New York Times Ignores its Own Public Editor on Disclosure?

The New York Times published an opinion piece profiling a “prominent Palestinian advocate of nonviolent resistance” in Hebron. The authors of the piece, Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman are described in a short bio as authors and novelists.

 

 

If the names ring a bell, it’s possibly in relation to another New York Times opinion piece from December 2016 by the author Rachel Kushner. This piece was flagged by HonestReporting after the NY Times failed to disclose that Kushner had been writing about a Palestinian refugee camp as a direct result of a trip organized by Chabon and Kushner in association with the politicized Breaking the Silence organization.

[elementor-template id="323780"]

The NY Times’s public editor Liz Spayd agreed with us and wrote in a subsequent column:

I found Kushner’s magazine story to be an exceptional piece of reporting and writing, one that didn’t seem to be carrying anyone’s political agenda. That said, the wiser choice would have been to make clear the role of Breaking the Silence in the project. Disclosure ahead of time is better than questions afterward.

Irrespective of the contents of the latest opinion piece by Chabon and Waldman, shouldn’t the New York Times disclose the following information in the interests of transparency?

• Waldman and Chabon are editing a book project based on the writings of novelists from around the world invited to come to Israel and the Palestinian territories to write essays about what they see.
• The book project is organized, in part, by Breaking the Silence.

While we do not know for sure whether this latest opinion piece is a direct result of a trip to the disputed territories in association with Breaking the Silence, it is clear that it is a direct result of Waldman and Chabon’s pro-Palestinian activism.

Therefore, shouldn’t the New York Times be following the advice of its own public editor and disclosing this ahead of time?

We’ve written to Liz Spayd, the public editor, asking her why the New York Times has failed to disclose yet again.