9 February 2010 1 Comment

NY Times Jerusalem ethical dilemma

The Jerusalem Post has an article examining the emerging controversy surrounding New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner. His son is about to enter the Israeli army and a Times editor wrote a piece suggesting that this made it impossible for Bronner to continue in his post. The editor-in-chief responded that he disagrees, arguing that it would put the choice of Times correspondent (and therefore the quality of its journalism) in the hands of people with a vested interest in the conflict — that is, those who’d object (or approve) of a correspondent perceived as being on one side of the conflict or the other. “Ethical judgments that start from prejudice lead pretty quickly to absurdity, and pandering to zealots means cheating readers who genuinely seek to be informed,” Keller wrote. I agree with Keller, and you’ll see from the Post piece that I believe the problem for a reporter in Bronner’s situation will be more of appearances than actual practice. Every reporter has his own internal moral framework — we don’t have official ethical overseers like doctors or lawyers (a lot of good it does them, I’d add) — so Bronner will have to make an adjustment to his own, that’s all.

One Response to “NY Times Jerusalem ethical dilemma”

  1. modna odzież 6 October 2010 at 4:05 am #

    Great blog, I have just bookmarked it :)

Leave a Reply