Ethan Bronner Out As NYT Jerusalem Chief

The New York Times has replaced its controversial Jerusalem bureau chief, Ethan Bronner.

Politico reported Tuesday that Bronner is returning to the U.S. to become the Times' legal affairs correspondent. Education editor Jodi Rudoren is replacing him in Israel. In a letter to the site, Bronner said he had made the decision to return.

The Jerusalem bureau chief is bound to attract controversy simply by virtue of the region the reporter is covering. But Bronner attracted another level of attention in 2010, when the website Electronic Intifada revealed that his son was a soldier in the Israeli Defense Army. The site, along with many others, dubbed this a flagrant conflict of interest for a journalist covering Israel and Palestine. Clark Hoyt, the then-public editor of the Times, called for Bronner to be reassigned, though he stressed that he thought he was a fair journalist.

The Times mounted a staunch defense of Bronner, and he was not reassigned. His son left the IDF in 2011.

Comments

[Matt12]

11:59 AM on 03/16/2012

If the NYT bureau chief in Syria had a son in the Syrian army, how would people feel? Would they still believe that the BC was covering the Syrian conflict even handedly? More than likely there would have been solid protest for his removal

[Haroldpom]

07:36 PM on 02/14/2012

Is it reasonable to expect any American journalist with relatives in the U.S. military to have no opinions or stake in attacks on the United States or its forces abroad? While news reporters ought not to take part in partisan politics or advocacy on issues related to their beats, the notion that they should take no position on wars between Western democracy and Islamist terrorists extends rules about objectivity beyond reason. Those who are neutral about the idea that it is okay to single out the one Jewish state in the world for destruction should be accused of a far worse sin than a lack of complete objectivity.

Just as American reporters can and do report stories that can put the government and/or the U.S. military in a bad light while still acting as loyal citizens of this country, so, too, can any person living in Israel report honestly while not choosing to remain completely aloof from that country’s war of survival. Having a son in the IDF did not make Bronner a stooge of the Israeli government.

On the contrary, the vast majority of the foreign press contingent in Israel who proclaim neutrality about the conflict but treat Arab terrorism with kid gloves and assist the delegitimization of the democratic state in which they are living are the ones who deserve censure for bias. Whatever Ethan Bronner’s sins, at least he was not guilty of that. Let’s hope his successor is no worse than him.

[eric14]

05:31 AM on 02/15/2012

and assist the delegitimi­zation of the democratic state
---------------------------------------
Is that code for pointing out the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the relentless theft of Arab property legitimized by the democratic state of Israel? Democracy is a form of government, not a reason for being uncritically praised.

[Haroldpom]

07:32 AM on 02/15/2012

The New York Times and its reporters have been no fans of Israel. They constantly cheer for the Palestinians no matter what they do and bad mouth the Israelis no matter what they do. They are not unbiased observers.

[kevinw]

11:59 AM on 02/16/2012

You miss the point perhaps purposely. He is covering the news in a foreign government. He is the bureau chief. The fact that his son is part of the the foreign governments army places him in a conflict even if he were disciplined enough to stay objective. The Times needed to at least have a disclaimer on any of the stories coming from his bureau. Any operation or clandestine effort could involve his son. For all we know, his son could have been involved in either training or getting resources to the assassination squads taking out civilian Iranian scientists in Iran. Would Bronner report the story if he knew that his son was part of an effort that could be construed as a war crime? I don't know the man, perhaps he could. That is why however his reports need to have at a minimum a disclaimer that his son is in the IDF.

[Haroldpom]

07:05 PM on 02/16/2012

I don't think you could say that Bronner showed any favoritism to Israel even though his son was in the Israeli army. If he did, he never could have been part of the staff of the New York Times.