There are so many considerations swirling around this case: Bronner is a superb reporter. 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. It doesn’t seem fair to hold a father accountable for the decision of an adult son.But in practice, does the New York Times apply this regard for objective reporting evenly when it comes to the Middle East?
But, stepping back, 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.
I have enormous respect for Bronner and his work, and he has done nothing wrong. But 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. [emphasis added]
Not when it comes to Fares Akram, who writes occasionally for The New York Times.
I don't know how good reporter Akram is--he may very well be an excellent journalist--but Fares Akram does carry with him the possible appearance of bias:
It has been a year since we huddled in our homes in the dark, waiting sleeplessly for the sound of the bombs to stop. It is a year this week since my father, a 48-year-old lawyer with no link to Hamas, the Islamist movement that governs Gaza, was killed by an Israeli air strike, supposedly on Hamas militants.Whatever the underlying circumstances, the death of Akram's father is a terrible tragedy. But if Bronner should be given a different assignment--should the New York Times then turn around and unquestioningly accept Akram's articles on Israel?
...I had little idea, when I started sending my reports, just how directly we would be affected by the Israeli assault. Our lives were to be shattered just hours into the ground invasion, when my father and a 17-year-old cousin were killed at the family farm, struck by a massive bomb dropped by an Israeli warplane directly on the property.
...Back in January 2009 I wrote in this newspaper that my daughter Somaya, born into a scene of violence and chaos just 10 days after my father's funeral, was the first light in our darkness. Now as we prepare to celebrate her first birthday, she again is a reason to go on.
In addition, NGO Monitor wrote to The New York Times about Fares Akram's writing using Human Rights Watch as a source, without mentioning his affiliation with them:
April 18, 2010The New York Times never did make that correction acknowledging Akram's affiliation with Human Rights Watch.
To the Editor:
Fares Akram’s article “Hamas Executes Two Accused of Aiding Israel” (April 15, 2010, page A11) prominently features Human Rights Watch (HRW). However, the Times fails to mention Akram’s ongoing professional affiliation with HRW. This conflict of interest is particularly problematic considering that HRW's reporting on Israel and strident political advocacy are the subject of extensive controversy.
Fares Akram works as a “research consultant” for HRW, and has been associated with the NGO since at least 2007. He contributed to three major HRW publications alleging Israeli war crimes during the Gaza war: Rain of Fire (March 25, 2009), Precisely Wrong (June 30, 2009), and White Flag Deaths (August 13, 2009).
In light of this conflict of interest, the April 15 article should be corrected to acknowledge Akram’s relationship with HRW. The Times should also consider Akram’s dual role as an HRW employee and a journalist.
Sincerely,
Gerald Steinberg
President, NGO Monitor
If The New York Times felt there was a need to address the appearance of bias in the reporting of Ethan Bronner, they should feel exactly the same with the appearance of bias in the reporting of Fares Akram.
Hat tip: DG
Technorati Tag: Media Bias and Fares Akram.
No comments:
Post a Comment