Journal

Regarding David Brooks’ son serving in the Israeli military, New York Times ombudsman (known at the Times as the “public editor”) Margaret Sullivan writes:

“Mr. Brooks’s son is serving as a member of a foreign military force that has been involved in a serious international conflict – one that the columnist sometimes writes about and which has been very much in the news……. I do think that a one-time acknowledgement of this situation in print… is completely reasonable. This information is germane; and readers deserve to learn about it in the same place that his columns appear.

It’s excellent that Sullivan is willing to acknowledge that Brooks’ situation is a serious conflict, particularly since this meant publicly disagreeing with Opinion Editor Andrew Rosenthal.

However, I find Sullivan’s view that it requires only a “one-time acknowledgment”deeply perplexing. Since, as she states, “readers deserve to learn about this in the same place that Brooks’ columns appear” why would it not be posted every time Brooks’ writes about matters concerning Israel?

Obviously, many readers will not have seen that one posting, and for them it is just as germane and necessary as the first time it was posted. Brooks’ conflict of interest should be divulged on all of his commentaries regarding Israel and its interests.

I’ve written her asking about this.

(The reality is that journalistic ethics codes suggest that the Times should take further action: he should not be allowed to comment on subject matter in which he has such a blatant conflict of interest, and he should be disciplined, possibly fired, for not revealing this conflict of interest to the Times.)

A great many journalists reporting on Israel-Palestine for US media have personal and family ties to the Israeli military. Many have served themselves; others have sons, husbands, etc. who are currently served in the IDF or have in the past.

This is a clear conflict of interest, but is virtually never voluntarily divulged – precisely because the journalists and the media know this is improper and would constitute a particularly blatant example of journalistic bias. For journalistic ethics’ statements on this go here.

It is perhaps not surprising that David Brooks only revealed that his son was serving in the IDF to an Israeli newspaper – and that the newspaper only printed the information (somewhat buried) in its Hebrew-language edition, not in the English language edition that many people incorrectly assume contains all the articles in the paper.

I’ve written about this situation a number of times. Below are some of my articles:

Myra Noveck & the New York Times: Another journalist with children in the Israeli military

Jodi Rudoren, Another Member Of The Family: Meet The New York Times’ New Israel-Palestine News Chief 

US Media and Israeli Military: All in the Family 

 Ethan Bronner’s Conflict With Impartiality 

 Is “pundit” actually Israeli military officer? 

 

The website for the National Society of Newspaper Columnists, referred to by TimesWarp analyst Barbara Erickson, seems to have been taken down. However, another site has the text of its code of conduct for columnists: 

As a newspaper columnist, I will strive to inform, educate and entertain my readers. I will work hard to provoke them to think — whether they agree or disagree with my efforts to depict truth as I see it.

I will offer my opinions and the reasons I hold them as clearly and as fairly as I can. I will never take advantage of my position to achieve unwarranted personal gain not available to others or use my column to settle personal scores. I will disclose potential conflicts to readers whenever possible. [emphasis added]

I will never make up a quote, a source or a story when depicting true events. But I will reserve the right to engage in parody and satire.

I will work hard to earn and keep the trust my readers and editors place in me. I will never plagiarize. Whenever possible, when I make a mistake, I will correct it.

I will listen to my critics and, in person, treat them with dignity and respect because they pay me the high honor of reading me, even if they disagree. Similarly, I will treat with personal courtesy those whom I may criticize in writing before and after writing about them.

I will always remember that my job is a privilege and honor because being a columnist represents the basic American rights of free speech and open discussion.

*

Regarding Brooks’ conflict see https://alisonweir.org/journal/2014/10/8/my-email-to-new-york-times-public-editor-about-david-brooks.html

Today I sent the following email to the New York Times Public Editor’s office:

In September 2014, New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan wrote: “The Times could do a lot more to alert readers about conflicts of interests of sources used by the paper.”

Similarly, The Times could and should do much more to alert readers to the conflict of interest of its own writer, David Brooks.

In the Hebrew edition of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz (but not, it seems, in the English language edition), it came out that the son of New York Times columnist David Brooks, who sometimes writes about Israel-Palestine, has been serving in the Israeli military.

This fact was then divulged in English by the Los Angeles Jewish Journal on Sept. 23. The next day New York magazine reported on it, and since that time a few other websites have also reported it.

Yet, to date the New York Times has neither revealed this conflict of interest to the public nor taken any disciplinary action regarding Mr. Brooks’ violation of the Times’ ethics requirements.

The Times’ 1999 “Guidelines on Our Integrity” state:

“At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that staff members should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper’s ethical standing.”

The Times’ statement of principles, “Ethical Journalism: A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments” includes the following statements:

“The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible… and to be seen to be doing so. The reputation of The Times rests upon such perceptions…”

“In keeping with its solemn responsibilities under the First Amendment, The Times strives to maintain the highest standards of journalistic ethics.”

“Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may come up in many areas……. professional activities of… family… can create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts.”

“The Times believes beyond question that its staff shares the values these guidelines are intended to protect;”

“The Times views any deliberate violation of these guidelines as a serious offense that may lead to disciplinary action, potentially including dismissal…”

“…a daughter in a high profile job on Wall Street might produce the appearance of conflict for a business reporter or editor.”

“Any staff member who sees a potential for conflict… in the activities of… relatives must discuss the situation with his or her supervising editor and the standards editor or the deputy editorial page editor.”

The ethics handbook also states: “In all cases The Times depends on staff members to disclose potential problems in a timely fashion so that we can work together to prevent embarrassment for staff members and The Times.”

Did Mr. Brooks do so?

The Times’ handbook also says:

“In some cases, disclosure is enough. But if The Times considers the problem serious, the staff member may have to withdraw from certain coverage. Sometimes an assignment may have to be modified or a beat changed. In a few instances, a staff member may have to move to a different department – from business and financial news, say, to the culture desk – to avoid the appearance of conflict.”

Will The Times now take actions regarding David Brooks in line with its own ethics requirements?

Will it publicly and consistently disclose that Mr. Brooks’ son is serving in the Israeli military and was doing so while he was commenting on Israel without disclosing this fact to readers?

Will the Times discipline Mr. Brooks for his violation of the newspaper’s ethical requirements?

If he is to continue his employment at The Times, will the Times prohibit him from commenting on subjects in which Israel is involved?

Incidentally, a number of other journalistic codes of ethics contain similar requirements.

For example, the National Society of Newspaper Columnists, according to analyst Barbara Erickson, calls for “disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.”

The “Statement of Principles” of the American Society of Newspaper Editors says: “Journalists must avoid… any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict.”

NPR’s code of ethics states: “All NPR journalists… must tell our supervisors in advance about potential conflicts of interest……. This includes situations in which a… family member… is an active participant in a subject area that you cover.”

The Los Angeles Times ethics code states:

“Activities of family members may create conflicts of interest……  the paper may restrict a staff member’s assignment based on the activities of a family member or loved one. Staff members are responsible for informing a supervisor whenever a companion’s or close relative’s activities, investments, or affiliations could create a conflict.”

It has now come out that David Brooks’ son is serving in the Israeli military.

So while Brooks was providing pro-Israel commentary during Israel’s massacre in Gaza, his son was serving in the IDF. This clear conflict of interest should have required Brooks to recuse himself from commenting on Israel.

Journalistic ethics now require the New York Times, NPR, and PBS to (1) reveal Brooks’ conflict of interest, (2) apologize for not revealing this sooner, and (3) remove him as a commentator because of his dishonesty in neither recusing himself nor in revealing this essential fact to listeners – and, I assume, to these news organizations themselves.

The following explores a variety of cover-ups and sort of cover-ups…

David Brooks is a prominent and powerful journalist. He is a columnist for the New York Times and a commentator for PBS New Hour and NPR.

Now we learn, through an article in Jewish Journal, that Brooks’ son is in the Israeli military. In other words, he has a profound conflict with impartiality, as the New York Times ethics code calls it, and Brooks, the Times, NPR, etc. have not revealed this to the public.

The Jewish Journal article reports:

One of the more interesting nuggets buried in a long, Hebrew-language interview with New York Times columnist David Brooks in the recent Ha’aretz magazine is the revelation, toward the very end, that Brooks’s oldest son serves in the Israel Defense Forces.

I find it interesting, and disturbing, that Ha’aretz hid this information from its English readers.

(By the way, I have written extensively about numerous journalists having close personal and family ties to the Israeli military – see below.)

Philip Weis has a strong article that tells about Brooks’ reporting, and notes:

“So when David Brooks was commenting favorably on Israel’s onslaught on Gaza this summer on National Public Radio, his son was serving in the Israeli army. Why didn’t NPR tell us?”

 It is ironic, then, that Weiss also decides not to tell readers insider information he feels they shouldn’t know:

“This is now the third Times reporter/writer whose son has gone into the Israeli Defense Forces. Famously Ethan Bronner, of course…  and a third person I will not identify (I know the individual personally, the beat didn’t involve the Middle East, the son left before long).”

Weiss’s reluctance to share his insider information with others is a bit reminiscent of Ha’aretz. Perhaps it’s ok, since this is a personal friend. But it shows again that some are inside a loop that the rest of us aren’t.

This is also reminiscent of Common Dreams, which exposed an Israel-partisan who posed as an anti-Semite on numerous websites, but refused to disclose his name, thus keeping its insider information away from the rest of us – even though many of our websites may also have been victimized by this infiltrator.

Again, some are in the loop. The rest of us aren’t.

*

Some of my articles on US journalists’ personal ties to the Israeli military

Myra Noveck & the New York Times: Another journalist with children in the Israeli military

Jodi Rudoren, Another Member Of The Family: Meet The New York Times’ New Israel-Palestine News Chief 

US Media and Israeli Military: All in the Family 

 Ethan Bronner’s Conflict With Impartiality 

 Is “pundit” actually Israeli military officer? 

AP’s Matti Friedman: Israeli citizen and former Israeli soldier

 

 

While Israel partisans in the US and some others (often former Israel partisans) sometimes claim that the US-Israel “special relationship” is driven by the US, Israeli writers are more honest. Most recently, retired Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas writes on Ynet* (emphasis added):

Apart from Israel’s ability to defend itself, there never was – and probably will never be – a more important strategic asset to the country than its relationship with the United States. Since its founding – and especially since the end of the 60s and the start of the 70s – these ties have provided Israel a superpower to lean on, a supporting pillar of military deterrence, and a force-multiplier in the international arena.

The United States has not only vetoed more than 50 anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nation’s Security Council, it has also provided military aid totaling more than $140 billion, as well as access to American weapon systems and advanced ammunition. But the US has also garnered a reputation as an almost-automatic defender of Israel – its layer of protection from international isolation.

The relationship between the two countries has often been defined as “special”, “extraordinary”, and an “unshakeable alliance.” Since the 80s, Israel has often pushed to define itself as a “strategic asset” for the United States and, though Americans have never used the phrase themselves, they have not denied it.**

But on this matter there is some confusion in Israel borne of an exaggerated sense of self-importance. The strategic asset in this equation is the US for Israel, not the other way around.

____________________

* Ynetnews, according to its website, “is part of the prominent Yedioth Media Group, which publishes Yedioth Ahronoth – Israel’s most widely-read daily newspaper – as well as several popular magazines and dozens of local publications.”

** Actually many American experts have denied that Israel is a strategic asset – see, for example, The National Summit to Reassess the US-Israel Special Relationship].

Following are a few short questions for the New York Times in regard to a recent news report:

1. When are you going to cover the killing of Palestinians the same way you cover the killing of Israelis?

Israel’s killing of at least 8 civilians in one day was relegated to the second half of the story and not mentioned in the headline.

The murder of a father of three children, a staff member for Defense for Children International, got two sentences in the 17th paragraph. Israeli forces’ killing of a 17-year-old got one sentence in the 25th paragraph. The killing of a 12-year-old and a 15-year-old got a half sentence – between them – in the 27th paragraph.

2. When are you going to stop calling Palestinians who are fighting to protect their homeland “militants” and start calling them resistance fighters?

3. When are you going to stop framing this as “Israel against Hamas” rather than Israel against Gazans? Or Israel against Palestinians?

The vast majority of the over 800 people Israeli forces have killed in the last 19 days are civilians, many of them children. The vast majority of the over 5,000 injured are civilians, many of them children.  Israel is, once again, destroying large amounts of civilian infrastructure: hospitals, schools, roads, family homes, etc.

4. When are you going to include crucial context on the American connection – that hard-pressed American taxpayers give Israel $8.5 million per day?

When are you going to mention that we have given tiny Israel far more of our tax money than to any other country – In total, over $233.7 billion (corrected for inflation). Currently, on average, 7,000 times more per capita than to others around the world.

5. When are you going to tell your readers that senior “objective” reporter Isabel Kershner was a British citizen who went to Israel to become an Israeli citizen? When are you going to divulge her family ties to the Israeli military?

6. When are you going to include the true context of the violence:

• Gaza is basically an open-air prison that Israel has been starving for over seven years (an Israeli official called it putting Palestinians “on a diet“),
• Rockets from Gaza began in April 2001 AFTER Israeli invasions and shelling of Gaza, that the vast majority of these rockets are small, home-made projects that cause no damage (and that this was the case long before the Iron Dome system was deployed),
• During entire time the rockets have been used they have killed a total of approximately 30 Israelis, while during this same period Israeli forces have killed over 4,700 Gazans?
• The Jewish state was created through a war of ethnic cleansing, and that the allegedly “only democracy in the Middle East” has no constitution and has never declared its borders,
• Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are living on approximately 15 percent of their original land.

7. When are you going to give readers the facts without Israeli spin?

---

Alison Weir is president of the Council for the National Interest, executive director of If Americans Knew, and author of Against Our Better Judgment: How the US was used to create Israel.

---

ADDITIONAL RESOURCE

Statistical Report on New York Times coverage of Israel-Palestine

There are some videos posted on Youtube with titles such as “CNN’s Jake Tapper Demolishes PLO Spokeswoman.” Tapper’s questioning is extremely aggressive and reflects a pro-Israel approach to the current violence. (Israel is again massacring Gazans like shooting fish in a goldfish bowl. Instead of discussing this, Tapper focuses on the rockets from Gaza, but seems to know/care little about the real facts about these and about the conflict in general.)

I wondered where Tapper’s bias came from, and learned some information about his upbringing that I suspect influences his journalism:

Tapper attended Akiba Hebrew Academy, since re-named Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy, which is proud of inculcating its students with loyalty to Israel.

The school website states that it “offers a unique study abroad program in Israel during the fall trimester of a student’s junior year.  In this program, learning comes to life as students supplement their formal academic studies with trips to historical sites that parallel their study of the history of the Jewish people and Israel…”

The site notes that many of their students report that their experiences in Israel “are life-changing; they return to Barrack with greater maturity as well as a stronger personal connection to Israel and their Jewish roots.”

Tapper’s alma mater emphasizes: “…we are committed to the centrality of Israel and the State of Israel.”

There is, of course, always the hope that Tapper will transcend this early conditioning, shared by so many US journalists. However, so far there is little indication that he has done so. Especially, of course, when pro-Israel elements are so strong in today’s media, it’s not a good career move to report too fully and honestly on the conditions of Palestinians.

RELATED STORIES:

Myra Noveck & the New York Times:  Another journalist with children in the Israeli military, “US Media and Israeli Military: All in the Family,” “Jodi Rudoren, Another Member of the Family: Meet the New York Times‘ New Israel-Palestine News Chief,” and “Ethan Bronner’s Conflict With Impartiality“

 

 

Since US media are reporting the latest Israeli massacre in Gaza as though it is a defensive action, I thought I would set the record straight. Israeli forces shelled and invaded Gaza BEFORE the rockets began. Rockets were fired only after numerous Palestinians, including many children, had been killed.

The first rocket fired by Gazan resistance groups into Israel was in October 2001.

By happenstance, I was traveling throughout the Palestinian Occupied Territories just before that – during February-March 2001 – as a freelance reporter.

While I was there, Israeli forces were regularly shelling both the West Bank and Gaza, and had been doing so for several months. Gaza was particularly hard hit. (An article I wrote at the time can be read here.)

Below are some of my photos from Gaza from February 2001 (i.e. BEFORE any rockets had been fired, and long before Hamas was elected in 2006.)

A few months before, in fall 2000, massive unarmed demonstrations against Israeli occupation began, eventually growing into what is known as the “Second Intifada” (uprising).* Israeli forces immediately used lethal means to try to put this down. An Israeli newspaper reported that the Israeli military fired over a million bullets in the first few days alone.

In the following three months Israeli forces killed over 90 Palestinian children – before a single Israeli child was then killed, and long before any rockets were fired. (The largest single cause of these Palestinian children’s deaths was gunfire to the head.)

In fact, in every year since, far more Palestinian children have been killed than Israeli children:

Israeli shelling, military ground invasions, and abductions of Palestinians have continued throughout the following years, occurring, except for few  ceasefires (which Israeli violence consistently ends), virtually every day.

Some groups (usually not Hamas), have also periodically fired rockets at Israel through these years.

During that time Israeli forces killed 4,000 Gazans, while Gazan resistance fighters using rockets killed 27 Israelis. On average, Israelis have killed a Palestinian child every three days.

By the way, the Iron Dome sysem has played a somewhat minimal role in the small number of Israeli deaths from rockets. Iron Dome wasn’t begun to be put in place until March 27, 2011. In the ten years before, there were only 17 deaths. For a full analysis go here.

Who originally began this violence?

Of course, the conflict between the two groups began before fall 2000, so let us go back and see how this all started, and which party initiated the violence.

That’s actually quite easy to do.

You don’t need to go back “thousands of years,” as some people believe. In reality, in the late 1800s this region – known as Palestine – was peaceful and had been so for centuries. Its population was about 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, and a little under 5 percent Jewish; all practicing their faiths side by side largely without conflict on land considered sacred to all three groups.

The problem began when a political movement called “Political Zionism” began in the late 1800s in Europe (and also in the United States) with the goal of pushing out the inhabitants and creating a Jewish state on this land.

The culmination of their efforts came in 1948-49, when Israel was created through warfare. At least 750,000 of Palestine’s non-Jewish inhabitants, approximately half of the total population, were ethnically cleansed, their lands, businesses, orchards, and other property (worth many millions of dollars) confiscated by the newly created Jewish state, Israel.

The Palestinians’ crime was being there.

#

By the way, the belief – also pushed by US media – that the current wave of violence began with the abduction and murder of three young Israelis is also incorrect.

The fact is that Israeli forces had killed at least 4 Palestinian children and approximately 35 Palestinian adults in 2014 BEFORE the abduction/murder of the 3 Israelis.

Also, one of the largest group hunger strikes in history was going on among Palestinians who were being held illegally in Israeli prisons — these “administrative detainees,” Israel’s Orwellian term, are prisoners who have never even been charged with a crime, yet are held for months or years. Many are tortured.

Even JJ Goldberg, a fervently pro-Israel journalist, says that Israeli “politics and lies” are behind Israel’s current aggression.

The pro-Israel spin, despite being repeated over and over, just doesn’t survive the facts.

#

For a synopsis of the history go here, for a more thorough discussion go here, for the US history go here.)

An account by another person who visited Khan Yunis (this is also spelled Khan Younis) a year later can be read here. Below is one of his photos:

And below are some photos I took when I was last in Gaza, July 2009:

 

 

___________

* This is also sometimes called the “Al Aqsa Intifada,” after the location where some of the first demonstrations began.

“Intifada” literally means “shaking off” of oppression. The American Revolutionary War, for example, could be similarly called the American Intifada against the British.