NYT Jerusalem bureau chief in hot water over son's likely IDF role

It's alright to argue that Bronner's coverage has been "scrupulously fair," even though some would disagree. But issuing a non-denial denial that shifts responsibility for the situation to Bronner's son makes it seem like the Times hasn't taken the situation seriously or done its homework.

Bronner himself, according to Wikipedia, is Jewish. His Jewishness alone does not amount to a conflict of interest, or even an appearance of one, but if his son has joined the IDF, I think it raises a serious concern. (We can have a separate conversation later about the wisdom of assigning Jews or Muslims to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; I personally think all news outlets should reserve the position for lapsed mainstream WASPs.)

I don't know what it's like to have children, but if a close member of my family joined the U.S. military -- or any government agency or private company -- my natural, human reaction would be to develop some kind of sympathy, if not affinity, for the organization. If someone criticized the organization, I might, instead of joining in the excoriation, come up with lines of defense, if not to shield the entire group, then at least to excuse or explain my relative's role.

It would take restraint for a journalist to prevent any tinge of that bias from invading their writing. It would take significantly more effort to make sure the bias wasn't subtly affecting less-controllable but related aspects of their job: developing human sources, choosing their reading, deciding which stories to cover in the first place. I doubt that I would be as inclined as I was before to seek out stories that would damage my relative's organization. And on the other hand, there would also be a risk that I might overcompensate by seeking out stories I normally would not, simply to prove that I could, in fact, overcome the appearance of a conflict and criticize my relative's business.

These are all things the Times needs to be sure Bronner considers, if the story about his son is true. But Chira's response gives no indication that any review has occurred.

Gregg and I have previously critiqued some of Bronner's writing in casual, off-site conversations, though for reasons that had nothing to do with his son.

We were concerned in early June, just before President Obama's Cairo speech to the Muslim world, when the Times ran an extremely thinly sourced story by Bronner that quoted an undefined number of anonymous "senior Israeli officials" who complained that Obama's call for a settlement freeze violated pacts that Israel had made with the Bush administration.

To rebut the anonymous Israelis' complaint, Bronner used two Bush administration officials -- they were anonymous as well. Bronner's two on-the-record sources were Dov Weissglas, a former aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and Elliot Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser for President George W. Bush. Both Abrams and Weissglass had published op-eds that Bronner relied on for his story; he appeared to have actually interviewed only Weissglas.

At the end of June, Bronner's anonymous Israeli sources struck again in a piece that appeared to be aimed at spinning the settlement freeze debate ahead of an Israeli-American meeting on the issue. This was Bronner's lede: "Israel would be open to a complete freeze of settlement building in the West Bank for three to six months as part of a broad Middle East peace endeavor that included a Palestinian agreement to negotiate an end to the conflict and confidence-building steps by major Arab nations, senior Israeli officials said Sunday."

Three grafs later, Bronner wrote: "While such an offer falls short of President Obama's demand that Israel halt all settlement building now, it is the most forthcoming response that senior Israeli officials have given to date and suggests that American pressure is having some effect."

Obama wound up winning a slightly longer, though still extremely qualified settlement freeze. But the Israeli offer described in the June 29 article, which Bronner presented in a positive light, still looks like a pittance in retrospect.

Richard Silverstein, a self-described pro-Israel, progressive, liberal Jew who runs the Tikun Olam blog, has criticized a long list of Bronner articles dating back to May 8, 2008, two months after Bronner took over as Jerusalem bureau chief. Silverstein claimed in a post on Monday to have heard a rumor about Bronner's son joining the IDF in July. He passed the rumor on, and freelance journalist Antony Loewenstein asked Bronner directly. Bronner denied it.

Silverstein and others have raised hypothetical comparisons to point out the conflict of interest inherent in Bronner's having a child who belongs to the army of one of the nations involved in a conflict he must write about every day. What if a reporter's son belonged to Hizballah, or if Bronner was a business reporter whose son worked at a Wall Street firm? Would business-reporter Bronner or the man with the son in Hizballah be allowed to keep their positions?

Such hypotheticals drive the point home, but ultimately they're not extremely useful, since conflict of interest situations are so unique. My gut tells me that the Times should reassign Bronner, or at least not keep him as bureau chief, but if the newspaper -- following a lot of thought -- truly believes that he can subdue his biases, perhaps he should be allowed to stay. The problem for Bronner, the Times and readers is that everything Bronner writes will now be viewed with double scrutiny. That takes away from the journalism -- the storytelling -- and isn't good for anyone.