February 28, 2010
Do you have to be Jewish to report on Israel for the New York Times?
Jonathan Cook in Mondoweiss:
Shortly after I wrote an earlier piece on Bronner, pointing out that most Western coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict is shaped by Jewish and Israeli journalists, and that Palestinian voices are almost entirely excluded, a Jerusalem-based bureau chief asked to meet. Over a coffee he congratulated me, adding: “I’d be fired if I wrote something like that.”
This reporter, who, unlike me, spends lots of time with the main press corps in Jerusalem, then made some interesting points. He wishes to remain anonymous but has agreed to my passing on his observations. He calls Bronner’s situation “the rule, not the exception”, adding: “I can think of a dozen foreign bureau chiefs, responsible for covering both Israel and the Palestinians, who have served in the Israeli army, and another dozen who like Bronner have kids in the Israeli army.”
He added that it is very common to hear Western reporters boasting to one another about their “Zionist” credentials, their service in the Israeli army or the loyal service of their children. “Comments like that are very common at Foreign Press Association gatherings [in Israel] among the senior, agenda-setting, elite journalists.”
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 11:41 PM | Permalink
Comments
The answer is , not necessarily , but preferably and for better perception of authenticity , yes.
Posted by: Anil Thakuria MD | Mar 1, 2010 12:06:40 PM
I am in no position to make a serious observation without knowing how many Palestinians have been contacted by this or that paper and write fluently in English etc.
But I have often wondered why it is that we find so many Jewish Americans and Israelis opposing the Israeli govt but never ever seem to find any Arab commentators voicing opposition to Arab (Palestinian) positions.
Journals such as NY Rev of Bks seem always to find an Israeli or Jewish writer to badmouth Israel. But I simply do not see the reverse of this anywhere.
Posted by: fred lapides | Mar 1, 2010 4:20:28 PM
Fred,
Edward Said, easily the most prominent intellectual spokesman in the United States for Palestinian rights, was fiercely critical of Arafat and others, in several different Western newspapers. The fact that you use the plural "Arab (Palestinian) positions" suggests that you recognize that there is political disagreement amongst Arabs. Why the Western press ignores the details of those disagreements in favor of a loop of images of armed and bearded wild men speaks more about a lazy media that is uninterested in nuance, rather than any mindless solidarity which I think you might be hinting at.
Posted by: Jesse | Mar 1, 2010 5:10:34 PM
In short: Article states the obvious. Apologists for Israel and its crimes, as usual, grasp at straws.
Posted by: Pepito | Mar 1, 2010 7:59:29 PM
It is a great shame that apparently the market will bear the kind of reporting that 'access' provides, for it eventually is just stenography. First the truth is missed, because only one side is even encountered. Then, in order not to be disfavored by the powerful, the writer gives equal weight to what he - "it's usually a he" - equal weight to what the reporter must know is a lie, in order to be 'objective'; "others say", "some disagree"; but the anonymous "sources close to the White House" always have the last, and most, words.
So, eventually it sort of becomes true, that the powers' lies are all that can matter, since no understanding can be had by the public, and therefore, nothing other than what the powerful want can ever be 'new;s,' there will be no opposition.
Oops,I forgot this is about Israel, and not Washington. Right.
Posted by: Alice de Tocqueville | Mar 2, 2010 1:05:44 AM
Fred, my reading of that is that the Palestinian position is stronger.
Posted by: Sagredo | Mar 2, 2010 1:42:25 AM
Post a comment