Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor for the New York Times, is struggling with a tough ethical dilemma (“Should David Brooks Disclose his Son’s Israeli Military Service.”) She has been asked by some readers whether columnist David Brooks should be fired from the paper for failing to disclose (until recently) that his son is serving in the Israeli Defense Forces. While she disagrees that Brooks’ son’s service should prevent him from writing for the Times, she does agree that he should have disclosed the information, that readers have a “right” to know about it.
In general, she says that columnists should be immune from the kind of disclosures that reporters should have to make. However, because his son is serving in the Israeli military, he really has a greater obligation. She writes:
I don’t think readers usually need to know what the spouses of columnists think or what brothers do for a living, or whether a daughter has joined the U.S. Army. But this situation strikes me as a more extreme case. Mr. Brooks’s son is serving as a member of a foreign military force that has been involved in a serious international conflict – one that the columnist sometimes writes about and which has been very much in the news.
Fair enough. Yet when it came to the Times chief correspondent in Gaza who used a picture of Yasser Arafat as his profile picture on Facebook and referred to Israelis as terrorists, she voiced no such concerns. Even after Richard Behar broke the story in an article in Forbes magazine, the Times never acknowledged the bias of its correspondent. In fact, Fares Akram has continued to work for the Times even after the story was made public.
How can it be that the occupation of the son of a columnist is more significant than the personal admiration of reporter for one of history’s leading terrorists?
When it comes to Brooks’ son, Sullivan writes:
I do think that a one-time acknowledgment of this situation in print (not in an interview with another publication) is completely reasonable. This information is germane; and readers deserve to learn about it in the same place that his columns appear.
Yet when it comes to the adoration of their chief Gaza correspondent for Yasser Arafat, Sullivan apparently does not consider the information “germane” and does not believe that “readers deserve to learn about it.”
[sc:graybox ]Please write to Sullivan at public@nytimes.com and ask why there are double standards at the New York Times between employees with Israeli connections as opposed to those connected to Palestinian terrorists.
In order to make sure she sees your question, please include the following:
Article Headline: Should David Brooks Disclose his Son’s Israeli Military Service
Date Published: October 8, 2014
Web or Print: Web
15 Comments
I have read the article by Margaret Sullivan and must ask myself, “Is she more upset that she found out about the IDF connection of Brook’s son in an interview with a foreign media source or the fact of membership in the IDF?” I’m sure that she is not upset with the NYT’s discloser that the articles sent by it’s reporters from territory of the P.A. or Gaza that their reports are self censored or controlled by the Arabs. The lack of honesty in the control of what comes out of Arab territory should be the thrust of an article by her and not the nonsense contained in this one.
If you read her article, make sure you read the Comments section. The ignorance of some of the posters is illuminating.
Should columnists be required to post their political affiliations, their religion, sexual orientation, etc.? A columnists writes his opinions, he is not writing a news story where it should contain both sides of a story, not written in a bias manner
Margaret Sullivan is merely expressing the bias of the N.Y. Times ownership. She may share this bias, but if ownership did not condone, or even direct the comments, they would not have happened. Her comment should make a David Brooks statement on the subject moot as well as irrelevant.
Now if Fares Akram reveals the locations of tunnels into Israel, that would be real unbiased investigative reporting.
We do not judge a person’s integrity by there bloodline. If that was the case we would all be guilty of something.. He needs not release his sons information. .. no ones buisness
It is clear and obvious that Margaret Sullivan is a Dufus and a Moron and has no rights to make any moral judgements since she has none!
What blatant double standards here: this isn’t pure journalism….blatant anti-semitism!
Margaret can NEVER go wrong. There is no need for intellectual masturbation. Remember, Israel a light to the nations. His son represents one of the many candles.
New York Times is an openly racist anti-Jewish publication. It supports policies leading to the full genocide of the Jews in Israel
The Brooks issue doesn’t concern me nearly as much as the hook, line and sinker attitude the NYT has toward its Gaza and WB correspondents who have been caught again and again falsifying news. They continue to treat them as legitimate credible journalists when they are not.
There is a sentence in the US Constitution that prohibits any act of attainder or corruption of the blood. This entire discussion is a matter of “corruption of the blood” in that somebody is being damned for their son’s actions. Very naughty! and from a quarter that makes a great song and dance about doing things in due proper and correct form….Tut ! Tut !
the pocket rules… while anti israel news pays, they will play it for all it’s worth. they know well that it won’t last. when they least expect it, it will explode in their faces. and their publications will cease to exist. unemployment offices take note.
Where is the old New York Post, or the Herald Tribune, now that we need them?
The ME is VERY, VERY DARK.
The New York Times needs to have a fair and objective standards about bias in journalism. It is not right to make a journalist disclose that their child is in the Israeli military but not make another journalist in Gaza, who used a picture of Yassar Arafat , the founder of the Palestinian Liberalization Organization , not change their standards.
another double standard by the NYT, will we ever see Journalist who give facts over opinion????????? Guess not – so now we get garbage NOT NEWS when I want your opinion I will look on the opinion page which is the whole newspaper now. Why I won’t subscribe.
Pingback: The New York Times’ Double Standards – Som2ny Network