When I wrote yesterday I hoped the incoming New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief wouldn’t be any worse than outgoing chief Ethan Bronner, little did I know that within 24 hours we would learn those hopes were already in vain. As Alana wrote earlier today, Jodi Rudoren had begun exhibiting not only questionable judgment but also an overt bias against Israel even before she landed in the country. Her praise of extremists like the Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah and her laudatory references to Peter Beinart’s book trashing Israel indicated that she saw no reason why the public should have to wait until she started filing slanted stories to understand where she stood on the issues.
In an attempt to do some quick damage control, Rudoren submitted to an interview today with Politico’s media reporter Dylan Byers to explain herself. But it did little to repair her image or to undermine the notion she has already made up her mind about how to report the conflict. Instead, she demonstrated the same naïveté about what constitutes bias on Israel as well as showed herself woefully unprepared for the political maelstrom in Jerusalem.
First of all, Rudoren claimed her tweet to Abunimah was meant to be private, not public. But the Anthony Weiner excuse doesn’t cut it. No matter what her intentions, the idea that she considers Electronic Intifada “important” already shows her frame of reference about Israel. It is one thing to say, as she does, a reporter must talk to all sides. It is quite another to make nice in this manner with advocates of economic warfare on Israel. Her promise to reach out “to extremists on all sides” hardly makes up for the fact that she has already put herself on record as thinking well of one group of anti-Israel extremists.
Even worse is her insistence that her praise of Peter Beinart’s tendentious attack on Israel isn’t an indication she supports his point of view. Indeed, she doubles down on her praise for Beinart:
In terms of Peter Beinart’s book, I will absolutely not apologize for thinking that this is a good book. Peter is someone I’ve known for 20 years, he’s a journalist, he’s written a really interesting book. I don’t agree with everything in the book, I don’t even have an opinion about the arguments in the book, but it’s really well-written, it’s really provocative, there’s tons of reporting in it with things people don’t know. I think people should read it. I think hard-right Zionists should read it and Palestinian activists should read it. And young American Jews, who are really the audience for the book, should read it.
I will not apologize for tweeting about the book at all. Will I tweet about books written by people more closely aligned with Netanyahu? Absolutely. I’m reading one book at a time. I expect to have a long and robust and diverse reading list, and when the spirit moves me I may tweet about it.
The very fact that she thinks Beinart’s book filled with left-wing clichés contains original reporting demonstrates that she has a poor grasp of what constitutes good journalism but also that she has come into this post knowing little about the conflict or the literature about it. Moreover, her claim she doesn’t agree with everything in the book is a weasel-worded excuse that will convince no one. You don’t give a gushing endorsement to a polemic such as Beinart’s if you are neutral about its thesis.
As for her claim she is reading “one book at a time,” that reminds me of Herman Cain’s similar pledge to read up about foreign policy after he was called out for being an ignoramus on the subject.
The Times has clearly made a mistake in appointing someone to this post with a clear bias against Israel. But the fact that she has been so indiscreet about her bias ought to alert her editors to not only her lack of political savvy but also her complete unsuitability for such a delicate position. But given the drift of the paper towards an openly anti-Israel editorial position and its unbalanced opinion pages, perhaps the editors have come to the conclusion there is really no need to even pretend to be objective on their news pages anymore.
The judgement involved in placing someone like Ruderen in the position as the Times Jerusalem correspondent is of a piece with the business judgement that caused the Times to lose $40 million last year. Let's drop the pretense. The Times is an enemy of Israel, Zionism and the Jewish people. Their reportage and op eds allow for the worst kinds of anti-semitic tropes to be published with not a word of disagreement from the editors or business side of the paper. It's not even necessary to make a list. We all know what they are, why and from whom. Shun them, ignore them, spit on them in the street. Well, we can always hope that this year they'll lose $80 million and shut their doors. Well deserved.
Unfortunatel, they Re unlikely to dissapear. Theyll just get bought by some oil shiek who will further tweak the editorial bent towards the master plan.
Please note the Times columnists: Roger Cohen, Paul Krugman, Kristoff and ,going back a generation, Anthony Lewis , all rabid anti- israel. Oh- I forgot the "sage' of New York,Thomas Friedman, he, with the million ideas how to disappear from the map. nAt least, in the past, the publishers had a fig leaf like A.M. Rosenthal and William Safire. today, not even this allowed. nThe NY Times has been hemorraghing customers and lost its moral mooring long time ago. nTHank the good Lord that the Israelis are smarter than accepting any advice from the NYTimes and that the American public knows what they are, enemies of Israel.
Dead fish have been confirmed by scientists to lose IQ points wrapped in the air-headed ditz of the ingenue Times commetariat. Of course, Peter is a friend of hers. This by the bye is an example of what tens and tens of thousands of dollars at the toppermost elite of academia's most cloistered Ivies gets you. Voila, you emerge 4 or 6 or 8 years later a confirmed conforming empty headed poltical class approved Valley Girl., Who has more intellectual heft, the "editors" of the Times (sorry, this is the preferred brand of swill of the Gray Lady) or, say, any bocher at the bottom third of his class at Yeshiva U or, say, Lakewood Yeshiva?
if this is a sample of her prose style, I'm surprised she got a job writing at all, even at the Times: n n"there’s tons of reporting in it with things people don’t know." n ngosh, is there? tons? rilly? what's next: a tweet about how HAWT Peter Beinart is? I mean seriously, what is she, 14? n nas I've noted elsewhere, all you need to know about Beinart's book is that he's launching it at a J-Street Conference. no wonder the Times hearts it.
When are you going to figure out the Times is a lost cause and stop complaining about them?
Who's complaining – I shorted the Times stock 3 years ago and made some money out of it. Assholes like the ones at the Times are like cockroaches – they're everywhere even at their Jerusalem Bureau. These guys couldn't figure their way out of a pissed soaked brown paper bag. I'm sure Carlos Slim who saved the Times from BK is just lovin' it.
The opinion page of the New York Times is the Torah of Reform Judaism. They will never adopt the tedious tropes of true hasbaristas, but rest assured, they won’t show most of the pale creepy-crawlies that slither under the Zionist rock, either.
I would like to simply express my appreciation for The Commentary Blog. I no longer waste my time with The NYT.r n If The NYT were smart and had any guts, they would cancel The Ruderen contract and pick up Caroline Glick of The JP.
Presumably, if Rudoren was simply reaching out to Abunimah as a potential contact then she would have likewise sent cutesy Tweets to avowedly Zionist sources, too. Where are they?