Journalistic Ethics: Comparing The New York Times With The Washington Post

Is it possible to compare the level of journalistic ethics of The New York Times with that of The Washington Post? The simple answer: Yes!

Almost ten days ago, in an editorial entitled "Making the Gaza Cease-Fire Last," The New York Times informed us (my emphasis in red):

"There seems to be little room left in Israeli politics for those who would end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and create an independent Palestinian state."

I immediately sent an email to the editorial page editor of The New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal:

I would like to bring to your attention that in an editorial entitled "Making the Gaza Cease-Fire Last," it is stated:

"There seems to be little room left in Israeli politics for those who would end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and create an independent Palestinian state."

Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2005.

"Occupied" in the sense that Israel controls the borders of Gaza? This also doesn't work. Gaza shares a border with Egypt.

An answer from Rosenthal? None.

I then sent an email to the public editor of the Times, Margaret Sullivan, presenting her with my message to Andrew Rosenthal and asking why the Times refuses to correct an editorial spewing "pure nonsense."

An answer from Sullivan? None. Needless to say, there was also no correction.

Now let's have a look at The Washington Post. Yesterday, in a Post opinion piece entitled "The fantasy of Middle Eastern moderates," Fareed Zakaria wrote (my emphasis in red):

"In the Palestinian territories, Mahmoud Abbas, who heads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, is indeed a moderate. But notice that the Israeli government and the West have happily postponed elections in the West Bank year after year — because they know full well who would win. Moderates don’t do well in an atmosphere of despair and war."

I immediately sent an email to WaPo's managing editor, Martin Baron, explaining that the Palestinian Authority had been responsible for postponing the elections. Within minutes, I had a reply from Mr. Baron, informing me that he had forwarded my email to his op-ed editor, Michael Larabee.

Michael Larabee subsequently sent me two responses. First, he told me that the matter was being checked. Later, he wrote to say that there would be a correction. Shortly thereafter, the following text appeared under the title of Zakaria's opinion piece:

An earlier version of this column erred in stating that “the Israeli government and the West have happily postponed elections in the West Bank.” The elections have been postponed by the Palestinian Authority.

A mere accident that The Washington Post corrected this error? No way! Two months ago, WaPo also corrected an opinion piece entitled "Why the Mideast peace process is in tatters" by David Ignatius, after I informed the Post that Israel had not "announced 700 new settlements in early April," as claimed by Ignatius, but rather 708 residential units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. Ignatius even sent an email to me, expressing his regrets (no email yet from Zakaria - nor do I expect to receive one).

So, is there a difference between the journalistic ethics of The New York Times and The Washington Post? No two ways about it!

Gail Collins, "Knowing When to Worry": Did Gail's Op-ed Violate New York Times "Ethical Journalism" Guidelines?

Shut down the US government unless Obamacare is defunded? The attempt by the US House of Representatives to kill Obamacare is draconian and apt to do more damage than good. Of course, Obamacare is a disaster, and there is a reason why the Obama administration continues to delay its implementation (see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960).

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Knowing When to Worry" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/opinion/collins-knowing-when-to-worry.html?_r=0), Gail Collins mocks the effort by the Republican-controlled House to quash the Affordable Health Care Act. Collins drolly writes:

"The bill the House sent to the Senate on Friday doesn’t even make much sense. The 'defund Obamacare' part looks as though it was written by squirrels. If it became law, Obamacare would actually continue to exist. At most, the administration would be crippled in their early efforts to get younger uninsured Americans to sign up for health coverage. (This would presumably give the opposition more time to run those ads that show a young woman being given a pelvic exam by a monster Uncle Sam doll.) And, meanwhile, the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program would be thrown into chaos, as well as payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients."

But are the Republicans as loony as Collins makes them out to be? Have a look at Kathleen Parker's most recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Waiting for Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-waiting-for-obamacare/2013/09/20/1eae4f96-2232-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html?hpid=z2), in which Parker makes the case that Obamacare needs to be delayed (actually, what is being done by the Obama administration) and not defunded. Parker observes in no-nonsense fashion:

"[T]he Affordable Care Act (ACA) is becoming increasingly unpopular. Only 39 percent of Americans currently favor the health-care program, compared with 51 percent in January, according to a recent CNN/ORC International poll.

Some of the reasons:

●Many companies are cutting worker hours to below the threshold (30 hours) at which they're required to comply with Obamacare. (SeaWorld is cutting hours for thousands of workers.)

●Others are cutting workers completely to avoid compliance or to reduce costs associated with the expanded coverage. (The Cleveland Clinic cited Obamacare as one reason for offering early retirement to 3,000 workers and hinting at future layoffs.)

●Many young people, unemployed or earning little, will have trouble paying premiums once open enrollment for health insurance exchanges begins Oct. 1. Even discounts won’t be enough for some, who then will face fines or have to turn to parents who face their own insurance challenges. List-price premiums for a 40-year-old buying a mid-range plan will average close to $330 per month, according to a recent Avalere Health study. For someone who is 60, premiums will run about $615 a month. Forget retirement."

Parker's conclusion:

"If we can delay sending cruise missiles to Syria pending a better solution, perhaps there’s some sense to delaying a health-care overhaul that creates unacceptable collateral damage to citizens and that is not quite ready for public consumption."

As acknowledged even by the Obama administration, as evidenced by its delays in implementing the law, Parker is right.

But let's go back to Collins. Did Collins's op-ed violate the "Ethical Journalism" guidelines (http://nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf) of The New York Times? Item 6 of the handbook of the Times provides:

"[N]o one may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government."

Michael Calderone, the Senior Media Reporter for The Huffington Post, tells us in an article entitled "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media), that Obama consulted on August 29 with editorial and op-ed staffers from The New York Times regarding his meandering Syria policy. It would appear that as a result of this "off-the-record" meeting, Obama suddenly decided to seek congressional approval for his proposed "limited" strike against the Assad regime.

The meeting, in which Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, not a particularly bright light (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/is-new-york-times-columnist-maureen.html), participated together with op-ed staffers, including Collins, and members of the editorial board, was not reported by the Times.

A simple question: Is it acceptable for the editorial and op-ed staff of the Times to meet with the president, offer their advice, and then opine - almost always favorably - on the president's actions? Can it be said that this advisory session deprived all of its participants of whatever was left of their impartiality?

What advice concerning Obamacare was given to the president during this shindig by New York Times staffers?

Care to answer, Gail?

Nicholas Kristof, "Seeking Balance on the Mideast": No Balance in Kristof's Column

Choosing to ignore Assad's tank onslaught upon the citizens of the Syrian city of Hama and divert the attention of the readership of The New York Times to – you guessed it – Israel, Nicholas Kristof, in his latest op-ed entitled "Seeking Balance on the Mideast" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/opinion/seeking-balance-on-the-mideast.html?_r=1&hp), would excuse himself by writing:

"Whenever I write about Israel, I get accused of double standards because I don’t spill as much ink denouncing worse abuses by, say, Syria. I plead guilty. I demand more of Israel partly because my tax dollars supply arms and aid to Israel. I hold democratic allies like Israel to a higher standard — just as I do the U.S."

Actually, no one is accusing Nicholas of double standards, but rather something far worse.

Kristof writes:

"Similarly, when Israel stormed into Gaza in 2008 to halt rocket attacks, more than 1,300 Gazans were killed, according to B’Tselem, a respected Israeli human rights group."

Peculiar how Kristof fails to state the number of mortar shells, rockets and missiles that had been fired from Gaza at civilian targets in southern Israel prior to Operation Cast Lead: over 10,000. And by the way, two more rockets were fired from Gaza at Israeli cities yesterday (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=232392).

More odious, however, is how Kristof fails to mention that B'Tselem's casualties figures are hotly disputed (see, for example: http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id328.html). Kristof also chooses to ignore the casualties figures carefully researched by the Israel Defense Forces: 1,166 Palestinians died, of whom only 295 were non-combatants (see: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=137286). The Israel Defense Forces numbers were recently confirmed in large part by Hamas (see: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=193521), but there is no acknowledgement of this by Kristof.

Kristof also praises J Street and would have us believe that support of Israel is a "conservative" phenomenon:

"That’s because those Jews who vote and donate based on Israel are disproportionately conservative (the same is true of Christians who are most passionate about Israel issues)."

Kristof ignores the most recent Gallup poll concerning the support of the US public for Israel (http://www.gallup.com/poll/146408/americans-maintain-broad-support-israel.aspx):

"Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians."

Question for Kristof: Are all of these supporters of Israel "conservatives" and/or "extremists"?

According to section 17 of The New York Times Company Policy on Ethics in Journalism (http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html):

"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."

Did Kristof report the "complete, unvarnished truth" in his latest column, in which he apparently seeks to have his readers compare Israel's 2008 operation in Gaza to curtail rocket fire against civilians with current Syrian atrocities in Hama? You decide.

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

Arthur Brisbane's "Standards That Everyone Can See": What About Censorship, Anti-Semitism and Journalistic Ethics at The New York Times?

Arthur Brisbane, the new Public Editor of The New York Times, has published an opinion piece entitled "Standards That Everyone Can See" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/opinion/03pubed.html) in which he takes the position that The Times should make its rules of the road easy for readers to navigate:

"The Times has a good set of policies. It should double down on its commitment to high standards by organizing them into a reader-friendly format and then trust its audience — which is now a paying audience both online and in print — to readily access these important principles and rules."

But what good are policies that are not enforced?

I submitted an online comment to Mr. Brisbane's piece, and - wonders will never cease - it was posted (no. 38):

"The Times should make its rules of the road easy for readers to navigate"? My belief is that the "rules of the road" are understood by your readership; however, their interpretation and implementation by your newspaper leave much to be desired.

Examples:

1. Notwithstanding your newspaper's written declaration that "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive," my online comments are regularly rejected by your so-called "moderators" when the said comments intelligently refute or are at odds, in a non-abusive manner, with the content of a given op-ed or editorial [see, most recently: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/03/roger-cohens-arabs-will-be-free.html].

2. Notwithstanding your newspaper's written declaration that "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive," there have been many instances where vile anti-Semitic comments have been tolerated by your so-called "moderators" [see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html]. I brought this phenomenon to the attention of one of your senior editors, and after he investigated my allegations, many of these racist comments were retroactively deleted. However, soon thereafter, additional anti-Semitic comments were posted.

3. Notwithstanding your newspaper's written declaration that "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive," there was an instance where your so-called "moderators" permitted a call for extreme physical violence against a high ranking former Republican government official. Only after I contacted one of your senior editors was this comment removed. [The comment, no. 8, posted by The New York Times in response to Maureen Dowd's April 29, 2009 op-ed, "Vice's Secret Vices", stated: "I think writing about Dick Cheney is at bottom passe Maureen. If you can't get the balls to put a material bullet between his eyes,,go away."]

4. In the not too distant past, I submitted to the prior Public Editor a complaint, inquiring whether a certain columnist had adhered to your newspaper's ethical guidelines, and I received the following response: "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." Needless to say, I never heard back from the office of the Public Editor. [see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-roger-cohens-what-irans-jews-say-in_17.html]

In a nutshell, The New York Times has become highly politicized, and it is not your readership that needs to be reminded concerning the "rules of the road", which are no longer being enforced.

What good are internal policies and standards that are ignored by a news organization? My guess is that Mr. Brisbane has yet to discover to what depths The New York Times has descended.

Open Letter to The New York Times: A "Minor" Question of Journalistic Ethics

Open Letter to the Editors of The New York Times

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

Yesterday many of you were copied on an e-mail that I sent to the Public Editor of The New York Times, stating:

It is the purported policy of The New York Times that anonymous sources should be used only as “a last resort when the story is of compelling public interest and the information is not available any other way.” Yet, today we have Roger Cohen stating [in his op-ed "Madam Secretary's Middle East"]:

"'A bit of an epiphany,' in the words of one aide, came in March 2009 on the road to Ramallah. 'We drove in a motorcade and you could see the settlements high up, and the brutality of it was so stark,' this aide said. 'Everyone got quite silent and as we approached Ramallah there were these troops in berets. They were so professional, we thought at first they were Israel Defense Forces. But, no, they were Palestinians, this completely professional outfit, and it was clear this was something new.'"

Maybe Roger would care to tell us the name of this anonymous "aide", who became so upset by the "brutality" of hillside settlements? Also, is this elegant prose truly a verbatim quote, or has it been "dressed up" for publication?

My response to the Cohen op-ed which posed these questions was of course not posted by your "moderators"; however, you can read the content of my comment at: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/

Query: Has the policy of The New York Times changed with respect to the use of anonymous sources? Is such use deemed ethical by The New York Times? I welcome your response.

I have received no response from the Public Editor, and as such, I ask each of you:

- What is the name of Hillary Clinton's anonymous "aide" who provided the quote highlighted by Cohen?

- Was this quote verbatim? (Although I am occasionally interviewed on television, I obviously have much to learn from this honey-tongued "aide", who is steeped in off-the-cuff linguistic style and who should be considered as a replacement for Robert Gibbs.)

- Has the policy of The New York Times changed with respect to the use of anonymous sources? Is it still the policy of The New York Times that anonymous sources should be used only as “a last resort when the story is of compelling public interest and the information is not available any other way”?

For the sake of good order, I would observe that I have contacted the U.S. State Department, and I have also asked them to provide me with the name of the "aide" who provided this quote. In addition, I asked the State Department to confirm that the quote attributed to this "aide" is indicative of the attitude of those surrounding Ms. Clinton and whether Ms. Clinton has indeed lost much of her sympathy for Israel, as alleged by Cohen.

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

Roger Cohen Lectures on Journalism

In his New York Times op-ed of today's date, "New Tweets, Old Needs", Roger Cohen lectures us on the meaning of journalism. My response:

"[Journalism] is a choice of material, whether in words or image, made in pursuit of presenting the truest and fairest, most vivid and complete representation of a situation."

Oh, really? Don't you think, Roger, that you should have told your New York Times readership over the course of your series of Iran op-eds:

- You don't speak Farsi.
- As admitted by you at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles this past March, you were accompanied in Iran by a translator hired, as required by Iran, from a government "agency".
- The translator, who accompanied you to your meetings with several Jews from Esfahan, acknowledged that he was reporting back to the "agency" concerning these meetings.
- The persons being interviewed could well have been intimidated by the presence of this translator.

You didn't tell us whether these meetings were prearranged by the Iranian government "agency". At a minimum, you should have informed your readership in your op-ed, "What Iran's Jews Say", of the presence of the translator and his "affiliation".

Perhaps "What Iran's Jews Say" was "vivid", but was it "true", "fair" and a "complete representation of a situation"?

Worth noting that although I was promised an answer from the office of the Public Editor of The New York Times concerning whether Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" was in keeping with The Times' ethical guidelines (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-roger-cohens-what-irans-jews-say-in_17.html), I have yet to hear back, after six months, from Clark Hoyt.

Are things always so slow in your department, Clark, or is it just something you prefer not to touch?