Normally, New York Times journalists work under a strict code of behavior meant to reduce the appearance of bias in their reports. They are not, for instance, allowed to attend political rallies or demonstrations in their personal capacity. One Times reporter told me years ago that she couldn’t go to a pro-abortion rights march, even though she didn’t cover the issue. These restrictions extend into the Internet Age. Times journalists on social media are supposed to be guarded in their opinions, and they can be cautioned if they overstep.
But the Times’s struggle against even the appearance of bias vanishes when the subject is Israel and the Palestinians. The organization called Writers Against the War on Gaza recently released a “dossier” which listed “high-ranking editors, journalists and executive officers at the Times” who the group alleges have “material and ideological ties to occupation and apartheid.”
Most obvious are Times reporters who have personal or family connections to Israel’s military. The dossier cites Natan Odenheimer, who actually served in the army’s “Maglan” special forces commando unit for almost 4 years. Interestingly, Odenheimer’s own summary of his experience on the Times website completely leaves out this portion of his biography. He tells us: “I’ve reported on Israelis and Palestinians for over a decade, and my work has also taken me to Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and other locations.” But somehow his military experience didn’t make the cut.
Reporter Isabel Kershner’s two sons served in Israel’s military. And in the past, Ethan Bronner’s son was also a soldier. The dossier notes that Bill Keller, then the Times’s executive editor, actually defended that connection, arguing that Bronner’s reporting benefited, because his son’s service “suppl[ied] a measure of sophistication about Israel and its adversaries that someone with no connections would lack.” (For the record, this site has over the years been on top of this story. Here’s the Kershner connection, from more than a decade ago. And Phil Weiss explained how Bronner went to great lengths to try and conceal the link.)
Let’s pause for a thought experiment. Let’s say the Times considered hiring a Palestinian reporter in Jerusalem — who it then turned out had belonged to a militant group in his or her youth. The ensuing firestorm of criticism would instantly sink the appointment.
The dossier also cites Times opinion writers who have strong pro-Israel views, including columnists Bret Stephens, Thomas Friedman, and David Brooks. Here, in fairness, the paper is on firmer ground, because editorial writers, unlike reporters, are allowed, in fact encouraged, to have opinions. That said, you certainly won’t find anything approaching balance — which would be (at least) three columnists with pro-Palestinian backgrounds and views who regularly appear on the paper’s editorial page.
The dossier also cites people in Times management to raise still more legitimate questions of bias. One key example is Meredith Kopit Levien, who was on the advisory board of the pro-Zionist organization B’nai B’rith when she was picked as the paper’s CEO in 2020. In fairness, Levien is also not an actual reporter, and she doesn’t have to meet the same exacting standards. However: another thought experiment. Let’s say the Times found a talented candidate for a senior management post who was part of a group that advocated on behalf of another foreign government with a long list of human rights abuses. Would he or she get the job?
By James North