NYT Public Editor undermines the idea of objective journalism

Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the New York Times, wrote a very disturbing piece on Sunday. In it, he called for the reassignment of Ethan Bronner, the Times’ Jerusalem Bureau chief, because his son has joined the Israel Defense Forces. I can only assume that by dealing with a very narrow question, Hoyt avoided the implications of his answer for the larger question of journalism. So let me post a few questions that Hoyt ignored.

1. Would Hoyt have asked a similar question of a reporter whose son or daughter was serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? More importantly, would the question have even come up?

2. Did Hoyt realize that he tainted EVERY report the Times ever publishes from Israel, because now the Times agrees it is legitimate to attack a reporter because of his ties to Israel?

3. Did Hoyt understand that he essentially precluded any Israeli journalist from writing news stories about the conflict for the Times, since every Israeli serves in the military for fixed period of time and then serves until in the reserves until his or her mid-40’s? And that many of them have children who also serve?

4. Unwittingly, Hoyt undermines the very idea of journalistic objectivity. Whether you believe in it or not, reporters argue that they put their personal feelings aside to cover the news without allowing their views to come into play. Hoyt’s column undermines that very idea for every Times reporter. It’s ironic, because Bronner’s professionalism doesn’t come into question in Hoyt's piece.

5. The New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller responded forcefully to Hoyt’s suggestion. Keller demonstrates in his response that Hoyt never asked these questions of other Times reporters who could be as deeply conflicted as Hoyt seems to assert Bronner to be.

Simply put, the Hoyt piece legitimizes any attacks on any piece in the New York Times if one can find a connection to the reporter to any part of the issue being reported. It undermines the entire newspaper. But it's hard to believe that the fact the issue in question is the Palestine/Israel conflict didn't color the answer here.

Shmuel Rosner of the Jerusalem Post weighs in on this "controversy" with a some other ideas that argue against the Public Editor's suggestion. Ron Kampeas of JTA and Jeffrey Goldberg weigh in also.