Was Roger Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" in Keeping with The Times' Ethical Guidelines? Open Letter No. 3 to Clark Hoyt

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

As you well know, three months ago I sent you, in your capacity as Public Editor of The New York Times, an e-mail, inquiring whether Roger Cohen's op-ed, "What Iran's Jews Say", dated February 23, 2009, adhered to your newspaper's ethical guidelines. I received the following response, dated March 20, 2009, from one of your staffers:

I am looking into this further, and doing some homework on the case right now. I also have Mr. Hoyt looking into it, and I will report our findings to you as soon as they are ready.

Well, it is almost three months since your staffer began his "homework", and I have yet to hear back from him or you. Is this the pace at which your department works, or has something else happened?

Just in case your "examination" is still active, allow me to jump-start matters. First, listen to Cohen's question and answer session at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles on March 12, 2009 (I already provided you with the Internet link), then kindly answer a few easy questions. Shall we begin?

As acknowledged by Cohen and known to all, most of the Iranian Jewish community has fled Iran, and Cohen's op-ed did not account for Iran's angry expatriate Jews, e.g., those at Sinai Temple, some of whom are no longer afraid to express their contrary opinions. So, at a minimum, Cohen's op-ed should have been entitled:

"What Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Say"

But let's take this a step further. Cohen never spoke with all of Iran's remaining Jews; in fact, he spoke with only several of them, and it cannot possibly be the case that they all think alike. For transparency's sake, surely you agree that the title should have read:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Said to Me"

But wait, there's more. At Sinai Temple Cohen acknowledged that he doesn't speak Farsi and that his conversations were conducted via an interpreter. As such, maybe the correct name for this op-ed should have been:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Said to Me Via an Interpreter"

Is that all? Sorry, but I'm afraid there's something else. Cohen acknowledged that the interpreter was assigned to him by an agency of the Iranian government and was reporting back to the Iranian government concerning Cohen's conversations. Given the need for transparency, the more appropriate appellation for this op-ed might have been:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Said to Me Via an Interpreter, Who Was Assigned to Me and Reporting Back to the Iranian Government"

But we're not finished yet. Yes, I know the title is already long, but for the sake of "truth in advertising", how can we possibly avoid observing, as acknowledged by Cohen himself, that those Persian Jews with whom he met were exercising self-censorship for fear of retribution. Hence, how about:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled, Said to Me, While Exercising Self-Censorship for Fear of Retribution, Via an Interpreter, Who Was Assigned to Me and Reporting Back to the Iranian Government"

Now forgive me for being petty and tiresome, but I fear there is one last, crucial detail that also needs to be included: I understand that Cohen's interviews with the Iranian Jews, whose names were cited in the op-ed, were arranged in advance by the Iranian government. Accordingly, wouldn't it make sense to call this op-ed:

"What a Few of Iran's Remaining Jews, i.e. the Ones Who Haven't Fled and Who Were Vetted in Advance by the Iranian Government, Said to Me, While Exercising Self-Censorship for Fear of Retribution, Via an Interpreter, Who Was Assigned to Me and Reporting Back to the Iranian Government"

Yes, I know that's a mouthful, but section 15 of The Times' "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" (the link appears on your web page, i.e. that of the Public Editor) specifically provides:

The Times treats its readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them.

An absurd title for an op-ed? Indeed, but no more absurd than the op-ed itself.

Given The Times' obligation to correct errors "large and small, as soon as we become aware of them", is it your position, Mr. Hoyt, that there was no need to inform The Times' readers of any of the above concerning the basis for and background of "What Iran's Jews Say"? If indeed this is your conclusion, just say it. A few readers may chuckle; however, I don't think any of this should be swept under the carpet, Persian or otherwise.

I have already expressed my horror and indignation at the anti-Semitic online comments that were posted in response to Cohen's series of op-eds concerning Iran. Now, following Cohen's admission that he "erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the use of ruthlessness," it remains for Cohen and The Times to apologize for the cynical use of Iran's fragile, frightened Jewish community in a myopic media campaign.