NYT public editor: Bronner should be reassigned

I don't think Bronner is a particularly biased reporter by the standards of U.S. journalists covering the Israeli-Arab conflict. You can find examples of bias in his work -- Evan documented a few good examples in his post, the Tikun Olam blog documents more -- but you'll find the same examples in most U.S. newspapers. And journalists don't work in a vacuum: Slanted phrasing in an Ethan Bronner story might reflect the New York Times' institutional biases, not his own personal views.

So the question here is more about perceived bias -- and the potential for a future conflict of interest.

Keller argues that reassigning Bronner would create a slippery slope: Every reporter has "history, relationships, ideas, beliefs," after all, and all of those influence his coverage. One example he cites:

Anthony Shadid, who currently covers Iraq for us, is an American of Lebanese descent. He covered the Israeli invasion of Lebanon for the Washington Post, and he wrote with distinction and fairmindedness. Again, I don't know his politics and can't discern them in his work, but I know that his background -- what you and Alex Jones might call his appearance of a conflict of interest -- enriches his work with a deep appreciation of the language, culture and history of the region.

Shadid is one of the journalists I most admire, so maybe I'm biased here (ha, ha). But this argument is flawed: If Keller wants to bring up Shadid's Lebanese heritage, the correct analogy is with Bronner's Jewishness -- and nobody (well, almost nobody) thinks Bronner should be disqualified from covering the Israeli-Arab conflict because he goes to synagogue.

Every journalist has a history, but that history doesn't always present an ongoing conflict of interest. A reporter's heritage or religion or employment history don't necessarily give him a vested interest in a particular outcome. And sometimes they offer benefits: Shadid is an Arabic speaker, and he has a far more nuanced understanding of Arab culture than most correspondents; CJ Chivers, an ex-Marine covering the war in Afghanistan, understands the military in a way most civilian journalists can't.

In Bronner's case, having a son in the IDF offers no such benefits. It doesn't improve Bronner's coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict. But it presents a serious ongoing potential conflict of interest. From Hoyt's column:

Keller said that if Israel launched a new assault into Gaza and Bronner's son were a foot soldier, "I don't think I'd have any problem with Ethan covering the conflict." It would be a tougher call if the son rose to a commanding role, he said, and if the son's unit were accused of wrongdoing, Keller said he thought he would assign another reporter.

Could you write objectively about a war your son is fighting? I agree with what Evan wrote last month: "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."

The closest analogy Keller raises is that of a business reporter who owns stock in the company he covers. In both cases, the journalist has a vested interest in the story -- a financial interest in the stock scenario, and a familial interest in Bronner's. Ironically, the paper's policy on stock ownership is quite clear: "A business reporter, even one of unquestioned integrity, cannot own stock in a company he or she covers. That's the policy."

So a business reporter can't own Google stock and report on Google -- but a foreign correspondent can report on the Israeli-Arab conflict, even when his own son has taken up arms for one side of that conflict.

I don't think Bronner should be barred altogether from writing about Israel and Palestine. But I do think the NYT should pull him from any stories involving the IDF until his son's service is over -- until the ongoing conflict of interest ends.