have a vested interest in Israel that conflicts with the role of a journalist. And if their child is in the Israeli army, they have a vested interest in the success of that army and in its reputation.
This would apply to France, Japan, or even Canada. It always has.
The difference now is that the bloom is off the rose. Israel may be a foreign country many Americans love, but it is a foreign country. Those who quit the United States for Israel do not "make aliya," they emigrate.
All that is fine. But not if your job is to be objective.
Okay, yes, I agree that the Times should have the deal with the fact that the Israeli position is not the default moral position but when you say it's not a big deal because hey, it just affects him and his family, I have to take some issue.
Americans with sibling or child soldiers in our arms forces are not kept from covering wars. Americans with siblings or kids who are lawyers or doctors are not kept from covering media. A lot of business journalists have kids and siblings and friends in business.
I have a big problem with a journalist being reassigned when nobody can show me any wrongdoing. If he's broken ethical standards then sanction or fire him. But if they try to reassign him over this, the union had better darned well make a huge issue out of it.
February 8, 2010 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrongdoing is what you want...Well, if you mean outright forgery and deliberate falsification, then your standard is worthless. But if you mean overt bias, wanton disregard for corroborating sources, and routine dereliction of reportorial duties, well, that we have.
http://www.counterpunch.org/weir02052010.html
Here is Bronner falsifying the destruction of the Gazan flour mill:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/in-first-mention-of-destruction-of-gazas-flour-mill-nyts-bronner-serves-up-israeli-claims.html
Passing off Israeli falsehoods on the integrity of the Goldstone Report that could simply have been corroborated with a simple phone call to someone other than an official Israeli spokesmen:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/nyt-gave-platform-to-israeli-generals-blatantly-false-claims-re-goldstone.html
Portraying Netanyahu as an incredible man of peace:
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/12/in-nyt-portrait-of-netanyahu-the-peace-maker-theres-room-for-just-one-dissent.html
Passing along manufactured falsehoods about the restoration of the freedom of movement:
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/12/in-nyt-portrait-of-netanyahu-the-peace-maker-theres-room-for-just-one-dissent.html
-------------------------------------
Keep in mind, these are just a few of many people who have consistently documented the incredible journalistic negligence demonstrated by Bronner. I've read considerably more. This is just a taste.
But what is clear is this: Whatever the reason, Bronner is predisposed to reporting the conflict merely from the perspective of the official organs of the government of Israel. While these days this may be perfectly great journalism, it does not pass the sniff test of true journalism.
February 8, 2010 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't find any of these examples persuasive (I read them all). They are hit jobs from people with a huge ideological axe to grind. In the case of Mondoweiss, they generally take a snippet or portion of article and then take Bronner to task for, for example, quoting some IDF figure without at the same time railing against the utter falsehood of the quote based upon some alleged unreported Israeli atrocity. The offending portions are taken so out of context that when you go back and read the entire article, it is insignificant. Weir vaguely refers to some dubious studies and again makes the point that insufficient attention is paid to Israeli depredations. One such study by the (impartial?) watchdog "If They Knew" (is that Weir herself?) faults the Times for not reporting enough on the deaths of Palestinian children despite "considerable evidence that Palestinian young people were being killed intentionally by official Israeli forces." Need I say more?
I will agree though that the Times reporting, as with the overwhelming majority of the US media, is undeniably Israel-centric. Israeli politics and society is covered far more extensively than Palestinian/Arab (or nearly any other nation, I would hazard, and the entire conflict is given disproportionate attention given the number of people involved and the scale of the suffering). The deaths of Israeli children are given more attention. There is more coverage of Gilad Shalit than of Palestinian prisoners in Israel. In this, Bronner and the Times are hardly alone.
February 9, 2010 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say: " will agree though that the Times reporting, as with the overwhelming majority of the US media, is undeniably Israel-centric."
If personnel is policy, then maybe the fact that some many ME reporters for the American media are Israel-centric may explain this skew.
February 9, 2010 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are a lot of reasons, including personnel. But as others have pointed out, the NYT employs Palestinians as well from the West Bank and Gaza. It also has to do with the readership, most of whom (Jew and non-Jew alike) I would imagine have a deeper connection to, understanding of, and appreciation for, the Israeli perspective. There's also, I think, the practical aspect that Israel is an open society with a vibrant press in which issues are openly debated from a variety of viewpoints, while Palestinian society is more opaque, claims harder to verify, etc. Then, of course, is the POV of the entire NYT operation - what Purple State discusses far more eloquently than I ever could below.
February 9, 2010 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's particularly opaque if the reporter doesn't live among the people, speak the language fluently, understand their customs, etc.
Al Jazeera has no problem interviewing Palestinians.
February 9, 2010 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What youre saying is completely true. I agreee with you
children health
January 12, 2011 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
March 25, 2011 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
" faults the Times for not reporting enough on the deaths of Palestinian children despite "considerable evidence that Palestinian young people were being killed intentionally by official Israeli forces." Need I say more? "
Yes, you do. Chris Hedges personally saw IDF troops baiting Palestinian boys into throwing rocks, after which they shot them down. He reported this in Harpers in late 2001--I forget which issue. I believe it's also in his book "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning"
What's fascinating is the presupposition here--apparently it's just ridiculous to imagine that IDF forces would do such a thing. Everyone knows Arab terrorists do this--at one point in the history of the conflict are we to assume the Israeli forces stopped, or are we supposed to think they never started?
February 9, 2010 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hedges claim was discredited and showed Hedges' biases. He wrote in Harpers that he saw silencers on the Israeli soldiers rifles -- certainly not standard issue for infantrymen with M-16s. What Hedges actually saw were the rubber bullet cylinders at the end of the M-16s, converting the gun into a non-lethal weapon.
February 13, 2010 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has got to be reassigned or the Times loses credibility on ME reporting. Its a business decision and very good one.
February 9, 2010 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 17, 2010 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
your blog is great.thanks for sharing.
filme online
filme online gratis
April 9, 2011 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The good thing in all this story :
This is the last swan song !
NYT close to bankruptcy !
He want to charge ppl for texts NEXT YEAR? How FUNNY?!!
February 8, 2010 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you're not a reporter and it shows (i.e., comparing Tom Friedman, a columnist, with a reporter like Bronner). Destor is and although he and I probably disagree profoundly over the Israel/Palestine situation, he gets it right.
The fact is that every reporter has something that could be seen as an "appearance" of a conflict of interest. Liberals cover politics. (For years, Republicans railed at the "liberal" media, citing surveys showing a majority of reporters lean left; I'm sure many have family members active in liberal causes; should they be precluded from covering politics?). Americans, many with family members and friends in the military, cover our wars. Police reporters may have family members on the force. Should they be taken off the beat for that reason alone?
It's the same with foreign correspondents. Indeed, they are often given assignments precisely because of some connection to the region they are covering - an understanding that permits and enriches their reporting. Keller uses the example of Anthony Shadid, a Lebanese American, who covered the Israeli war in Lebanon for the Washington Post and now covers Iraq. (I don't know, but I'd hardly be surprised, or outraged, to find that NYT reporters in Arab countries have ties to the Arab world.) What about correspondents covering India/Pakistan? Should we insist that all reporters have no family or personal ties to the area they are assigned to cover?
So, where do we draw the line? While I respect Hoyt and the thought process behind his "recommendation," I think Keller's response gets it pretty right. There are some situations that are clear cut (i.e., covering a business in which the reporter has a direct financial stake) and others less so. This is one of those situations where one has to consider the whole picture of the reporter and his body of work as well as the purported conflict and determine whether the appearance is such that the reporter's fairness is called into question. Keller seems to have done that.
I'll admit to some built in bias myself. If the Times correspondent had a son in the Quassam brigades, I'd sure as hell be pretty concerned. Yes, there are some broad areas of consensus we expect reporters to share. An outspoken Marxist or anarchist is not likely to be covering business news. We're not likely to see someone who believes Israel should not exist as Jerusalem bureau chief. But within those fairly broad parameters, we strive to find those who can separate out their personal opinions and report the news accurately and fairly. Nothing I've read about Bronner (and I've read the criticisms from both sides) suggests he's not up to the task.
February 8, 2010 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think MJ was making a point about how the political climate has changed for the NYT, rather than comparing the two writers. He's saying the Times has never had to defend its position relative to the Middle East (using Friedman as a long-standing example) and now it does have to defend itself.
And destor is only half right, btw. The issue here isn't whether Bronner did anything wrong. He did exactly what he was supposed to: He reported the news of his son's enlistment to his superior. That's all he's required to do.
The issue is whether the credibility of the Times (not the reporter) is compromised:
It's about the paper, not the reporter. If journalists' spouses or kids can't have political bumper stickers on their cars, then why would the Jerusalem bureau chief's son's enlistment in the IDF be kosher?
Bill Keller thinks it's kosher and quite a few other people don't. (And this is surprising?)
MJ sees the conflict as new for the Times.
Frankly, if it's getting this much attention, it has already qualified as an appearance of a conflict of interest.
February 9, 2010 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
RTBG:
I absolutely agree that the touchstone for analysis of this case are indeed the guidelines promulgated by the Times for dealing with the possible appearance of impropriety relating to the status of a journalist's family member. Thank you for linking and quoting from the guidelines.
Here, in the politically charged atmosphere that is Middle East reporting, I have to reluctantly conclude that the toothpaste is out of the tube for Mr. Bronner, and his actual bias for or against Israel is ultimately immaterial, because at least a significant portion of the public perceives a clear appearance of impropriety arising from his son's decision to join the IDF. Rightly or wrongly [and I have three kids in their early twenties and would hate to be judged by some of the decisions they have made], I can't help concluding that Mr. Bronner's ability to report from Israel or anywhere in the Middle East has now become irrevocably compromised by partisans on both "sides" of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. For all too many Bronner will either be the product of "working the ref" or he will be the Jewish guy who is tainted by the fact that his kid wears an IDF uniform. Whether it's fair or not--and candidly my personal opinion is that it's not fair--is now besides the point as, under these circumstances, I don't think Bronner will be able to effectively report from Israel any longer.
On the other hand I think it's entirely unfair and inappropriate to try to turn this dispute into an issue of whether Bronner has exhibited actual bias in the past. First, this dispute arises from the decision of his son to join the IDF and not from what he has written over the years. Second, if I were to represent him in a dispute with the Times the first thing I would argue, and it would be low hanging fruit for any advocate, is that it is absolutely inappropriate to assess his bias based on cherry-picking nine or ten articles from the dozens and dozens (perhaps hundreds?) of his dispatches from the Jerusalem bureau. The evidence of Bronner's alleged bias that some of our colleagues at the Cafe have presented, and presumably in good faith, nonetheless constitutes the type of cherry-picking that should not, standing alone, be the basis for destroying a serious journalist's integrity and his reputation going forward. On that issue Destor is absolutely correct; hopefully Bronner's union would be all over that kind of stuff. [Full disclosure--my office represents one of the unions that represents employees at the Times, and I personally have done and still do quite a bit of work for that union, but the employees they represent do not write articles, opinions or anything else for the paper.]
Finally, I disagree and believe it to be purely political to assert that Mr. Bronner's situation is some kind of sea change for analysis of Times' reporting from Israel and Palestine. The disposition of the Times on matters pertaining to the Middle East has been argued about for decades and will continue to be a favorite sport of right or wrongers on both "sides" of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. I think anyone who thinks that Bronner's situation will lead to a serious inquiry into alleged bias at the time is either misguided in good faith or blowin' some political smoke. In any event, that's ultimately OK in my book so long as it's based on actual and comprehensive analysis, and not on the fact that a reporter is a Jew or a Palestinian.
Keep in mind that there are other journalists reporting for the Times out of Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza. Isabel Kershner is a British Jew and is married to an Israeli guy. Taghreed El-Khodary is a Palestinian born in Gaza and was one of the few journalists working for an American newspaper reporting out of Gaza during Cast Lead last year as a consequence of what I believe was a terrible decision by Israel to ban foreign journalists from entering Gaza during the war (an issue that you and I corresponded about during the war if you recall).
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/q-a-with-taghreed-el-khodary-in-gaza
I'd hate to see Kershner's status as a Jew with an Israeli husband or El-Khodary's status as a Gaza-born Palestinian determine their respective qualifications to report from the Middle East. Could you imagine an analogous situation like, for example, some right-wing group launching a campaign to ban an African-American journalist from reporting on some future piece of civil rights legislation? I think we have to be very careful, and circling back to the Times' guidelines on appearance, I think that that is where the focus should properly remain in this particular situation relating to Mr. Bronner.
Bruce
February 9, 2010 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. In fairness to my kids, I think they might argue, and perhaps more forcefully than I did above, that it is they who would not want to be judged by some of the decisions their father has made. ;)
February 9, 2010 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
February 9, 2010 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with every well-chosen word you've written, Bruce. Thanks for weighing in.
I don't hold MJ's view that we're witnessing a sea change for the Times, although I can imagine from his perspective it looks that way. I am neutral about that.
Whatever Bronner's past work reveals, I think he acted responsibly in this situation, and I think Bill Keller didn't. It's Bill Keller's job to take the full force of public reaction for such decisions, and his first instinct was to not reveal the issue to the Times readers. That's just wrong.
But it's also an arrogant mistake. The disclosure came from the outside. If Keller had had the courage to disclose the situation publicly and take responsibility for his decision, the Times would be in a much better position right now. Of course if he had done that, Keller might be the one looking at reassignment! And that's why he didn't! (Full disclosure: My bias is, I have no respect for Keller.)
I basically think of this as a Pandora's box for the Times, and I'm very curious how it's going to play out. I have worked as a staff journalist myself and I am now a freelance writer. But even if I had another occupation, I certainly don't advocate muzzling journalists (or artists or anyone). And I also oppose policies (whether coming from the publication itself or the government or the community) that censor or put a chill on reporting.
Having worked fairly closely with the legal departments of two very large publishers, on the other hand, I can also see how a company needs to protect its integrity.
February 9, 2010 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And before people jump to the facile conclusion that I'm siding with evil corporate lawyers, I should add that all the lawyers I've worked with—those who work in the arts—have been pro free speech first and foremost!
February 9, 2010 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"El-Khodary is allowed to report only on Palestinians."
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/02/abunimah-jews-can-report-on-palestinians-but-the-other-way-round.html
if she reported on the jews in israel, would there not be calls that she was biased if she wrote a critique of israel?
February 9, 2010 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read what you quote, and let's be clear that the quotation is a completely uncorroborated assertion from the Mondoweiss columnist that "El-Khodary is allowed to report only on Palestinians" at the Times. So I don't know if it's true or not, but I hope you weren't implying that what you cite establishes as a mater of fact that Ms. El-Khodary is banned by her employer, the New York Times from reporting on anything other than Palestinians. That's a remarkable allegation and, if it could be shown to be true, it would be absolutely indefensible.
To reiterate, however, and particularly because here we are talking about journalistic ethics, the claim of the writer whom you quote is merely an assertion and not evidence of anything.
Now, if Ms. El-Khodary did report on Israel and/or Jews, I would agree with you without reservation that there would claims from people with axes to grind that she is biased. Indeed, in my 51st year one thing I know BP is that assholes come in all shapes, sizes, and political persuasions. I trust we can agree on that.
February 9, 2010 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Sometimes, the complaint is that there is no reporting on Palestinians because everyone's a Jew and only reports on Jews. Now the complaint seems to be that a Palestinian is reporting on Palestinians. Even if she were only "allowed" to report on Palestinians, wouldn't be going some distance to even out the imbalance in the reporting?
February 9, 2010 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter:
I hope all is well with you. I know you folks are pretty much snowed in down there and we're about to get a bit of a wallop ourselves. I have to admit that I still get the thrill of a school kid when there's a huge snowfall (and especially now that I live in the city and don't have to shovel):
By the way, contrary to what is asserted by the Mondoweiss columnist linked to by Blue Pearl, Ms. El-Khodary states in the interview I linked to in my initial comment (a fascinating read btw) that she regularly reports from inside the Green Line and was frustrated by her inability to cross over from Gaza during the war. She states:
"All sides talk to me. Objectivity and being able to understand all the elements to the story is empowering. Sadly, for the first time, I’m not able because I’m a Palestinian to leave Gaza whenever I wish. I hope to be able to get the Israeli permit so I can go to Jerusalem. Exposure to all elements of the story is essential."
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/q-a-with-taghreed-el-khodary-in-gaza
In short, it appears that the New York Times never prevented Ms. El-Khodary from reporting in Israel. Cheers.
Bruce
February 9, 2010 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point? Is she the only Arab they could hire?
Your initial comment made a lot more sense.
February 9, 2010 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The point of my comment was that the contention that "El-Khodary is allowed to report only on Palestinians" is belied by El-Khodary's own statement. I certainly don't think for a second that El-Khodary is the only Palestinian who could be hired by the Times, and I certainly never meant to suggest anything like that.
February 9, 2010 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link, Bruce.
Both truth and falsity spread with lightening speed on the Net.
But maybe falsity that feeds preconceptions and prejudices spreads faster than the truth, which is often a bit of this and a bit of that. Easy to state the false; much harder to capture the truth.
Yes, I've shoveled my driveway, fronting sidewalk and walkway FOURTEEN TIMES since Friday. More tomorrow, no doubt.
My mother, who lives on Columbus and 90th, LOVES the snow and always calls to get a first-hand reading on the snowfall here. She's jealous that NYC has been spared the big one this year.
Has Bar Kafka flown the coop? Always checking in to see if you guys have added to your personal blogs.
All the best to you and your family.
Peter
February 9, 2010 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it was compromised by Bronner's Israel-centric reporting. Great post, Mr. Rosenberg.
February 9, 2010 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, for me the unfortunate thing about this is that Bronner is being pressured for a secondary reason. In theory he could be doing a great job covering the issue with a child in the IDF--in practice there's plenty of evidence that says he's got a pro-Israeli bias. I don't think all of his stories are terrible but the bias is pretty clear. His discussion of Benny Morris's work several years ago (in 2004), for instance, was morally bizarre. He said both Arabs and Zionists shared blame for the Palestinian expulsions of 1948 because the Zionists committed massacres and drove Palestinians out and on the other side, some Arab leaders did recommend that civilians flee. In what other conflict would anyone say that blame was shared between killers of civilians and those who recommended that they flee a war zone? If Bronner were discussing Arab killing and expulsion of Jewish civilians, I doubt it would have crossed his mind to talk about how some hypothetical Zionist official warned them to flee shared some of the blame for their expulsion---he would know without thinking about it how morally obscene that would be.
I don't have time to find the link right now, but it's one example among many where Bronner does try to be fair,but falls far short, no doubt subconsciously.
Unfortunately, in our culture serious issues often stay in the background until there's some "People" magazine twist to it. And this lets Bronner's reporting off the hook, IMO, since the issue becomes some generalized discussion about the personal lives and attachments of reporters and whether even the appearance of a conflict of interest is reason to take them off a particular beat.
February 9, 2010 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair points, RTBG. On re-reading, it does seem MJ was referring to Friedman as a reflection of a time when the Times supposedly conflated Israeli and American interests (a nonexistent time, IMHO).
I also agree that the issue isn't whether Bronner did anything wrong (he didn't) but rather whether the Times' credibility is compromised. The guidelines you refer to are just that: guidelines as to how reporters should strive to avoid the appearance of conflict in a world where our many attachments can create such appearance. Those attachments can be even trickier in foreign assignment, where reporters may end up moving with their families for years at a time and where their background often includes ties to the country they are covering. (I'm still wondering who staffs the Times bureaus in India/Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Or even France for that matter? Of course, nobody cares whether their ties to those countries is an apparent conflict. Sigh).
Anyway, the guidelines don't mandate Bronner's reassignment, just that he report the alleged appearance of conflict and the editors decide. I'm no big fan of Keller, but I can't say I disagree with his call here.
Finally, the fact that it's getting so much attention only shows the bitter ideology of the entire debate. I think it was artappraiser who suggested closing the entire Jerusalem bureau and moving them all to the Congo, where the number of people killed each month far exceeds those lost in many years of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. I doubt anyone will even lift an eyebrow over potential conflicts.
February 9, 2010 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally wouldn't reassign Bronner, if I were an editor, at least not on this basis alone. But I do wish Bernard would recognize the reasonableness of the concerns under the ethics guidlines, and would not mischaracterize Hoyt's piece as badly as he did. Bernard seems to have read Hoyt's discussion as an attack on Bronner's actual integrity and a charge of actual bias.
But Hoyt makes no such imputations. His responsibility is to consider whether a reporter has conflicts of interest that could lead a reasonable reader to entertain doubts about Bronner's objectivity. That requires making a different judgment than would be involved in just deciding whether Bronner is actually an objective reporter or not.
February 9, 2010 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moving the Jerusalem bureau won't help. That's because the public gets vocally involved in any topic that has a religious component, however disembodied or convoluted the connection may be. So that includes science stories about evolution or the beginnings of the universe, or political stories about abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, etc. It also includes stories about Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary or Robert Mapplethorpe or the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.
February 9, 2010 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times doesn't have to cover it, though. I wasn't being tongue in cheek, I meant it, I think they cover IP far too much and places like the Congo far too little.
In fact, I think that they do so is hanging on to old market metrics, where they are thinking of their pre-internet readership of lots of Manhattanites interested in the topic for personal reasons. Well nowadays, those interested in such a special (I use "special" here the same way Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" did) little tiny area of the world could go on the internet and read all the agitprop from both sides ad nauseum, there's highbrow sources, lowbrow sources, and everything inbetween, 24/7.
Now they are one of the few global papers of record left and they might take a bigger view and rethink where their shrinking resources go. And like I said, if they want to go more xenophobic and less global, well fine, then do Haiti or Latin America more. For chrissakes Mexico is on its way to becoming Haiti...
Yes, people are interested in religious violence, but there are plenty of those "wars" elsewhere that are underserved.
I know, many think solving IP is the key to solving the cleavage between Islam and the West. Well, that's where I am highly prejudiced: I think that's not just myopic, I think that's bullshit, the issue is just used as a scapegoat for a whole lotta other things, and little would change if peace miracles happened there. There would, um, still be the issue of oil in the region, and that oil, it's not in IP. Maybe if some of the other religious conflagrations got covered more intensely people would get a better saner view of the IP one.
I think the Times would do the greatest service by being brave enough to show that IP is not as important as some think it is, in fact, it's not of much import for the majority of human occupants of the world. Who in China, for example, gives a damn? (Sorry, I don't buy that Jerusalem is as important to worldwide Muslims as Mecca.) Plus they wouldn't get the grief and constant smearing of their rep for trying to do it objectively, from all kinds of nuts.
February 10, 2010 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for clarifying, artappraiser. I couldn't find your original comment, and I really hate wading into these I-P threads after they've passed the 4-hour mark because they inevitably become white noise.
Now that I think more about your idea, however, I'm enjoying the solution of reassigning everybody in the Jerusalem office, not just Bronner. (Imagine the kvetching if that happened!)
Of course, your suggestion that the Times cover the Congo or Haiti in as much detail as it covers Israel would mean the Times would have to take an interest in black people. That would be an epic challenge for the paper, and yes, I mean that as harsh commentary.
February 10, 2010 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA: "There would, um, still be the issue of oil in the region, and that oil, it's not in IP. Maybe if some of the other religious conflagrations got covered more intensely people would get a better saner view of the IP one."
Sanity. You frequently refer to Congo where, as Kristof points, they think 6 million people have died.
All partisanship aside, one really does have to wonder why IP sucks so much air out of the room and Congo is barely noticed.
Is it because few Westerners really care what happens to a bunch of Africans?
Is it because most Westerners sort of dismiss Africans as too alien to figure out and totally unlike the the "white world"?
Is it a sort of perverse anti-Semistim, or anti-anti-Semitism where anything the Jews do is that much more noteworthy than anything anyone else does? Sort of a per capita calculation in which every Jew is worth, say, 100,000 of any other people in terms of their noteworthy impact on world events?
Is it because oil is tangentially involved?
Is it because we sell big weapons to the Israelis and only small weapons to the Congolese (at least I assume)?
Is it because the Western world really does think the Jews are the chosen people and are correspondingly shocked when they fall from that pedestal of perfection?
Is it because the Jews have been the conscience of the Western world for so long, we feel lost when they seem to lose their way?
Is it because the Western world still is, at bottom, anti-Semitic and is now licking its chops because the Jews seem to be confirming every canard that, heretofore, had been off limits to people who didn't want to be thrown into the same category as Hitler?
Is it because the Western world is fed up with being hocked by Jews to be better human beings and now it's pay back time?
February 11, 2010 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
And would a thread about the appearances of an established reporter's SON's actions be this long if it weren't about IP?
No.
February 11, 2010 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read any Tom Friedman column on the Middle East. The underlying assumption of any Friedman column is that if it's good for Israel, it's good for America.
Actually, his last op-ed on the topic, which was quite some time ago--November 7--doesn't really say that at all. Actually, it said this:
So far from what we've seen, it seems Obama might agree with him.
February 8, 2010 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a long discussion about this chez Bernard. Seems to me there are two issues: 1) the appearance and 2) the reality as much as it can be determined.
As to appearances, I think the case is weak for all the reasons Destor and Armchair have enumerated. Everyone has connections. Everyone has potential conflicts. Where does it end?
But the REAL question to my mind is whether Bronner has been fair in fact. So far, only k-town and Weir seem to want to address this question.
February 8, 2010 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not quite. The issue is about whether the situation affects the credibility of the paper itself.
Yes, there are ongoing arguments about Bronner's credibility even before his son enlisted, but if he gets reassigned, his past work won't be the focus; his future work will be. Get it?
February 9, 2010 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bronner never did a straight report on the contents of the Goldstone Report but he reported on the Israeli response.
The thing is over 500 pages long, the Executive Summary 25 pages. I don't understand why there wasn't more straight reporting on the contents of the Goldstone Report so that we average readers would know what was in it.
February 8, 2010 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ali Abunimah writes:
February 8, 2010 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is a young American man joining the Israeli Army? Why not the US Army? Is it because he wants to work for Rahm Emanuel?
February 9, 2010 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is the way it works when obviousness is posing as wisdom.
February 9, 2010 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming the Times has to be concerned now about criticism of its coverage of Israel that it was not so concerned about in the past, that is probably because it now competes in a much broader and less provincial market. When I was a very young guy the Times was a paper that was (a) regarded as the preeminent newspaper in the United States, and (b) read by very few people outside its New York, New Jersey and southern Connecticut distribution region. In most places in the country you couldn't get your hands on the Times easily, and certainly couldn't get it delivered to your house in a timely manner, to be read with your morning coffee.
Then changes in printing technology and communications made it possible for a daily edition of a newspaper to be printed at multiple printing and distribution nodes across the country. USA Today was a newspaper launched to take advantage of that new possibility. The Times got into that act. The later invention of online electronic content further expanded the Times readership beyond the old neighborhood.
Now the Times has to compete in a new, even more global competitive environment. Some of the pushback and outrage that has been occasioned by the Hoyt piece might be due to the growing feeling on the part of the Times's oldest, most local readers that they are "losing" the New York Times.
February 9, 2010 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few thoughts on the Bronner flap:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009318.php
During that war, Josh took the extraordinary measure of shutting down certain threads and banning certain readers when he thought comments critical of Israel were out of the mainstream. In the post referenced above (which Josh made to explain his actions), Josh says:
Having written this blog for almost six years, I've long made it a rule not to cover or comment on every story that's in the news . . . But as this war has progressed I've realized there's something more at work in my writing process . . . I'm hearing two streams of conversation about the war -- two whole worlds of conversation and debate, you might say, often as distinct from each other as night and day.
One is the one we all see every day in the mainstream news -- the major papers and news networks and so on. And then there's another -- one I'm exposed to largely, but not exclusively, through email we get at TPM.
And it's this latter conversation that's engaged my attention, rattled me and intensified and deepened my belief in Zionism . . . [The conversation ranges from] wild conspiracy theories about the origins of this war to the blanket assumption that every civilian death in Lebanon was an intentional killing of civilians and a war crime. From there -- where to begin? -- we have debates over just when it was that Israel forfeited its right to exist -- the murder of Rabin, through a rather inverted logic, seems to be a favorite -- to where the Israelis should be deported to when the state is liquidated, and so on.
Now . . . my point is not to get into just how widespread this view of the situation is. But it's the one that's caught hold of me, the one I find myself responding to . . .
But when I have written in response to this vitriol, I realize my response seems out of context and in a sense out of left field. Because what is it exactly I'm responding to? When I attack this or that double standard Israel is held to or the subterranean animus against the Jewish state am I really talking about anything you see in the Post or on ABC News? Hardly. It's almost like responding to an offensive radio broadcast that few of the people around you can here. And it is this disjuncture that I think has held me back from writing about the topic more than I have. Because in the mainstream debate I find myself very critical of Israeli policy on many issues -- particularly on the territories and particularly since 1996 -- and trying to wrestle with and figure out some way to pull the region back from the brink to which this administration has brought it. And then in this other debate I find myself driven back upon my core belief in the Zionist project and Jews' right to fight for their existence.
Josh has again felt the need to comment on this Bronner story (see the comments to Avishai's earlier post for Josh's "offended" reaction to Hoyt's article). That in itself is interesting, I think. Because I suspect a lot of what's really at work here is the attempt to define the mainstream--to determine which truths are in-bounds and which are out-of-bounds. Maybe to make certain truths so mainstream that their "objectivity" cannot be questioned . . . and to make these truths so widely acknowledged that censorship of opposing opinions seems not only acceptable, but even necessary and noble. Bronner's personal biases--whatever they are or aren't--are really immaterial. What is important is that Bronner (and the paper he writes for) represents the respectable mainstream. And it's that respectable mainstream, masquerading as objectivity and credibility, that may in some cases be the real and most dangerous enemy of the truth--and also the most potent ally of those with certain personal "core beliefs" that would like to see more widely and unquestioningly adopted.
February 9, 2010 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just one little addition: I will go on record as saying that the NYT is a great paper in my opinion . . . and that the "respectable mainstream" sometimes very much deserves the respect it receives.
February 9, 2010 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent posts.
February 9, 2010 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
February 9, 2010 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
February 9, 2010 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a great post. I started out misreading it, but as I went on I realized what you were saying--very subtle and nuanced.
And to dumb it down with my own comments, I agree. Replacing Bronner in itself probably won't change anything--they will most likely pick someone else with Josh Marshall's sorts of biases. The kind of person who just knows in his or her gut that criticism of Israel that goes beyond a certain level is anti-semitism in disguise.
The problem is there is anti-semitism out there and it does manifest itself on this subject, but it's all too easy for someone like Josh to just lump everyone who makes him uncomfortable on this subject into the category of anti-semite. What's happened online is that some of us are sick of it.
February 9, 2010 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: A few thoughts on the Bronner flap:
Personally, I don't see much reason to reassign Bronner. Bronner's reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict aligns with mainstream ideas about the conflict and therefore will be considered objective and credible by most of the audience the NYT is concerned about. If Bronner is reassigned, his replacement is almost certain to report pretty much the same stories. And so reassigning Bronner will make little difference in the news we get from the paper of record.
TT: Perhaps. But then, what's the fuss? You're almost saying that the "person" that needs to be "reassigned" is the Times. How does THAT work? If accept, as you seem to, that bias is inevitable, regardless of who you are, the only corrective comes not from within a news organization, but by having more news organizations with competing biases, no?
PS: If there is a real conflict of interest that affects Bronner's reporting, it has been there long before his son joined the IDF and so is not really relevant to the immediate discussion (though it may deserve discussion in its own right). His son joining the IDF, however, has certainly created an apparent conflict of interest. Some have tried to argue that there isn't an apparent conflict of interest or, if there is one, it is a minor one. Actually, however, the only way to judge whether an apparent conflict of interest exists (and its seriousness if it does exist) is to judge how people react when they hear of the situation that is alleged to be a conflict of interest. Apparent conflict of interests are about appearance--and that is something that can be judged empirically by observing people's reactions when they learn about the situation. And here, the perception--at least among parties sympathetic to the Palestinians--is that there is a conflict.
TT: Yes, but SHOULDN'T the conversation be about whether there IS a conflict of interest? Surely, COIs can't be only about appearances, because in that regard, we live in a house of mirrors with many conflicting appearances it boggles the mind. And WHO are the people in "people's reactions"? Some people will have NO reaction. Some people will say it gives him even greater insight into the Israeli military. Hoyt felt there was; Keller felt there wasn't. Are they to poll their readers? Let them vote on it?
PS: The NYT now has to decide whether preserving its credibility with these people who see a conflict of interest is important to it and make its decision accordingly. The NYT, like any good paper, attempts to avoid not just real conflicts of interest but also apparent ones. The reason is because an apparent conflict of interest creates a distraction that (fairly or unfairly) calls into question the objectivity of the paper's reports.
TT: Yes, but golly gee, there's been a STANDING view that the NYT is biased in Israel's favor. Even Armchair seems to agree with this. So what is the goal? To eliminate all real and apparent bias? How can that ever happen? Unless REAL objectivity is the goal and the topic of discussion, then you risk eliminating apparent bias and allowing in real bias or just plain bad reporting (as long as no bias is apparent). Or maybe you hire other reporters, say Palestinians, with countervailing biases, or apparent biases.
PS: If the NYT's lead reporter on the Obama campaign had a son or daughter in a high position in that campaign, even if the reporter was completely unbiased in his or her coverage, the appearance of a conflict of interest would be so strong that the NYT would almost certainly have to reassign the reporter. If the NYT didn't reassign the reporter, the paper would be forced to spend too much time defending its objectivity--and that would create a distraction that would interfere greatly with its main mission of reporting the news.
TT: Sure, but there are so many other apparent biases that creep in as soon as someone attains the status of "seasoned reporter" with "chummy relations" with those he reports on. Or she-:)
PS: Since Palestinian sympathizers are hardly as significant a force in American politics as are the opponents of Obama and the Democrats, the NYT may be able to ignore the Palestinian sympathizers in a way they couldn't ignore FOX news or the McCain campaign if there was an apparent conflict of interest in the paper's coverage of the Presidential election. The NYT's response to the Bronner flap will tell us a lot about how much the paper cares about this audience--and about the power that audience has to influence the dialogue in American politics.
TT: Ah, should the NYT only be concerned with "the truth" to the degree it can be determined? Republicans universally hate the Times--so what? They've nothing that I can see to appease that audience; why should they care about another group. I'm not sure "influencing the dialogue" should be the paper's goal, except maybe in its editorial. It should be to report the facts as best they can be determined.
PS: There have been very many interesting comments in this discussion about credibility and objectivity. Avishai has been arguing that reporters can become something like a "transparent eyeball"--asking the right questions and reporting the story neutrally despite their own personal biases. I'm not quite buying that--I think people can, with discipline, get closer to this neutrality, but it's almost impossible to eradicate all personal biases--especially since the truth is to some degree fluid--and as much in the making as made.
TT: Then, what's the fuss? Do the best you can and call it a day. This line of reasoning seems to boil to...just add more differently biased voices. How does that help? All you get is more untruth masquerading as "the truth."
PS: Also, the standard for judging truth is not always some absolute, abstract standard. Yes, there are parts of the truth that tend toward absolute (grass is green and not purple, for instance--at least in most humans' perception and at most times of the year).
TT: Yes.
PS: But much of the truth is determined by collective consensus. Where there is a strong collective consensus about what is true, it sometimes becomes very hard to notice biases. Where mainstream opinion conforms very strongly with what we are saying, we may see no personal bias in our words (because our personal bias is everyone's personal bias and therefore doesn't seem like a bias). But the mainstream opinion may still be wrong.
TT: Yes, and it may be right. Collective consensus, as you say in your PS, has one thing going for it. A lot of people have looked at the matter and come to the same conclusion.
PS: This last observation leads me to my final comment. In light of what I just said about the difficulty of recognizing one's biases when they conform to mainstream ideas, please read this post made by Josh Marshall during the most recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009318.php
TT: Do you think a person is more likely, all things being equal, to be closer to the truth and less biased, if his views diverge from the mainstream? IOW, is being out the mainstream a point in favor of a person's views, truth-wise? I don't see it.
PS: During that war, Josh took the extraordinary measure of shutting down certain threads and banning certain readers when he thought comments critical of Israel were out of the mainstream. In the post referenced above (which Josh made to explain his actions), Josh says:
TT: Seems to me, at bottom, Josh felt he was hearing stuff that had, not so much departed from "the mainstream" as departed from the facts and, even, edged toward anti-Semitism or a double standard applied to Israel. One would really have to examine the provoking comments that he discontinued to know if this were in any sense true. If I were a publisher, I could take the view that any opinion would be allowed on my forum. Or I could, with equal reason in my view, not want to provide a forum for hate.
In any case, it does seem clear that Josh reflected on this a good long time and wasn't simply siding with the conventional view in a knee jerk way. Now more than ever with highly targeted media, it is possible to live inside one's own "mainstream" bubble and never hear opposing views, even if, on a numerical basis, one's own mainstream had relatively few adherents. Seems to me, EVERYONE has to constantly self-interrogate to uncover one's own biases--not just those people whose views are reflected on the front page of the NYT.
For example, here is provoked Josh's reactions: "[The conversation ranges from] wild conspiracy theories about the origins of this war to the blanket assumption that every civilian death in Lebanon was an intentional killing of civilians and a war crime."
We'd have to look at the actual comments and see if we agreed with him, but I don't think it's illegitimate for a publisher not to want to aid and abet this sort of stuff--do you?
Here we see that Josh isn't an Israel right or wronger, but his highly critical of Israel's actions. Again, we'd have to examine what he actually has said, but this is his assessment: "Because in the mainstream debate I find myself very critical of Israeli policy on many issues -- particularly on the territories and particularly since 1996..."
PS: Josh has again felt the need to comment on this Bronner story (see the comments to Avishai's earlier post for Josh's "offended" reaction to Hoyt's article). That in itself is interesting, I think. Because I suspect a lot of what's really at work here is the attempt to define the mainstream--to determine which truths are in-bounds and which are out-of-bounds. Maybe to make certain truths so mainstream that their "objectivity" cannot be questioned . . . and to make these truths so widely acknowledged that censorship of opposing opinions seems not only acceptable, but even necessary and noble.
TT: Seems to be Josh made only one quick comment in support of Bernie's POV. A number of people agreed with Bernie. How is Josh's comment an attempt to "define the mainstream" and decide which truths are "in bounds"? The discussion, unfortunately, never got to the point of actually examining what Bronner has or does say. The argument against Bronner seems to be ONLY about appearances and appearances that make SOME people SUSPECT the Times's Israel-bias. If Bernie (and Josh) say that reassigning Bronner shouldn't be about appearances but about actualities, how is THAT an attempt to control control which truths are accepted? Seems to me that leaves us shadow boxing.
PS: Bronner's personal biases--whatever they are or aren't--are really immaterial. What is important is that Bronner (and the paper he writes for) represents the respectable mainstream. And it's that respectable mainstream, masquerading as objectivity and credibility, that may in some cases be the real and most dangerous enemy of the truth--and also the most potent ally of those with certain personal "core beliefs" that would like to see more widely and unquestioningly adopted.
TT: This seems somewhat circular. On the one hand, this seems to be a battle for whose views will be the "respectable mainstream." On the other hand, it seems to be an attack on the "respectable mainstream" as the enemy of the truth. And you dismiss Bronner's ACTUAL biases, or biased writing, as immaterial. I don't get that. Seems to be that IF Bronner has, for many years, been largely unbiased, largely gotten it right, then the Times should stand up for THAT fact, rather than be sucked down into the undertow of appearances.
I mean, it would be the ultimate irony if the Times lost all its credibility...for telling the truth.
February 9, 2010 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Armchair? Moi? Am I the pro-Israel standard against which others are judged? Has it come to this? (Actually, I'd say I identify pretty strongly with Marshall; I've been fairly consistently critical of many of Israel's actions but have found the depth and vehemence of her opponents sufficiently disturbing that I have become a rather ardent defender. Go figure.)
Anyway, getting back to the substance, I wouldn't call the NYT coverage biased so much as Israel-centric. Israel, in the NYT world, receives the lion's share of the coverage, its struggles, its mistakes, its internal debates, its problems and yes its justifications. Which is not to say that Palestinians don't also receive coverage, but the impression is more of an attempt to explain the "other." There are a number of reasons for this - I tried to list a few in response to mythbuster above. What I don't accept, however, is the view that Bronner merely parrots the Israeli official line.
I also agree somewhat with Purple State's eloquent analysis showing that the fight is really over what makes it into mainstream discourse (though I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion). The NYT reports the I/P conflict from a perspective that is shared by most (maybe all) US news outlets: that is, that while Israel's actions may be wrong or immoral, its existence is legitimate and the threats it faces real. I suspect this is what many of Bronner's critics find objectionable. Other news outlets - the Guardian, for example - don't share this perspective and their coverage differ substantially.
I don't find this terribly novel. The notion of objectivity only goes so far. To take an extreme example, American news outlets uniformly condemned September 11 as an outrageous and barbaric crime. Reportage of the event and of Al Quaeda does not recognize the legitimacy of their grievances. That is a consensus view that affects reportage and is not remarked upon because it is unquestioned. (Which is not to compare Palestinian aspirations to those of Al Quaeda). The prevailing view of Israel in the US media, on the other hand, is being questioned by many, who unsurprisingly find the reporting deficient.
February 9, 2010 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"For example, here is provoked Josh's reactions: "[The conversation ranges from] wild conspiracy theories about the origins of this war to the blanket assumption that every civilian death in Lebanon was an intentional killing of civilians and a war crime."
We'd have to look at the actual comments and see if we agreed with him, but I don't think it's illegitimate for a publisher not to want to aid and abet this sort of stuff--do you?"
I am skeptical of Josh's account. Perhaps some went to ridiculous extremes, but I've seen a lot of criticism of Israel's actions in Lebanon that were very harsh (by human rights organizations such as HRW, for instance), and nobody I saw claimed that "every civilian death in Lebanon was an intentional killing..." That sounds more like the sort of exaggerated comment people make when they are upset by criticism harsher than they want to hear.
The actual debate about the 2006 Lebanon War was not over whether every single one of the civilian deaths (roughly 1000) were deliberate killings, but whether a great many of them were war crimes, and that was a perfectly legitimate viewpoint to adopt, given the evidence. But people unused to the idea (a rather old one for some of us) that the Israelis might be capable of using indiscriminate firepower and killing civilians out of indifference or in some cases even doing it quite deliberately would probably be shocked. Criticism of Israel in the US (and Josh considers himself a critic) is often tightly constrained within the MSM--typically, people say what Obama says in his speeches, that Israel needs to stop settlement building and Palestinians need to cease their violence. The unspoken assumption here is that terrorist violence and the initiation of violence is something Palestinians do, while the Israeli crimes are, well, more genteel, so to speak. Break away from that formulation and start talking about the IDF as being an organization capable of murdering civilians (just like those Palestinian terror groups) and a lot of people think you are engaged in hate speech.
February 9, 2010 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am skeptical of Josh's account.
Would you be less skeptical if you knew Rosenberg was expressing a similar but more exaggerated reaction at the time? Suggestion to check this out from the same time period:
February 9, 2010 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser. Thank you. I mean it.
February 9, 2010 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I clicked onto the MJ post where he complains and read some of the 271 comments afterwards before getting bored. I also read your other link--most of it was typical leftist criticism of Zionism. There were some statements I didn't like, but no worse than some anti-Arab statements in that same thread. In fact, MJ sounded back then rather like the sort of gatekeeper I was complaining about. You may think that MJ and Josh span the respectable range of opinion, but I don't. There was that sweeping statement saying that the "anti-Zionists" at TPM were anti-semites and the clear implication was that every person who was anti-Zionist was really an anti-semite. Well, some are, but some aren't and MJ was inexcusably sloppy with this accusation. (Inexcusably sloppy is being kind). And I'll repeat that Josh's remark
" the blanket assumption that every civilian death in Lebanon was an intentional killing of civilians and a war crime."
sounds to me like Josh didn't like people saying that Israel was engaged in mass murder in Lebanon and he was equating this with anti-semitism. The heart of the debate back then (and also in Gaza) was over the extent to which the deaths of hundreds of civilians were due to Israeli war crimes, and there was a lot of evidence that many were.
Josh's style of rhetoric is used when people criticize American support for atrocities (or our own atrocities)--if you don't pull your punches, you "hated America" or "blamed America for all the evil in the world". You're not supposed to condemn American war crimes (or support for crimes) with the same intensity you'd use for those of al Qaeda. And the same rule applies to Israel. Some of us don't care about that rule.
February 10, 2010 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, as AA seems to be saying or supporting, one would really have to dig into the comments and see what they were, their context, the back and forth flow.
Purple is making some big fat leaps--perhaps depending on his memory of these comments or copies of them--to go from Josh suspending threads to Josh trying to impose some sort of "conventional narrative" standard that allows some truths, but not others to see the light of day.
Maybe, but maybe not. Purple certainly doesn't prove it. And pointing to Josh's one little comment in support of Bernie really doesn't prove it.
The thing that strikes me about what Purple quotes is Josh's willingness to lay bear to public scrutiny his internal dialogue with himself about his own reactions and his own writing and even his own position.
How much more from a writer can one ask than that?
One problem here is that as soon as you say objectivity is sort of impossible, then EVERYONE must be assumed to be biased. A Palestinian would therefore be just as biased as a Jew, perhaps even more so, given the dire straits in which he finds his people. Who cares about truth when you're getting shellacked? You can't afford the luxury.
Now, I'm NOT saying this is true of any Palestinian reporters, but it could be. The appearance could certainly be there. And once you give up objectivity as your desideratum (if only because it's impossible) then you are only left with subjectivity and personal bias to fall back on.
February 9, 2010 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dont' read too much into it, I wasn't trying to say that much.
First of all, I should not that I suspect the worst of the comments that offended Rosenberg in his preceding post of July 14 were mostly removed by Marshall. (A telltale sign of that is the repeat comments by one individual on the July 14 thread with not much inbetween them. Since the beginning of the Cafe, he had made it clear that he wouldn't tolerate blatant racist or anti-semitic remarks and would remove them.) Also keep in mind that the July 14 was his first post as a columnist here, and the July 15 response was like "forget it, if this is the way it's going to be, I'm not going to continue at this place.
But the only real reason I brought it up was Donald J.'s suggestion that maybe Marshall was too sensitive to what feedback he was getting then, too sensitive to judge it fairly. I wanted to point out that whatever Marshall was seeing, Rosenberg was seeing, too.
In fact, I think it really doesn't have a lot to do with the Bronner case, it isn't a good example to use to talk about Bronner. If Rosenberg and Marshall and I saw it, that's a good enough consensus for me that it was there, that it's not a single person being too sensitive.
February 10, 2010 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
oops sorry about the bad coding--
here's the link corrected, even though, as I said, there's not a lot to see there in comments.
February 10, 2010 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, well, having been called quite a few names lately by a certain someone and accused lately of quite a few things by a certain someone, and even accused by that certain someone of having a mental illness--and fwiw in my world progressives don't make use of the painful reality of mental illness to win petty arguments but I guess my world is a little more consistent and real than the world Bernard Avishai analogized recently to MSNBC--I hope you don't mind if I get a chuckle out of the statement you link to for what I concede might be my own selfish reasons.
February 10, 2010 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get more than a chuckle out of it, why do you think I saved it? Here's another link for you. You know, you lawyers get a bit of an unfair rap for how you handle the advocacy role; political lobbyists and their ilk are that ones that deserve the lack of integrity charge far more, it's basically their main job description.
February 10, 2010 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, no food is a perfect food, but that doesn't mean you need to give up eating in despair. Rather, it's best to eat a varied diet. Some foods are healthier than others and some foods so unhealthy as to best be avoided, but generally diversity is nourishing. I'm not so worried if all opinions are a bit biased or incomplete or even a little bit wrong. If I read enough of them and enough diverse ones, I feel like I'm probably getting a good taste of the truth.
As far as the comments that prompted Josh to censor threads and ban commentators, I can't recall them specifically . . . nor have I tried to find them, in part because once Josh removed the offending threads they were, as far as I can tell, lost to anyone without special computer forensic skills. Plus, I don't think Josh shared with anyone specifically which comments motivated him to take action and which he may not have liked but would have tolerated if they were not intermixed with comments he found intolerable. What I can say--from Josh's own statement which I quoted elsewhere in this thread--is that some of what he found extreme were comments that accused Israel of intentionally committing war crimes and that questioned Israel's "right to exist." Whether those ideas are outside the pale or not is a matter of judgment. But making the decision to remove those ideas from a blog seems to me quite clearly "to impose some sort of 'conventional narrative' standard that allows some truths [or at least ideas], but not others to see the light of day."
February 10, 2010 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and that's what I try to do, though at times, my head swims. Too open a mind, perhaps, not enough real knowledge.
Perhaps the only defensible position is the one to keep the gates wide open to...whomever...and simply let the chips fall where they may. Who knows whence the truth will come?
Personally, I've found some commentary WAY over the top. That fellow "Bill" (I think his moniker was longer) who seemed intent on proving certain anti-Semitic tropes to be true, come to mind.
But I guess, if one is going to be perfectly fair and open, one really does have to contemplate the possibility that, for example, Jews and Jewish bankers rule the world for the benefit of their clan. That was one of Bill's favs, and he adduced all kinds of proof.
Why not? It COULD be true, after all. How would I know? And do I really have the time to figure it out myself? Not likely.
February 10, 2010 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I'd agree . . . every once in a while you'll encounter a morsel that's gone rancid . . . I don't remember Bill particularly, but I've read a few comments on this site (though, reassuringly only a very few) that are probably best left for the maggots.
For the most part I just hold my nose on those . . . and move on to something more palatable.
February 10, 2010 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin . . . I think AG's response to your comments is very much my own. (Thanks AG, you saved me time!)
I think I see Bronner's coverage for what it is. It is stripped of obvious bias, but it is also extremely conventional. It is the safe mainstream of truth . . . the kind of truth that would be written by someone who believes that it's important to present both sides of the story and not hide facts, who will criticize Israel and the Palestinians alike, but who is also comfortable (as I suspect he is) with his son making the decision to join the IDF and who therefore has a clear opinion about the degree of goodness or badness represented by both Israel and the IDF (a degree of goodness or badness that is, in fact, in dispute and which is at least part of the story upon which Bronner is called to report).
I read Bronner's reports in the NYT. I don't think they are bad. Nor do I think they are all that biased. I just don't think his reporting gives me the fullest view of the truth. Instead he (and the NYT in general) presents a rather constrained and cautious view of the truth-- not wrong, mind you, but just a tad monochromatic in world that is almost floridly polychromatic.
And thanks everyone for all the nice comments on my post . . .
February 9, 2010 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then, I guess, reassigning Bronner would only DEEPEN people's trust in what you call a monochromatic picture, yes?
That is, because he would be replaced with someone who was, essentially, the same, but had earned the patina of objectivity.
And not reassigning Bronner would also result in the same actual reporting while, perhaps, leaving some folks more skeptical of the NYT's objectivity.
Leaving him in place then would, ironically, move the conversation forward, no?
February 9, 2010 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then, I guess, reassigning Bronner would only DEEPEN people's trust in what you call a monochromatic picture, yes
It would at least do less to upset that trust. That, in fact, is why the policy against apparent conflicts of interest exists. To preserve trust in the "Gray Lady" and its monochrome truths. And it's why reassigning Bronner is exactly what one would expect the NYT to do in cases like this, regardless of what particular issue the reporter was reporting on.
That is, because he would be replaced with someone who was, essentially, the same, but had earned the patina of objectivity.
Or at least hadn't lost the patina . . .
And not reassigning Bronner would also result in the same actual reporting while, perhaps, leaving some folks more skeptical of the NYT's objectivity.
Yes.
Leaving him in place then would, ironically, move the conversation forward, no?
Possibly. But more likely the skeptics would simply be ignored . . . and the bar for what constitutes an apparent conflict of interest would be lowered further. Maybe next Bronner himself could join the IDF and we'd all shrug and say "so what" . . . he can still be objective if he asks the right questions . . .
February 9, 2010 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Avishai has been arguing that reporters can become something like a "transparent eyeball"--asking the right questions and reporting the story neutrally despite their own personal biases.'
Purple State, I did not say this at all. In fact, the whole point of my post was that a reporter's (or scientist's, or scholar's) way to the truth is 1) through exposing oneself sufficiently over a period of time to a subject, so that he or she knows the range of good (i.e. relevant) questions that may be asked, and 2) holding stringently to rules of evidence. The idea that, rather, biases are key, but may perhaps be held in check the way an AA member holds alcoholism in check, is everywhere in these comments. The position makes a nonsense of epistemology.
How you get to good questions is an unpredictable journey. Tony Judt, for example, got to wonder about a binational state, in part, by going to an Israeli kibbutz in his youth, and then by looking sympathetically at the EU (I am greatly simplifying, of course; there were also, no doubt, thousands of other personal encounters on the journey). I did something very much like Judt, but argued a different position in The Hebrew Republic. In neither case, should he or I be judged by our journeys. And yet neither of us have a "transparent eyeball." No, the plausibility of what we say should be judged on the basis of the range of questions we deal with and their logic and evidence.
For example, I think Judt ignores too much the significance and richness of Hebrew culture, the ways the EU protects national cultures, and the implausibility of mixing an economy like Israel's with that of Palestine's in a unitary state. My Palestinian friends in Ramallah agree. But Judt, if he were able (alas), might mount other arguments against mine. It is these, not our "biases," that matter.
Regarding NYT, you want people who have made some kind of journey. I find NYT people who come to the region "fresh" as naive as, well, Tony Blair. You can painfully see the learning curve in reporters, especially from EU countries, and who want to be hip and left--outside the American "mainstream"--and call me all the time for ideas. The problem, you see, is not how to define the "mainstream," but how one gets into the conversation at all.
February 10, 2010 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bernie, thanks for the clarification. As I was writing that paragraph I wasn't quite confident myself that what I was saying was a perfectly accurate representation of what you were saying. I agree that there are "methods" that can and will make a diligent reporter's reporting less likely to be biased. But reporting on politics isn't science, and I think, if we seek "truth" (whatever that is) we need to recognize that the choices reporters make in their reporting and the words they choose are inevitably influenced by the reporter's own background and beliefs. I don't want to imply by this that everyone is biased and therefore all truth is merely subjective and sort of a personal choice, with all choices having equal validity. But I do think that without some point of view there is no seeing. The reporter has to start somewhere--he needs some structure, some framework--before he can start to judge what's important, what's right to report, and what's not right to report. And I think that structure is necessarily influenced by the reporter's "core beliefs." We may think we can adopt some method that makes us perfectly neutral--but I'm afraid, as much as we try not to, our emotions and preferences do influence what we think is important. Even real scientists sometimes cling to their pet theories long after the evidence has proved their theories wrong. In politics--where truth is far less certain and the standards of proof far less clear--the challenge of staying "scientifically" neutral is even greater. Far better, I think, to acknowledge the problem and avoid it by seeking a greater diversity of views than to assume that one man with the right method (or a dozen with the same method) will find the way to the truth.
Also . . . it's important to realize that in ethics and politics and many other fields the truth may not be absolute and really is a human creation. That's a whole 'nother topic . . . but part of what we do when we talk politics is not find truth, but create it.
February 10, 2010 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It is highly unlikely that young Bronner would be devoted to Israel if his parents were not. His devotion is a reflection of theirs. (Much as my kids' dovish liberalism is a reflection of their parents)."
How truly sad for your kids. They were not able to form their own beliefs but merely a "reflection" of your beliefs.
Bronner's son has lived in Israel. His friends are probably all Israelis. It would be unusual if he didn't sympathize strongly with his friends whatever his father's beliefs.
February 9, 2010 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your string of posts adding to nothing the discusion remains unbroken. You are the Joe DiMaggio of the tangent.
February 9, 2010 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish someone would ask Bronner: "Why does your son find Israel more worthy of sacrifices than the USA?" I'm implying the military requires sacrifices by its nature whether in some conflict or not. I guess the questioner would be accused of being anti-Semitic in our strange new world. I wonder if there is any non-trivial question that can be asked using the noun Israel without having the neo-enforcers pointing fingers and caressing their clubs.
February 9, 2010 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know why his son doesn't lose his American citizenship by serving in a foreign army.
February 9, 2010 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It cannot be repeated often enough or prominently enough: "Israel has become a foreign country." It sickening to any real American how often and routinely this simple reality is flagrantly ignored by members of the US Congress. No other country in the world gets such kid glove treatment. The butchers of Gaza do not remotely deserve it. The many other points made above, some valid, some not, pale into insignificance in comparison.
Thanks MJ, for speaking out against the brainwashed mob.
February 9, 2010 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I'm old fashioned, but I really do think that unless objectivity can be determined by examining a journalist's writing rather than his personal feelings, then objectivity isn't worth striving for.
February 9, 2010 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the New Criticism!
February 9, 2010 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My feelings on these issues changed when the US got lied into war in Iraq.
It's not just that this guy's son has joined a foreign aremy. It's that he's joined a foreign army while other American kids are spending 3, 4, or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's not like we have a surplus of smart, fit, kids volunteering and it's not like the war they are fighting has any benefit whatever for Iowa or Idaho.
So whoever is reporting from our so-called national newspaper on matters that may impact the lives of the men and women in combat better have his bias in favor of the AMERICAN armed forces.
February 9, 2010 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many people know Rahm Emanuel served in the IDF? Which is scarier???
February 9, 2010 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot Josh had censored the threads during the Lebanon war.
Yet he's opposed to the potential reassignment of Bronner because it's censorship.
So Josh himself proves MJ's point.
That's fucking brilliant, although no one here has figured out this little irony yet.
February 10, 2010 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen all of you, I am sick of this nonsense. That we are still even having this "debate" in 2010 is disturbing. I have been in the US media, and posted to the Middle East. I cannot share how many stories I have personally experienced and witnessed on this subject of Friedman, and Bonner, and Dershowitz, and loyalty to America and Israel. Shut Up, all of you, and do something.Israel is not the 51st state, it is the First. Anyone who challenges Israel is excoriated, made to feel like a bad Jew, or a self loathing and confused traitor. I was accused of that, told shut up and go back to NY and send money, or come here and live and face the Arabs personally. So I went and lived in Baghdad, Riyadh, Dubai, Cairo, Kuwait...for 35 years. So Now I say enough! I have earned the right to tell Americans that unless you want 10 million Muslims feeling closer allegience to Al Qaida than America, get it right. America is your flag, not Israel. You cannot have it both ways, and I refuse to accept such dual loyalty anymore.
And what is in Israels best interest, perpetual war and isolation, and yet another ghetto surrounded by a wall this time of our own making? or real peace where neighbors are not trying to invade and kill us? Stop this sterile debate and figure it out. Israel either wants peace with the Arabs, or a piece of the Arabs (land). One or the other. But be honest for a change. And do not clasim Arabs do not want peace, I have lived ther e35 years and they do want peace, on fair and respected terms, not under second class apartheid.
Those who suffered oppression and discrimination must be more sensitive, and if they then go and inflict the same on other, shame on them, they are worse than those who did it to them first. Is the lesson we learned from our history "do unto others before then can do unto you???" OMG! Then we are doomed to another cycle of violence and hatred and despair. But it seems too many of our people indeed only feel that is how they can exist. their hearts and psyches are too scarred. Is that our fate? really?
February 10, 2010 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
TOUCHDOWN
BINGO
February 10, 2010 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has become a foreign country. And if the New York Times' correspondent's son joins the Israeli army, it matters.
Great point.San Jose Movers
September 13, 2010 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me, at bottom, Josh felt he was hearing stuff that had, not so much departed from "the mainstream" as departed from the facts and, even, edged toward anti-Semitism or a double standard applied to Israel. auto transport.
December 21, 2010 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, yes, I agree that the Times should have the deal with the fact that the Israeli position is not the default moral position but when you say it's not a big deal because hey, it just affects him and his family, I have to take some car transport issue.
December 29, 2010 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now they are one of the few global papers of record left and they might take a bigger view and rethink where their shrinking resources go. And like I said, if they want to go more xenophobic and less global, well fine, then do Haiti or Latin America more. For chrissakes Mexico is on its way to becoming Haiti Search Engine Marketing...
December 29, 2010 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has become a foreign country. And if the New York Times' correspondent's son joins the Israeli army, it matters.
Divorce Attorney New York
February 14, 2011 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has got to be reassigned or the Times loses credibility on ME reporting. Its a business decision and very good one.
best payday loans
February 18, 2011 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has become a foreign country. And if the New York Times' correspondent's son joins the Israeli army, it matters.
Divorce Attorney NY
February 21, 2011 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
He wrote in Harpers that he saw silencers on the Israeli soldiers rifles -- certainly not standard issue for infantrymen with M-16s. What Hedges actually saw were the rubber bullet cylinders at the end of the M-16s, converting the gun into a non-lethal weapon.
New York Divorce Lawyers
February 22, 2011 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
search engine optimization, seo, search engine marketing, sem, seo services, local seo, link building, search engine optimization.
February 22, 2011 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
san francisco movers, moving companies, mover companies, moving quotes, mover packer, moving company, moving services, local mover, moving leads, san francisco movers.
February 22, 2011 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harpers that he saw silencers on the Israeli soldiers rifles -- certainly not standard issue for infantrymen with M-16s. What Hedges actually saw were the rubber bullet cylinders at the end of the M-16s, converting the gun into a non-lethal weapon.
Mens Wallets
February 23, 2011 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harpers that he saw silencers on the Israeli soldiers rifles -- certainly not standard issue for infantrymen with M-16s. What Hedges actually saw were the rubber bullet cylinders at the end of the M-16s, converting the gun into a non-lethal weapon.
premium electronic cigarette
February 23, 2011 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
silencers on the Israeli soldiers rifles -- certainly not standard issue for infantrymen with M-16s. What Hedges actually saw were the rubber bullet cylinders at the end of the M-16s, converting the gun into a non-lethal weapon.
desperate housewives online
February 24, 2011 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hedges actually saw were the rubber bullet cylinders at the end of the M-16s, converting the gun into a non-lethal weapon.
paper folding machine
February 25, 2011 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Hedges actually saw were the rubber bullet cylinders at the end of the M-16s, converting the gun into a non-lethal weapon.
AZ IOLTA
February 27, 2011 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Hedges actually saw were the rubber bullet cylinders at the end of the M-16s, converting the gun into a non-lethal weapon.
Orkut Scrap
March 1, 2011 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks But here's the real story. Suddenly the New York Times feels the need to deal with its critics who argue that an intense attachment to Israel obscures objective judgement on the Middle East. 5s
March 4, 2011 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the end, the Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
Mortgage Rates
March 4, 2011 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans who want to serve, can and do serve in their own army, Serving in a foreign army is extraordinary.
kata mutiara
March 5, 2011 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
headphones
March 5, 2011 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
NY Divorce Lawyer
March 6, 2011 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
phlebotomist salary
March 8, 2011 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The difference now is that the bloom is off the rose. Israel may be a foreign country many Americans love, but it is a foreign country.
How to Lose Weight
March 8, 2011 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice information this is really interesting. Good luck in building the table.
Hamza khan
March 14, 2011 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those who emigrate to Israel or whose children do (and/or join its army) have a vested interest in Israel that conflicts with the role of a journalist. And if their child is in the Israeli army, they have a vested interest in the success of that army and in its reputation.
casino en ligne
March 17, 2011 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
srael or whose children do (and/or join its army) have a vested interest in Israel that conflicts with the role of a journalist. And if their child is in the Israeli army, they have a vested interest in the success of that army and in its reputation.iPad Ständer
March 22, 2011 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad to read this post, its an interesting one. I am always searching for quality posts and articles and this is what I found here, I hope you will be adding more in future. Thanks
birthday wishes messages
March 23, 2011 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for posting such a useful website. Your weblog happens to be not just informative but also very stimulating too.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, setup iscsi windows 2003
March 24, 2011 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll still advise you to borrow one of the books in the Positive Discipline series by Jane Nelsen from the library. You will learn how to address situations like the one you describe.
penny auctions
March 25, 2011 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
shipping a car, auto transport, automobile transporters, auto shippers, auto transporters, shipping a car.
April 7, 2011 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
automobile transporters, auto transport, automobile transporter, auto shippers, auto transporters, automobile transporters.
April 7, 2011 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Positive Discipline series by Jane Nelsen from the library. You will learn how to address situations like the one you describe.
Natural Dog Food
April 7, 2011 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the end, the Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
Cloud Computing
April 16, 2011 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You will learn how to address situations like the one you describe.
Houston SEO
April 19, 2011 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the end, the Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
FrostWire
April 22, 2011 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
vehicle insurance quotes
April 22, 2011 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last thing they should do is take charge of fixing the leak itself when they
Speeding Fines
April 24, 2011 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
tradeforge fx review
April 24, 2011 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The underlying assumption of any Friedman column is that if it's good for Israel, it's good for America. It's right.
grow taller 4 idiots
April 24, 2011 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability network
April 27, 2011 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
florida bus dealer
April 27, 2011 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is new. Until very recently the assumption was that the Israeli position was, by definition, the neutral, disinterested position. casino en ligne
April 27, 2011 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the end, the Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
business debt consolidation
April 29, 2011 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
May 1, 2011 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
May 1, 2011 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.
meilleur bonus
May 4, 2011 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink