Did Roger Cohen's "The Goldstone Chronicles" Violate the Policy on Ethics in Journalism of The New York Times?

OPEN LETTER TO MR. ANDREW ROSENTHAL, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, AND MR. ARTHUR BRISBANE, PUBLIC EDITOR, OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

Re: Request for Correction

Dear Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Brisbane,

In Roger Cohen's op-ed "The Goldstone Chronicles" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), published online by The New York Times on April 7, 2011, he writes:

"Israel is celebrating what it calls a vindication. It is preparing to welcome Goldstone. It is demanding nullification of the report, even though Goldstone is only one of its four authors. Meanwhile the facts remain: the 1,400 plus Palestinian dead [italics added], the 13 Israelis killed, the devastation, the Hamas rockets — and the need for credible investigation of what all evidence suggests were large-scale, indiscriminate, unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, as well as Hamas’ crimes against civilians."

Where did this so-called "fact" regarding Palestinian dead come from?

According to the Israeli army, the total number of Palestinians who died was 1,166, consising of 709 "Hamas terror operatives", 162 men killed during the operation who "have not been yet attributed to any organization", and 295 civilians (see: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=137286).

There is a large difference between "1,400 plus Palestinian dead" and 1,166, particularly given that Hamas now agrees (see Richard Goldstone's recent Washington Post op-ed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html), that the number of dead Palestinian militants determined by the Israeli army was correct, i.e. the preponderance of Palestinian fatalities consisted of militants.

Cohen purposefully ignores any mention in his op-ed that the Palestinian dead included combatants.

Cohen obviously decided to disregard the Israeli army figures and to cite Palestinian figures, notwithstanding allegations that the Palestinian figures were inflated (see: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3660423,00.html), and notwithstanding past instances where Palestinian figures were shown to be fabricated, e.g., casualty figures for the purported 2002 Jenin "massacre", which was subsequently proven to have been a hoax (see: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2002/05/03/the_jenin_massacre_hoax?page=full&comments=true).

Of course, "The Goldstone Chronicles" is an opinion piece, and Cohen is entitled to choose to believe the Palestinian figures; however, this this does not give Cohen the right to describe the Palestinian figures as a "fact", particularly given that he was not in Gaza during the war.

Questions:

• Does a New York Times op-ed writer have an obligation to state that the number of dead cited by him includes combatants?

• Does a New York Times op-ed writer have an obligation to state the source of his "fact", i.e. the number of Palestinian fatalities, particularly when this so-called "fact" is in dispute?

• Does a New York Times op-ed writer have an obligation to state that a "fact" being cited by him is in dispute?

According to "The New York Times Company Policy on Ethics in Journalism" (http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html):

"17. As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction. We publish corrections in a prominent and consistent location or broadcast time slot."

I think it is abundantly clear that The New York Times, pursuant to its own set of journalistic ethical standards, is required to publish an immediate correction concerning Roger Cohen's purported "fact".

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey