HonestReporting has often discussed the “halo effect” whereby so-called human rights organizations and left-wing NGOs are considered beyond reproach or criticism by the media. These non-governmental organizations and related personalities generally get a free ride from the media. This is not the case for NGOs considered to be pro-Israel.
And so it is with the New York Times and Jodi Rudoren’s profile of Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat HaDin, the Israel Law Center, that works to achieve justice for Israelis and other victims of terror or states that sponsor terror such as Iran.
In the interests of full disclosure, Darshan-Leitner is a valued guest speaker on HonestReporting’s Missions that take place twice a year.
We don’t expect a puff piece from Rudoren but we shouldn’t accept what appears to be a fixation on adding as many negatives into the article to create a correspondingly negative tone. Indeed, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and Shurat HaDin are treated with a level of skepticism bordering on hostility.
For example:
Her arguments are regularly rejected by courts. About 90 percent of the $1.6 billion in default judgments against no-show defendants including Iran, Syria, North Korea and the militant Palestinian group Hamas have not been paid. Attacks continue, and she continues to file complaints (and news bulletins).
and
But Robert J. Tolchin, a New York lawyer who collaborates with Ms. Darshan-Leitner, called her a “visionary” unafraid to pursue “guerrilla litigation.”
Like when she tried (unsuccessfully) to compel Israel to rescue Palestinians in the Gaza Strip facing execution for collaboration. Or when she pressed (unsuccessfully) to retain roadblocks preventing Palestinians from driving on Road 443 in the West Bank years after a series of deadly shootings there.
In fact, considering the number of successes that Darshan-Leitner claims to have been a part of, it’s those cases that she did not win that grab the most attention in the article.
And what to make of this?
“Nitsana looks at situations and sees arguments and issues that most lawyers don’t see,” said Mr. Tolchin, whose law school roommate is the brother of Ms. Darshan-Leitner’s husband.
The implication is that Tolchin’s supportive words should be taken with a grain of salt due to some tenuous personal connection once or twice removed.
Perhaps we could say that this is actually professional journalism on the part of Rudoren, digging to find vested interests or examining the credibility of her interviewees. Except that this level of investigative skepticism is reserved only for one side.
What happens when Rudoren deals with an anti-Israel NGO? In May 2014 we flagged a story by Rudoren concerned with the so-called Palestinian “Nakba,” where she leaned heavily on a radical anti-Israel non-governmental organization called Zochrot, which she described as “advocating the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants.”
As HonestReporting noted, Rudoren didn’t bother to mention Zochrot’s anti-Zionist activities including support for a one-state solution and the end of Jewish sovereignty, as well as the production of a highly disturbing video featuring a radical activist who visits the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and adopts the persona of the “Holocaust,” claiming to be “the best thing that ever happened” to the Jewish people.
So why is it then, that Jodi Rudoren’s profile of a Zionist activist from a pro-Israel NGO is reduced to the level of a hit piece while a radical organization from the polar opposite end of the political spectrum is treated with kid gloves?
One can only assume that this is but one example of Rudoren’s sympathies betrayed by a simple comparison with previous articles and the glaringly obvious anti-Israel bias of the New York Times in general.
[sc:graybox ]You can send your letters to the editor – [email protected] – remembering to include your address and phone numbers (more on how to submit a letter to the NY Times here.)
