More examples of Ethan Bronner's reporting

I'm continuing to look over Ethan Bronner's war in Gaza reports. Here are some that I have comments on (in reverse chronological order):

In this article on January 5th, I have a quibble about what Bronner writes in the 11th paragraph:

"Israel has said it wants to end Hamas’s will or ability to shoot rockets at civilians in southern Israel, which Hamas has been doing for years, terrifying tens of thousands of inhabitants."

While I would imagine that the rockets have been terrifying Israelis and that the rockets fall in random places though generally near the southern border with Gaza, in comparison to Israeli firepower, they haven't been causing that much damage, and is it really true that "tens of thousands have been terrified"? Are they or have as many been as terrified as the Palestinians are right now with American-made warplanes, helicopters, and drones flying overhead dropping more accurate bombs or other weaponry, not to mention an army ground invasion? That last part of the above sentence could have come straight out of an Israeli official's mouth.

I also had thoughts about the following:

"Some officials here and abroad began exploring ways to keep Hamas from rearming as it has through smuggler tunnels in the Sinai. Some were suggesting a huge concrete underground wall, and others suggested heavily armed international monitors."

Yeah, I guess it's not good for Hamas to be able to smuggle arms into Gaza, but then what about Israel being able to rearm itself with American aid? Shouldn't there be a limit on what America provides to Israel, particularly with the destruction Israel is causing in Gaza and what it did to Lebanon in 2006? I don't read reporting about that possibility however remote. If you're going to let Israel be infinitely rearmed, why shouldn't Hamas have some armament? I never liked Hamas when they were carrying out the suicide bombings in Israel a few years ago. Yes, I viewed them as a terrorist organization that was harming the peace process rather than helping it. And Hamas is still terroristic with its rockets, but I cannot help feel some sympathy for their cause and the Palestinians as a whole when they have been blockaded and then pummeled by overwhelming Israeli firepower.

Because of its rockets, here is an article published Jan 3rd about how Hamas can be removed from power. Because of its disproportionate use of force, I ask how can the Israeli leadership be removed from power? There is no such talk of that.

This article on Dec 30th focuses on the ceasefire negotiations first and then goes onto describe the casualties of the war. Might one want to recount the immediate death and destruction first and then report on negotiations for a ceasefire? Wouldn't that properly highlight the horror that is going on in Gaza?

Here's one more for this post, and article published on Dec 29. What I don't like is in the 12th paragraph and a general point of the Israelis is the unchallenged assertion by Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Minister, that he has nothing against the citizens of Gaza. Well, if he has nothing against Gazan citizens, then he shouldn't be commanding his forces to wreck their cities and towns. These types of statements are stupefying, and apparently Bronner accepts them.

An example of Ethan Bronner's reporting

I mentioned in my last post that I would try to find some articles of Bronner's that I think equated the Israeli suffering with that of the Gazans. This post was to have references to several articles, but I had too much criticism of just one of his articles that it filled up a whole post. If there is more, I will post more.

This article on January 5th is my most memorable article. It had some things beyond just the equating of suffering that bothered me about it. First, Bronner writes in the second paragraph "On the 10th day of Israel’s war on the Islamist rulers of Gaza, ...". Well, that's exactly the way that Israel would like you to view it, that this is a war on Hamas, not on the Palestinians. The problem with that is that Israel's massive retaliation for the Hamas rockets can't help but destroy many Palestinian lives. The Israelis know that. The Palestinians know that. NY Times readers know that. The world knows that. If the war were actually to be on the Islamic rulers (Hamas), Israel would have been much particular about its targets and would have not tried to wreck practically the whole Gazan infrastructure. To describe the conflict as a war on the Islamic rulers of Gaza totally misrepresents what is going on.

The 4th paragraph says this: "Intense battles continued into the late night, with early reports of rising casualties on both sides." Rising casualties on both sides? As if it's an equal amount of rising casualties! As Bronner himself reports just a few paragraphs later, the Palestinian death toll had risen to 550, a quarter of those civilians. Hamas had killed 5 Israelis since the conflict began. Again, rising casualties on both sides??!! It is ludicrous to write such a statement when the figures are so disparate. One ponders at how Bronner undercuts his own writing.

Bronner spends much of the rest of this article regurgitating what each side's leaders are saying without writing himself that Israel's response is disproportionate. He writes that the French, the UN, Arab states are working on a deal to bring an immediate though maybe temporary end to the hostilities. Does Bronner ever state why they are doing this? Does he not want to print the reason?

Granted, Bronner reports all the facts for which he deserves credit, but from those facts can't he see the justification for an immediate ceasefire?

Email to NY Times correspondent Ethan Bronner

Today I submitted an email to New York Times correspondent Ethan Bronner. Bronner is the Times' Jerusalem bureau chief and has been the Times' primary correspondent covering the war in Gaza. In the Week in Review section of today's Times, Bronner had this defense of his reporting of the war. What disturbed me about the piece was this:

"...and how the war of language can confound a reporter’s attempts to narrate — or a new president’s attempts to mediate — this conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair."

Reporting so that both sides view it as fair is not the point of journalism! The point of journalism to report events accurately. This statement really summed up for me Bronner's reporting. Generally, it has been good, but at times particularly early on in the war, Bronner seemed to equate the destruction wrought upon Gaza with what the Hamas rockets were doing to Israel. I wish I had the quotations to show this, but I haven't yet found them after a quick look at the large number of articles by Bronner on the war. If I get a chance to review the articles, I'll post examples of I'm writing about here.

Below is the email. It's okay. I was in a bit of a rush, because I had to meet somebody soon after writing it. I don't know if I'll get a response to my bullet in his in-box. He may be getting a whole lot more after this piece.

Dear Mr. Bronner,

Earlier today I read your "The Bullets in My In-Box" opinion piece. I understand that there are difficult challenges in reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I was quite disturbed by the one that you mention, that "the war of language can confound a reporter's attempts to narrate - or a new president's attempts to mediate - this conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair". Certainly, a new president must mediate this conflict in a way that both sides can accept as fair. However, mediating and narrating are two quite different things. What a reporter should be concerned with is that the narration is accurate, not with how both sides view the narration. This attempt to narrate fairly in the eyes of both sides explains to me your reporting on the war in Gaza. At least a couple of times I detected an equating of the suffering experienced by the Israelis with the suffering experienced by the Gazans. I will paraphrase, but there was one article where you wrote that there was suffering on both sides, and I found this to be a highly inaccurate way of characterizing (or to use your term "narrating") the suffering. As everyone knows, the Gazan suffered so much more than the Israelis: for now a 100 to 1 ratio in terms of deaths, who knows how many injured Gazans, and a wrecked infrastructure endangering the health of Gazans and furthering their suffering. So when you justify your reporting as an attempt to narrate fairly in both sides' eyes, then I find that to be very misguided. You do not need to worry about how the two sides view your reporting. With all due respect and knowing your years of experience, your goal should be to report accurately no matter what the sides think. If it paints a picture of one side more negatively than the other, then so be it. If the reporting is accurate, then that is what happened, and both sides must accept the truth and how it reflects upon them. Sometimes, it is like reporters seem to feel like their reporting must put them in the middle, thinking that they will then be viewed as impartial. But when one side is clearly in the wrong (as Israel was killing many more Gazans than Hamas killing Israelis), then reporters should not be trying to justify its views. I hope your future reporting more accurately conveys the suffering in any such future conflicts.

Regards,

Letter to The New Yorker, about what else?

I sent this in to the New Yorker just a little while ago:

To the Editor,

David Remnick writes a nice Comment piece (Homelands) regarding Barack Obama and the advent of his presidency. However, like much of American politicians and the media, Mr. Remnick unfortunately discounts the disaster that has unfolded in Gaza. He writes "The civilian suffering and deaths are inevitable; the lessons less so." No, Mr. Remnick, the civilian suffering and deaths are not inevitable. The human tragedy in Gaza is not just another conflagration in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that we should passively view as inevitable and therefore accept. It is blind American support for Israel and American-made F-16s and bombs that are allowing Israel to rip Gaza and its people apart. Hamas certainly is to blame for triggering this assault, but by no means do their rockets justify what Israel is doing to Gazans. There is just no comparison in the suffering between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And the lessons are not less inevitable. By now, Americans and one would wish Israelis should know that unjustified war (Iraq) or a disproportionately violent response are not the answers to terrorism. Fighting terrorism with even greater terrorism (yes, these wars are terrorism) is exactly the wrong way to go about achieving peace. Only further anger and radicalism ensues. Mr. Remnick is right; "the obligation of constant engagement is deep", but when the engagement is not occurring and a people are being pummeled with the many lives forever torn or lost, there should be an immediate and fierce effort to achieve a peace. America should be a part of that effort. Resignation to inevitable violence, such as it is in Gaza and in 2006 in Lebanon, is lacking in compassion and is unnacceptable.

I am sure that Barack Obama will bring back that American engagement to the Israeli-Palestinian situation that has been sorely missed over the past 8 years. So far though, he has been disappointingly quiet about Gaza or only supportive of Israel's right to defend itself. I hope though that during his presidency the Israeli-Palestinian situation will be truly treated even-handedly by America as 71% of Americans would like it to be (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/503.php?lb=btis&pnt=503&nid=&id=).

Regards,

New York Times: A disappointment

Just when I think I may start subscribing for the full week, the NY Times becomes very disappointing with its coverage of the conflict in Gaza. Today's front page has a photo of Israeli soldiers taking a break and an article about Ehud Barak's rising political stature as a result of Israel's bombing and invasion of Gaza. Then there is a little note at the bottom referring to an article regarding the bombing of a UN school in Gaza where numerous children and other civilians were killed.

Just where is the Times's morals in this? The bloodshed of Palestinians at the hands of Israel warrants much more attention than an Israeli politician's prospects or some Israeli soldiers at rest (or the loss of a few fallen Israeli soldiers written about inside). The Palestinian strife was buried in today's paper.

And no letters published about the conflict/invasion in the opinion section yet. Two days ago, the editorial board had a very lame editorial about what it calls Israel's "incursion" into Gaza. Plus, Thomas Friedman yesterday had a ridiculous op-ed that focused on the geopolitics of the conflict, allowing him to ignore the suffering of the Palestinians and as usual throw blame at the Arabs. I did read though some excellent online reader comments disagreeing with each.

Over the days of the conflict I've noticed in the ongoing articles an effort here and there to somehow equate the suffering of each side.

I could not read today's paper.

Letter to the NY Times: Israel-Gaza and Obama

Though it most likely won't be published, my letter to the NY Times today. I also sent a copy of it to http://change.gov, Barack Obama's President-Elect (and probably continuing) site.

To the Editor:

In regards to the conflict in Gaza, President-Elect Barack Obama's silence is deafening. Mr. Obama is willing to talk about the economic crisis but not about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This is not leadership. This is not change. Mr. Obama should be strongly urging an immediate end to the violence. This bludgeoning of Gaza and its people by Israel is a greatly disproportionate response to the Hamas rockets and can not be tolerated. The longer that Mr. Obama remains quiet, the lesser pressure there is for real diplomacy, and the greater the view that he along with President Bush is tolerant of Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians.