A reader writes:
I'm glad to see you touching the Ethan Bronner situation, but I'm pretty surprised you do not see a "shred of bias" in his reporting. As Lysandra Ohstrom points out in her HuffPo column, a search of Bronner's recent articles points to his Israeli-centric approach to the conflict. Virtually every article quotes Israelis, but few if any Palestinians. Most glaringly, he's written about Israel's Rebuttal to Goldstone, but nothing about the Goldstone report itself. This is simply astonishing. Did Bronner even read the report?
Bronner was biased before his son joined the IDF, so this dust-up just makes the case against him much more vivid and clear.
Let's be realistic; would Mr. Keller be willing to look the other way if a correspondent's direct family member joined Hamas or Hezbollah? Of course not; issues of bias and conflicts of interest would immediately come in to play. What makes Bronner more special?
Finally, as a journalist, I think you should be pushing for the NYT to assign an Arab-American reporter to cover Gaza and the West Bank. It is incredibly perplexing that they have expected Bronner to cover both occupied Arab side and the Jewish side of this conflict while living in the comfort of Israel. Taghreed El-Khodary, the NYT's correspondent in Gaza, would make an excellent choice.
Goldblog addresses a similar question from a reader. His bottom line:
This sort of reductionist thinking isn't useful. It ghettoizes writers and thinkers based on the circumstances of their births.