It's interesting to see the misreporting on Thomas's words. For example, nowhere did she say the word "Jews."
Another point also tells more about her critics than about her.
When one actually views the video, it appears that Thomas is referring to Israeli settlers. (Truthfully, the correct word should be colonists, but I'll use the commonly employed euphemism).
Her words are: "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied. And it’s their land…”
The reference to "occupied" would normally suggest the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinian Occupied Territories. However, her attackers almost universally seem to have taken her words as referring to all of Israel.
In other words, in a sort of Freudian slip, her attackers acknowledge that all of the land of Palestine is occupied.
Interesting.
]]>In a chilling JTA video from this convention, longtime AIPAC operative Jonathon Kessler is seen describing the Israel lobby's' plan to take over the University of California Berkeley student government, which had passed by 16-4 a resolution detested by the pro-Israel lobby.
In front of a cheering throng, Kessler announced:
We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government and reverse the vote. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.
Yes, that is exactly what the Israel lobby has often succeeded in doing in Congress and throughout the United States. It has taken over numerous campus organizations, university departments, and even churches. (See my recent article giving some of the specifics of this decades-long campaign).
For years writers such as Paul Findley, Edward Tivnan, George Ball, Donald Neff, John Mulhall, Steven Green, James Abourezek, Andrew Killgore, Richard Curtiss, Janet McMahon, Delinda Hanley, James Ennes, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have described this process, but their books have been largely suppressed and/or attacked and only a very small portion of the American public is aware of ths information.
Please view the following video and send it to others. It is time for all of us – of all religions, races, ethnicities and political backgrounds – to oppose this fanatic, destructive, manipulative, and massively powerful special interest pressure group.
As an immediate, critical action, please contact the UC Berkeley student Senate and urge its members to override the extremely inappropriate veto by its absentee president. (More information here.)
Following is a moving letter that one person has already sent:
Dear members of the ASUC Senate,
My name is Anne Weinstein Garcia. I am a Jewish American woman and a college teacher in Ann Arbor, Michigan. But I will always call California “home”. I was born in California, received my doctorate from the University of California, San Francisco and was fortunate enough to be fully funded by a prestigious scholarship for my complete tenure there. Preceding my doctoral work (and post-doctoral studies in Cambridge, England), I had received other academic degrees in Fresno and San Diego.
I mention all of these experiences as evidence of what would appear to be a strong educational background.
But at the ripe old age of 50 (almost 6 years ago), I discovered that my education in at least one arena was sadly lacking—the “story” of Israel. Now I had been told a story over all those years—from my family, my friends, my temple and my community. This story was corroborated by the popular culture that emphasized the frequent persecution of people of the Jewish faith during Biblical times; I saw the film “The Ten Commandments” when I was 4 or 5 and read Exodus when I was 13. My understanding of why the state of Israel was to be celebrated was also based on the narratives of various plays and films I attended as a young adult—I know the words to “Fiddler on the Roof” by heart. And much of these “historical” events did take place—in one fashion or another.
Unfortunately, however, none of these experiences provided me with the factual basis of why Israel was founded, and equally importantly, how it was founded—namely, on the backs of the Palestinian people. The injustice that has been done to them for over 60 years now is so reminiscent of the mistreatment of Jews throughout history that one is blinded by the parallels.
By now I have to believe that you, as educated members of the Berkeley campus (a campus from which both of my nieces recently graduated and one of them is currently completing her residency at UC Davis), know full well that the only thing that stands between human rights for the Palestinians and the abuse of power by Israel is the political will of Americans to do the right thing. We must stop supporting Israel’s mistreatment of these people—stop the diplomatic support, stop the political support and, in your case, stop the financial support.
To this end, I strongly urge you to reaffirm Senate Bill 118A, despite the recent presidential veto. Divesting from the occupation is a critical nonviolent tool for putting pressure on Israel to abide by international law. Stand tall against false criticism—you know and I know that there is nothing against Judaic principles when one protects the victim of an attack. And that is what has happened for 62 years—the Palestinians have been victims—the “fall guys” for the entire world—not Hitler and his cronies who produced the Holocaust—but the people of Palestine who had NOTHING to do with it.
Jewish people around the world, whether they know it or not, will benefit from this important and appropriate action on the part of the Berkeley Student Senate.
Sincerely,
Anne Weinstein Garcia
(An excellent blog report on this can be seen on a site by Richard Brenneman.)
]]>The entire situation with Michigan Radio has been bizarre. Normally, NPR stations plead for money. Yet, it has taken three public campaigns to get Michigan Radio, under the direction of Steve Schram, to even talk to us about giving them money.
Months after Schram promised he would respond “soon” to our request to be an underwriter, during which neither he nor anyone else under his control would reply to my phone calls or emails, I was again in Ann Arbor on a lecture tour.
This time I went to visit him in person, accompanied by approximately 20 concerned Ann Arbor residents, including at least one UM professor. There was no chanting or disruption; these individuals were simply there in support and to provide passersby with information on the situation. Also along was an independent filmmaker, who had learned about our planned visit and asked if he could film it. I, of course, said yes.
The station also knew about this visit ahead of time, since I had announced it at two of my lectures, and the receptionist knew who I was even before I introduced myself. Of course, my voice should have been enormously familiar, since I had spoken to her a multitude of times as she transferred me to voicemail after voicemail.
Mr. Schram would not deign to come out of his office to speak with us. He was, we were told, “in a meeting.” Another person told us he was “out of town.” When I asked which it was, the receptionist settled on “in a meeting.” I said I would wait. I also asked to speak with other individuals. Everyone I requested (eventually, every member of their staff) was, I was told, unavailable.
However, three individuals did come out, one by one, and briefly engaged with us.
The first was news staffer Tamar Charney. Sadly, she wasn’t there to cover citizens opposing censorship by their local powerful public radio station, an important breaking news story; she was there to defend the station from the public – a well-behaved group consisting largely of senior citizens, Quakers, etc.
The next to come out was Media Financial Officer Betsy Noren, who was quite angry, would not give her name even though we were very willing to give ours, and demanded that we all leave the entire building (Michigan Radio has one suite).
Even though the station has a large reception area and our group was not disruptive, all except about 3-4 of us left the room. Ms. Noren said that was still too many to remain. We remained. I’ll tell more about our conversation with her later.
The third to come out was Steve Chrypinsky, marketing director. Mr. Chrypinsky served as Mr. Schram’s go-between, ludicrously taking messages from us to Schram and from Schram back to us. Chrypinsky maintained a pleasant demeanor and civil behavior despite a difficult situation, one of the few at Michigan Radio to do so.
Finally, after this silly back-and-forth method of communicating, Mr. Schram agreed to participate in a conference call on Friday at 1pm, April 2, 2010.
Conference Call – Officials make promises! (again)
On the line with me were four Ann Arbor residents (a businesswoman; a UM professor; a previous director of Michigan Media who had begun his long career with WUOM in 1949; and his wife, a Quaker with special concern and expertise on international issues).
At the Michigan Radio end participating by speaker phone were director Steve Schram, UM Vice-President for Communication David Lampe, Development Director Larry Jonas, and perhaps others listening in.
At the beginning of the call I announced that the conversation was being taped so that we would all be clear later about what had been discussed and agreed to. This is typical for conference calls. FreeConferenceCall.org, the organization we use for such calls, specifically includes this option.
Moreover, I believe deeply in openness and honesty and oppose back-room deals that exclude the public. The bedrock principle of journalism is the public right to know.
(By the way, I studied journalism at the University of Michigan; one of our required courses was on journalistic ethics. I wonder if this subject matter is still taught at the University of Michigan.)
The UM officials, signaling their (lack of) commitment to openness and transparency, said that they would prefer that the phone call not be taped; I reiterated that I would prefer that it be taped. While I understand the closed-door position of Mr. Lampe, as the PR person for the University of Michigan, I find it disappointing (but by now not surprising) that Steve Schram, director of broadcasting, took a position that is the antithesis of core journalistic principles. (Of course, If you have something you wish to hide, later deny or misconstrue, it makes sense not to tape the conversation.)
Rather than go into every detail of the phone call, for now I will concentrate on two agreements that resulted:
1. These UM officials asked me to (again) submit a specific request for underwriting, giving wording, dollar amount of support, etc. and promised that they would then respond within one week.
2. Far less enthusiastically (not that the above was enthusiastic) they finally agreed to consider whether they would correct erroneous emails about the situation sent by Michigan Radio to the public. We agreed that I would send them what I propose, and they would give a response within one week.
(This is, perhaps, the most significant aspect of our discussion. It is clear that something went deeply wrong in Michigan Radio's handling of our request to be an underwriter. It is critical that the station address this problem so that it is not replicated with others in the future and so that listeners and the Regents of the University of Michigan, who hold the license for the stations of Michigan Radio, can be assured that the organization is performing its duties correctly and without bias.)
Therefore, at Mr. Lampe's request, I am sending Michigan Radio the following:
Action Required by Michigan Radio:
Send out a correction on the erroneous email from the director of development to members of the public.
This correction should contain the following information:
Last fall a Michigan Radio director sent an erroneous email to members of the public who had written to the station objecting to Michigan Radio’s refusal to allow If Americans Knew to be a sponsor. This email asserted that the situation had been “miscast by Alison Weir” and claimed that it was confusion over the sponsoring organization that had caused Michigan Radio to refuse a request by If Americans Knew to be a sponsor.
In reality, the rationale given to If Americans Knew was the decision by some members of Michigan Radio management that If Americans Knew was “too political.” Given the nature of other Michigan Radio sponsors, Michigan Radio has now determined that this decision was incorrect and is now willing to consider a sponsorship by If Americans Knew.
Michigan Radio apologizes to the public for this misleading communication and to If Americans Knew and Alison Weir for its inaccurate statement and for its months-long refusal to discuss the possibility of a sponsorship with If Americans Knew.
Michigan Radio will now undertake an internal investigation to determine why a different standard was applied to If Americans Knew than to other nonprofit organizations, why management directed staff members not to communicate with If Americans Knew concerning a sponsorship, why only public pressure was able to force Michigan Radio to speak with If Americans Knew, whether the fact that If Americans Knew provides information to the public about Israel-Palestine played a role in Michigan Radio’s mishandling of this situation, and whether personal connections to or biases regarding Israel among individuals concerned with Michigan Radio interfered with Michigan Radio's normal relations with the public and the fulfillment of its journalistic duties as a public trust. (The preceding is my suggested wording.)
Background:
In September 2009, a new If Americans Knew chapter in Flint, Michigan contacted Michigan Radio to pursue being a sponsor, also known as an underwriter. An email exchange followed and on Oct. 1, 2009 a representative of this chapter sent the following email to the Michigan Radio representative who had been working with him in this effort:
Can you please review the following? How is this as a first draft? Our intent is to underwrite for the minimum $ amount of $1000 for 10 spots, 15 secs each.
Support for Michigan Radio comes from… "
If Americans knew dot org". A non-profit organization focused on media coverage of the Palestine-Israel conflict. Executive Director Ms. Alison Weir will visit south east Michigan the week of Oct 12th. Details on the web at "if americans knew dot org".
The underwriting representative then phoned him, telling him that Michigan Radio would not run the spot.
My associate then emailed this person:
“Thank you for the call earlier today. I communicated the Michigan Radio decision back to our group. We are disappointed that the station declined to approve our announcement.
“In order to be completly clear, please send me an e-mail stating the specific reason or reasons for the non-approval of the underwriting. As you stated, if our request did not meet an FCC guideline or rule, or the station rules or policy, please indicate which specific guideline or policy we did not meet.
“Again, this is so we can clearly understand the reason, and not have a mis-read or mis-interpretation based on our verbal conversation over the phone.
The Michigan Radio representative then emailed him the following response (also on Oct. 1):
"I’ll be glad to share with you what management discussed with me. In the underwriting packet (the first email attachment that I sent to you), on the page titled “MAKING YOUR CREDIT WORK FOR YOU MICHIGAN RADIO UNDERWRITING COPY GUIDELINES” (bottom paragraph):
“Michigan Radio reserves the right to refuse any request for underwriting that would violate an FCC rule or policy, violate station policies or adversely affect the reputation or financial condition of the station. No announcements will be aired on behalf of political organizations, political candidates or their committees, or that express a view on issues of public importance or interest or religious belief. No more than one (1) event may be listed in any underwriting announcement. No more than 6 underwriting announcements may air in one day (and may be less depending on inventory).”
The Flint chapter then, finding it difficult to communicate with me during this time since I was on an extended speaking tour in Alaska, and with my Michigan tour rapidly approaching, decided not to try to fight the station over this determination. Instead, a different organization sponsored an announcement.
On Oct. 13th I arrived in Michigan and learned about the above situation. Disturbed that our organization had not been allowed to be a sponsor and still wishing to run an announcement by If Americans Knew, I phoned Michigan radio several times over the following week to try to discuss the situation.
I never received a reply, though on Oct. 15th the Michigan Radio representative emailed my Flint associate,
“I did share Allison Wier's message with my manager, Kathy Agosta. I am not able to respond, and I'm asking that you contact Kathy. Her email is kagosta@umich.edu.”
I then tried to contact Kathy Agosta, the first of a multitude of failed efforts to reach Ms. Agosta. I never received a reply.
I then phoned and emailed numerous other staff members at Michigan Radio and again was astonished to find that no one would talk with me or respond to my simple request that they phone or email me in return.
Finally, as days passed and it became clear that no one from Michigan radio would respond to my phone calls or emails, and hoping to resolve the situation while I was still on my speaking tour in Michigan, I at last sent out a press release about the situation followed by a phone call to the news director at Michigan Radio about what appeared to be censorship by a public radio station (a subject that is normally considered newsworthy). This director said he would look into the matter.
After he had done so, the news director told me that he had been told that Michigan Radio had made the decision not to run spots from us because If Americans Knew was “political” and this violated their underwriting guidelines.
I pointed out that we are not a political organization, that we are a 501c3 educational organization, that Michigan Radio allows sponsorship by similarly structured nonprofit organizations, many of which advocate for causes, and that their refusal to accept our sponsorship constituted censorship.
Nevertheless, this news director told me he would not cover this story (though a reporter, I believe it was Tamar Charney, did later come to cover one of my talks; I don't know whether or not the station aired a report on this. Her interview with me at the time was somewhat hostile.).
Meanwhile, Michigan Radio business personnel and management refused to even discuss the situation with me.
Again, our only recourse was to tell the public what was going on and to ask that others contact the station about its unethical conduct and abuse of power.
In response to a great many communications from the public on this, on Oct. 16 Michigan Radio Director of Development Larry Jonas, who had failed to respond to any of my inquiries, finally began to reply to members of the public, sending them the following email (not sent to me):
“This issue has been miscast by Ms. Weir, when in fact the issue is about adherence to FCC underwriting regulations.
“Michigan Radio was initially contacted by a gentleman in the Flint area who indicated that he was interested in establishing an underwriting schedule of announcements that would include information about Ms. Weir’s talk.
“The gentleman initially asked that the sponsorship be attributed to an organization to which he appeared to have no apparent affiliation. Michigan Radio is required by FCC rules to identify the sponsoring entity in an underwriting announcement and not a third party.
“For that and other reasons, we were concerned that accepting the sponsorship may put us afoul of FCC regulations.
“He subsequently indicated that the Flint Islamic Center, the organization that would be hosting her talk, and of which he is a member, should be identified as the sponsoring organization. Those announcements identifying that organization and Ms. Weir’s talk have aired as ordered.”
The reality is that it was Mr. Jonas who was misrepresenting the facts. As described above, we had twice been informed that Michigan Radio was not willing to work with us because they had decided we were “political.”
Moreover, this "political" rationale was again given to us, also twice, on March 29th, when I and others visited Michigan Radio in person.
On this visit a woman who refused to give her name (her website photo shows she was Media Finance Officer Betsy Noren) volunteered that we were prohibited from being a sponsor because we were “political.”
We were also told by Marketing Director Steve Chrypinsky that we were prohibited from being a sponsor because we were “political” and this would violate a guideline that stated: “No announcements will be aired on behalf of political organizations, political candidates or their committees, or that express a view on issues of public importance or interest or religious belief.”
When we noted that we are not a political organization, he pointed out the final clause: “…or that express a view on issues of public importance or interest or religious belief.”
(Incidentally, these Michigan Radio guidelines differ from NPR guidelines, which make it clear the prohibition refers only to the content of the spot itself, not whether or not an organization expresses views.)
Again, we pointed out that there are a number of Michigan Radio sponsors who express views on issues of public interest; some even have entire segments of their websites that specifically focus on legislation.
In other words, Michigan Radio has applied to us a standard that it didn’t apply to such others as the Nature Conservancy, the ACLU of Michigan, the Michigan Education Association, and the Jewish Federation of Detroit, which advocates for Israel, to name just a few of the Michigan Radio sponsors who espouse views on issues and even, in some cases, specifically discuss legislation.
To make matters worse, Michigan Radio management then misled the public about this double standard and unethical behavior, giving members of the public an entirely different, and untrue, purported rationale for refusing to run our spots.
If Michigan Radio has any commitment to accuracy and ethical behavior, it will now correct this erroneous email, by
(1) informing all recipients of its inaccurate information that the communication from Mr. Jonas was erroneous,
(2) by admitting the true rationale on which station officials had decided not to run our spots, and
(3) by apologizing to the public and to If Americans Knew for its actions.
(4) Finally, most important of all, Michigan Radio will now undertake an internal investigation to determineAs a licensee of the public airwaves, as a publicly funded organization, and as a journalistic institution, Michigan Radio has legal, ethical, and constitutional responsibilities. It needs to fulfill them.
]]>[A flyer on this can be downloaded at www.ifamericansknew.org/download/MichRadio.pdf – people in Michigan are encouraged to distribute it widely!]
[Michigan Radio is the NPR affiliate in southeastern Michigan. To learn more about NPR's pro-Israel bias read FAIR's excellent analysis, "The Illusion of Balance," in which they discovered that NPR had reported on almost 90% of Israeli children's deaths and only 20% of Palestinian children's deaths.]
Last fall the Flint chapter of our organization, which provides facts on Israel-Palestine, contacted Michigan Radio about becoming a sponsor of the station. (This consists of giving the station $1,000, and in return they air a number of spots announcing your organization and additional information.)
This was moving forward, until suddenly the Michigan Radio representative emailed that they would not allow us to be a sponsor. (They did eventually allow a different organization to sponsor an announcement for us, but this group was not allowed to include our organization’s name in their spot).
When we asked why Michigan Radio would not allow our organization to be an “underwriter” (their term for sponsors), their representative sent an email claiming that this would violate their guidelines, quoting the following paragraph:
“Michigan Radio reserves the right to refuse any request for underwriting that would violate an FCC rule or policy, violate station policies or adversely affect the reputation or financial condition of the station. No announcements will be aired on behalf of political organizations, political candidates or their committees, or that express a view on issues of public importance or interest or religious belief.”
The fact is, however, that we are a 501c3 educational organization. We do not lobby, endorse candidates, or take stands on bills before Congress. Our mission is to educate the American public on issues of significance that are unreported, underreported, or misreported in the American media.
Michigan Radio’s rationale that we are “too political” is quite a stretch given that among the station’s underwriters are numerous sponsors that advocate for various causes.
One of their sponsors, for example, is the Jewish Federation of Detroit, whose website proclaims that it "advocates for Israel."
Nevertheless, this same claim, that If Americans knew was “too political” to be a sponsor was also given to their own news department when an editor inquired about it.
I tried to contact Michigan Radio to clarify the situation. However, no one was ever “available,” a situation that continues today. I left numerous voice mails and sent emails to a wide variety of individuals, all to no avail. I graduated from the University of Michigan many years ago, as did my mother before me. I had remembered a civility that I’m sad to find appears to have disappeared.
Finally, when I realized that Michigan Radio management had evidently decreed that no one was to talk to me, our organization finally issued a public announcement describing what was going on.
The public is given a different story
Soon, Michigan Radio, which was then in full fundraising mode (though it refuses to take our money), began to receive numerous emails and phone calls from individuals telling the station that they would not donate because of Michigan’ Radio’s censorship of If Americans Knew.
Finally, the station was forced to give a response. Director of Development Larry Jonas (most likely at the direction of Michigan Radio head Steve Schram) finally began to send out an official reply to emails on this matter. (Oddly, he never sent this to us. In fact, Jonas has yet to respond to my email and phone messages; a mode of behavior shared by the station’s entire development staff).
Perhaps realizing that Michigan Radio’s original objection was insufficiently defensible, Jonas instead claimed a different rationale , writing to the public:
“This issue has been miscast by Ms. Weir… Michigan Radio was initially contacted by a gentleman in the Flint area who indicated that he was interested in establishing an underwriting schedule of announcements that would include information about Ms. Weir’s talk. The gentleman initially asked that the sponsorship be attributed to an organization to which he appeared to have no apparent affiliation. Michigan Radio is required by FCC rules to identify the sponsoring entity in an underwriting announcement and not a third party. For that and other reasons, we were concerned that accepting the sponsorship may put us afoul of FCC regulations.”
However, the reality is that although there was originally confusion over this, the gentleman did, indeed, represent our organization, and had a letter from us stating that fact. If Michigan Radio had questions about this, all they needed to do was return my calls.
Members of the public remained outraged at Michigan Radio’s behavior and the phone calls and email complaints continued.
Finally, Director Schram telephoned me. Also on the phone was Rick Fitzgerald, from the University of Michigan Office of Public Affairs. Schram told me that they were now willing "to consider" a sponsorship from us. I told him the likely content of such a spot – basically, what we had requested before – and he agreed "to consider it."
I said that I would submit this before the end of the day, and he replied that he would respond quickly. I asked that this be by the end of the week, and he agreed that he would respond “soon.”
It is now almost five months later and I have yet to receive a response. I have phoned Mr. Schram and emailed him repeatedly. I have phoned numerous others at the station. I phoned Mr. Fitzgerald, who explained that Mr. Schram had only said he would reply “soon,” he didn’t say when.
It occurs to me that Mr. Schram again needs to hear from others. If you oppose censorship, believe that publicly sponsored radio should not discriminate, and affirm the importance of a “free marketplace of ideas” – or if you simply dislike arrogant rudeness by powerful organizations – please contact Michigan Radio: 888-258-9866, michigan.radio@umich.edu – 535 W William St, Suite 110, Ann Arbor, MI 48103,
if you’d like to know what it is about If Americans Knew that Mr. Schram doesn’t want Michiganders to know, please come to my upcoming presentations. Appropriately enough, they are on "Israel-Palestine: What the Media Leave Out"
Thursday March 25th, 7 pm, Washtenaw Community College, ML 101 (Morris Laurence Bldg.)
Saturday March 27th, 2 pm (tentative time),as part of the Michigan Social Justice Conference, Hutchins Hall, UM Law School
Sunday March 28th, 1 pm, 1st Unitarian Universalist Congregation, 1400 Ann Arbor-Saline Rd.
Download flyer to distribute so that others learn the facts about Michigan Radio.
Previous entries about Michigan Radio:
The above header was definitely premature. How naive i was. And how much I've learned about Stephen Schram and the situation in Ann Arbor.
]]>
Jewish Week reports that a previous Times bureau chief, Joel Greenberg, "before he was Jerusalem bureau chief but after he was already having bylines in the Times from Israel, actually served in the IDF."
Richard Chesnoff admits: "I've been covering and writing about Mideast events for more than 40 years. And like Bronner, I had a son serving in the Israeli army during part of the 14 years I covered both Israel and the Arab world as US News & World Report's senior foreign correspondent." (I wonder if he disclosed this to readers at the time.)
As I've noted previously and featured in a video, Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg served in the Israeli military himself; it's unclear when/if his military service ended.
NPR's Linda Gradstein's husband was an IDF sniper and may still be in the reserves. I don't know whether Gradstein herself is also an Israeli citizen, as are her children and husband.
About five or six years ago I learned that the national editor for the San Diego Union-Tribune was an Israeli citizen who had served in the Israeli millitary.
Given that many of the journalists for American media are actually Israeli citizens, connections to the Israeli military may be quite common. Perhaps Bronner is the rule, not the exception.
Several years ago I was told by an American editor that Time Magazine's bureau chief had made aliyah after he had assumed his post. (Making aliyah means "ascending" to Israeli citizenship.)
So far, despite promises that they would get back to me the Times has still not answered my questions about Times correspondent Isabel Kershner, a naturalized Israeli citizen originally from Britain. Did she ever serve in the IDF herself? Have any of her relatives? Are any relatives currently serving in Israeli forces?
(Others may wish to ask the New York Times foreign desk these questions as well: email foreign@nytimes.com or phone the main number, 212-556-1234, and ask for the foreign desk.)
Similarly, I wonder how many of AP's editors are Israeli or have Israeli families? How many serve or served in the Israeli military or have family members with this connection?
How many TV correspondents? I remember looking into this a few years ago and being surprised at how many had Israeli families, and in some casees were Israelis themselves; NBC's Martin Fletcher is a case in point. It's hard to imagine that he doesn't have Israeli military connections among his family members.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer was based in Israel for many years, wrote a book whitewashing Israeli spying on the US, and used to work for the Israel lobby.
It's interesting to learn that Tikkun's Rabbi Michael Lerner, whose criticisms of Israeli human rights violations and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza have been powerful but who continues to support Israeli state discrimination, has also had a son in the military. In an interview with Jewish Week Lerner is quoted as saying: “Having a son in the Israeli army was a manifestation of my love for Israel, and I assume that having a son in the Israeli army is a manifestation of Bronner’s love of Israel."
Lerner goes on to make an interesting point:
"...there is a difference in my emotional and spiritual connection to these two sides [Israelis and Palestinians]. On the one side is my family; on the other side are decent human beings. I want to support human beings all over the planet but I have a special connection to my family. I don’t deny it.”
To me, the fact that so many major journalists have such ties to Israel is an extraordinary and disturbing situation. Israel is a foreign country. Most Americans want full, unbiased reporting about it and its numerous violent conflicts, invasions, and occupations. Yet, we have a pattern in which journalists for American media have intimate military connections to one side of these conflicts. As Lerner notes – Israel is, literally, family.
Naturally, we know that there are journalists with potential bias on many subjects who transcend such bias and give us excellent journalism. However, it is foolish to assume that this is always the case – especially since the reporting on Israel-Palestine is so consistently Israel-centric.
I believe that these close connections to Israel should always be divulged to the public. I also believe that our news agencies should either do a better job of hiring journalists without such connections, or should hire journalists with opposite connections to balance this Israel-heavy situation.
Of course, given the ownership and management of US media, and the considerable clout of pro-Israel advertisers and well-funded lobbying groups, I realize that such a change is highly unlikely.
Sadly, media critics, with the exception of Project Censored and FAIR, seem very timid about taking this on. No doubt they're minimally informed on Israel-Palestine itself, while being fully informed on where where the power lies in this country and the damage that criticism of Israel can do to journalistic careers.
Therefore, I believe it is critical that the rest of us work to make this bias known to more American citizens, whose tax money is going to Israel in such uniquely massive proportions.
To help in this effort, people can put on events, write letters to the editor, tell others about If Americans Knew, distribute cards, factsheets, booklets and DVDs, and join our email list.
It's up to us.
]]>New York Times Editor Bill Keller, in defending his decision to retain Bronner as their bureau chief despite Bronner's conflict of interest and profoundly flawed track record, writes that he feels Bronner's intimate family ties with Israel "supply a measure of sophistication about Israel and its adversaries."
If the Times actually does want full, unbiased reporting on this region (there is little to indicate this, but let's imagine it is so), it is essential that the Times also have bureaus in the Palestinian Territories; ideally, one in the West Bank and one in Gaza, headed by people with equal "sophistication" about Palestine and its adversaries.
Fortunately for the Times, a journalist with an excellent track record for journalism in the area and, no doubt, considerable "sophistication," is now available. Jared Malsin, a Jewish-American 2007 Yale graduate, was until recently the chief English editor at Ma'an News, the largest independent news organization in the West Bank and an excellent source of news.
Apparently because of this, Malsin was recently denied re-entry by Israel, incarcerated for about a week, and deported by Israeli authorities.
I suggest that the Times now explore hiring Malsin or someone else with equivalent knowledge and skills to head up a West Bank bureau. While I realize that some in the Israeli government might attempt to prevent Malsin from assuming this post, I expect that the Times, unlike Ma'an, has the connections and the clout to overcome an Israeli attempt to censor their hirees. If Israel attempted to do this, I would hope the Times would consider it front-page news, and that the editorial page would comment on it, as well.
If Malsin has already taken a position elsewhere, I suspect that he could recommend other informed and skilled individuals for this position. I would be delighted to assist the Times in such a search and would be happy to suggest numerous people who could direct them to excellent candidates for such a position.
Others may wish to suggest this to Mr. Keller as well. After all, the Times ethics guidelines state: "In keeping with its solemn responsibilities under the First Amendment, our company strives to maintain the highest standard of journalistic ethics" and maintains, "our goal is to cover the news impartially."
How better to fulfill their solemn responsibility to report the news impartially than to have bureaus in both Israel AND in Palestine, staffed with people either with no close connections to either society, or by people with equally deep connections to both?
(Of course, Malsin, as far as I'm aware, has no familial connections to Palestinian society and much more fits into the first category; in that respect, he doesn't even come close to balancing Bronner. I am suggesting Malsin because of his track record at Ma'an; however, there are Palestinians and Palestinian-Americans who would also be excellent, perhaps even superior choices. My main point is to begin the discussion.)
In the meantime, until the Times follows its own ethics guidelines, I suggest that people who wish to be well-informed on Israel-Palestine turn to Ma'an News, the International Middle East Media Center (less well-funded than Ma'an but also an excellent source of information), and our own news blog. A valuable monthly resource is the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
As the Times rarely tells readers, Americans are major funders of Israel. We'd better know how it's using our money.
#
Mr Keller can be reached at
executive-editor@nytimes.com
212.556.1234*
FYI: A new discussion of Bronner by Lysandra Ohrstrom at Huffington is well worth reading]]>
Editor Bill Keller explains in a blog posting that the Times' "rulebook leaves us wide latitude," that they're not going "to capitulate to the more savage partisans," and that they're not even going to listen to their own ombudsman, Readers Representative Clark Hoyt, who, in a column to be published in tomorrow's paper, recommends moving Bronner:
But, stepping back [Clark writes], this is what I see: The Times sent a reporter overseas to provide disinterested coverage of one of the world’s most intense and potentially explosive conflicts, and now his son has taken up arms for one side. Even the most sympathetic reader could reasonably wonder how that would affect the father, especially if shooting broke out.
...this is not about punishment; it is simply a difficult reality. I would find a plum assignment for him somewhere else, at least for the duration of his son’s service in the I.D.F.
Keller claims, referring to Hoyt's column, "...everyone you interviewed for your column concurs that Ethan Bronner is fully capable of continuing to cover his beat fairly."
Actually, Hoyt, who perhaps due to lack of personal expertise in the region praises Bronner's "excellent track record," references only three interviews with people concerning Bronner's work (other than with Keller himself): one was quoted significantly out of context and the other two were former Times' journalists.
Keller neglects to mention that in his column Clark writes that he had heard from 400 readers, "...many of them convinced that Bronner could not continue in his current assignment," and who, quite likely, would have given a substantially different assessment of Bronner's work if Clark had bothered to interview them.
Interestingly, Clark reports that Bronner had told him that his son "joined in late December for roughly a year of training and six months of active duty before he returns to the United States for college." Normally, Israeli soldiers are required to serve in the Israeli reserves for decades. Did Bronner fail to inform Mr. Clark of this fact? Or did Mr. Clark choose not to inform readers of it?
Not surprisingly, the Times again chooses to ignore our studies demonstrating the Times' distortion on this issue. Similarly, there is no mention of the excellent book "Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East," co-authored by distinguished Princeton Emeritus Professor Richard Falk detailing the Times' flawed coverage.
Apparently, Mr. Keller is unconcerned that skewed Times' coverage enables tragic and profoundly destructive US policies, destroying thousands of lives. Unlike Mr. Keller, some of us care. I wonder if we're the "savage partisans" to whom he refers.
Clark writes, "Nobody at The Times wants to give in to what they see as relentlessly unfair criticism of the paper’s Middle East coverage by people hostile to objective reporting."
While it's true that Bronner himself talks of "narratives," and Israel partisans oppose objective reporting, I personally have been pleading for it for many years. The Times, sadly, seems to have little interest in giving it to us on Israel-Palestine.
]]>CNN news report on this - "Traffickers targeting Haiti's children, human organs, PM says"
(CNN) -- Trafficking of children and human organs is occurring in the aftermath of the earthquake that devastated parts of Haiti, killed more than 150,000 people, and left many children orphans, Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive said Wednesday.
"There is organ trafficking for children and other persons also, because they need all types of organs," Bellerive said in an exclusive interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour....
]]>