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.

Just Say No to Iran!

Over the course of recent months we have been forced to suffer Roger Cohen's paeans to Persian "civility" scrawled over the pages of The New York Times. Now, in a May 24, 2009 op-ed published by The Times entitled "Are We Losing Iran?", Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett also implore President Obama to forge "a new approach toward Iran." The Leveretts contend:

On its present course, the White House's approach will not stop Tehran's development of a nuclear fuel program - or, as Iran's successful test of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile last week underscored, military capacities of other sorts. It will also not provide an alternative to continued antagonism between the United States and Iran - a posture that for 30 years has proved increasingly damaging to the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.

Does this mean that Israel is no longer an ally of the U.S., or, do the Leveretts presume to know what is best for Israel as well as America's other Middle East allies, i.e. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan?

The Leveretts go on to say:

The notion of an Israeli-moderate Arab coalition united to contain Iran is not only delusional, it would leave the Palestinian and Syrian-Lebanese tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict unresolved and prospects for their resolution in free-fall. These tracks cannot be resolved without meaningful American interaction with Iran and its regional allies, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Sorry, Leveretts, but you've got it wrong. Hamas and Hezbollah are not Iran's "regional allies", but rather Iran's regional surrogates, busying themselves with murder, suicide bombings, terror aimed at civilians, the undermining of governments allied with the U.S., and illegal drug dealings. Are you asking the U.S. to be nice to Iran in the hopes that Iran will call off its dogs? Do you presume that Iran is capable of dictating terms to Syria, which views Lebanon as its backyard?

More to the point, how does anyone write an op-ed of this nature without mentioning Sunni/Shiite tensions? Do you know that the dozens of tribal conflicts among the Arab nations and between Iraq and Iran have claimed an exponentially larger number of lives than the combined Israeli/Arab wars?

And how does anyone call for "a new approach toward Iran" without mentioning the oppression of Iran's Baha'is, Kurds and Jews?

Yes, the ascension of President Obama undoubtedly marks a sea change in U.S. foreign policy, but does this mean that the U.S. need befriend every rabid totalitarian regime, every savage repressive theocracy, with the goal of fostering "change"? Guess what? You cannot and should not be friends with everyone, and in the instance of Iran, Obama should just say no -

• Because Iran persecutes its Baha'i minority in much the same way that the Nazis persecuted the Jews;
• Because Iran brutally persecutes its Kurdish minority;
• Because Iran stones to death alleged adulterers with their children watching;
• Because Iran severs the hands of alleged thieves;
• Because Iran tortures and murders unfriendly journalists;
• Because Iran imprisons anti-regime bloggers;
• Because Iran calls for Shiite revolution across the globe;
• Because Iran funds suicide bombings directed against civilians;
• Because Iran sponsors terrorist bombings against Jews as far away as Argentina;
• Because Iran supports genocide in Darfur;
• Because Iran hangs homosexuals;
• Because Iran has called to "wipe Israel off the map";
• Because Iran oppresses and sanctions violence against women;
• Because Iran seeks to undermine governments friendly to the U.S., e.g., Egypt;
• Because a regime crazy enough to do all of the above is crazy enough to let its nukes fly;
• Because if Iran has the bomb, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will also be quick to follow (strange how these four countries are not perturbed by the Israeli arsenal, but then Israel is not calling for Shiite revolution).

If Obama turns a cold shoulder to Iran, does this mean that tiny Israel will be reenacting Thermopylae against the Persian hordes? Nah. As already noted, enmity between Shiites and Sunnis far exceeds Iran's hatred against the Jews, and with oil at $60 a barrel, Iran cannot meet its domestic budget while pursuing foreign intrigue.

What Iran's Jews Don't Say

Exactly two months ago, I wrote to the Public Editor of The New York Times concerning Roger Cohen's op-ed, "What Iran's Jews Say" (". . . the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran - its sophistication and culture - than all the inflammatory rhetoric"), and asked:

• In 'What Iran's Jews Say', as a matter of journalistic ethics, should Cohen have included in his op-ed all of the above facts, i.e. that his conversations were with a limited number of Jews, via a translator reporting to the Iranian Government, and that the persons he interviewed might have felt duress?
• Was the title of the op-ed appropriate, given the above?
• Are NYT op-eds subject to journalistic standards different from other reported stories?

I received the following response, dated March 20, 2009, from the Public Editor's office: "I am looking into this further, and doing some homework on the case right now. I also have Mr. Hoyt [The New York Times' Public Editor] looking into it, and I will report our findings to you as soon as they are ready."

Meanwhile, I have heard nothing back from the Public Editor or anyone else from The New York Times.

It is worth noting that in the guidelines promulgated by The New York Times in "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Practices for the News and Editorial Departments, September 2004", it is stated in section 15:

The Times treats its readers as fairly and as 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.