In "Season of Renewal", which concludes with the observation that "truth is impregnable", Roger writes: "God as revealed truth eludes me — frightens me even, for the fanatical lurks in revelation. But if God is the quest for truth, the touchstone of the soul, then I am not entirely an agnostic."
How inspiring! A journalist whose mission is to seek out the truth! But before accepting this at face value, shouldn't we first put this sacrosanct declaration to the test?
I for one have never forgotten Roger's 2009 memorable op-ed entitled "What Iran's Jews Say", which informed us that Iran's Jews, thought to be held captive by the Islamic Republic, in fact do not suffer anything approximating the oppression of the ancient Hebrews, whose exodus out of Egypt is described in Roger's “humanist modern version Haggadah.”
Query: Should this op-ed indeed have been entitled "What Iran's Jews Say", i.e. did it express the "truth"?
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 who are congregants of LA's Sinai Temple, some of whom, as Cohen learned in a meeting with them, 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 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. While visiting LA's Sinai Temple in 2009 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", 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"
An absurd title for an op-ed? I don't think so. Section 15 of The Times' "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" specifically provides: "In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it."
My belief is that in this "Season of Renewal", even after a year has passed since Cohen's op-ed, it remains for Roger and The Times to apologize for the cynical use of Iran's fragile, frightened Jewish community in an effort to persuade us that "Iran is not totalitarian". They deserve their freedom, as do Iran's Shiites, Sunnis, Baha'is, Kurds, women, homosexuals and journalists.
Over a year ago I asked The New York Times whether Roger Cohen's op-ed "What Iran's Jews Say" adhered to their ethical guidelines. I received the following response, dated March 20, 2009, from the office of their Public Editor:
"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."
I have yet to receive the findings of The Times. Apparently the moment of truth will never come.
No comments:
Post a Comment