Father and son and fighting
This week the public editor of the New York Times took the extraordinary step of recommending the paper reassign its Jerusalem bureau chief because his son had enlisted in the Israeli army. Read the story in full:
The Public Editor – Too Close to Home – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com.
NYT Executive Editor took exception to the column, in clear terms in his response. Read it all the way through, as well.
Pick a side. Who do you think should prevail here? What is your feeling about removing a journalist from a story over the appearance of a conflict of interest, not an actual conflict? Does that distinction even matter? Is appearance everything? Is the Middle East story so hot and so intense that we lose hope for fair coverage? What about the mention of Anthony Shadid (an SJMC alum, by the way)? Does his heritage make him too close to the story, as well?
J202 Blog 
As I was reading the two opinions on this debate, I saw both sides – it is clear that there are many possible conflicts of interest, especially when covering the Israel/Palestine situation however there are situations where connections to the story can prove beneficial, as the NYT Executive Editor argued.
Bronner has successfully covered his beat for years (27 to be exact) and if his son is now joining the Israeli Defense Force, that is a tie from Bronner to the IDF that always potentially existed but was never realized. Presumably, if his son is joining the IDF, Bronner would support it as well. If he has covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for so long without any issues, I saw no reason why this should change anything.
However, when reading through the different sets of Ethics guidelines posted elsewhere on the blog, I came across the Society for Professional Journalists – and under “Act Independently,” the first guidelines listed are “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and “Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.” Arguably, Bronner’s situation violates both.
After reading these guidelines, I side more with the Public Editor who initially wrote the column concerning Bronner, but I know this is a touchy situation and I think the Executive Editor of the Times argued his side well. It seems the NYT is prepared to stand behind Bronner with a reasoned argument (as well as an extrordinary set of in-house ethics guidelines), but adjust if the situation requires, and I wish them all the best.