[Peace-discuss] FAIR: NYT Israel correspondent Isabel Kershner’s conflict of interest

[Robert Naiman]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4534

Extra! May 2012

New Conflict of Interest at NYT Jerusalem Bureau
Isabel Kershner’s family tie to pro-government think tank

By Alex Kane

After the news broke that New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan
Bronner had a son who enlisted in the Israeli army (Extra!, 1/27/10),
Times public editor Clark Hoyt noted (2/6/10) that it was problematic
for Bronner to continue reporting on “one of the world’s most intense”
conflicts while his son took up arms for one side. Hoyt spoke to a
former Times Jerusalem bureau chief, David Shipler, who stressed the
importance of disclosing this relationship to readers.

Bronner is now close to the end of his tenure in Jerusalem. But two
years after that controversy, the New York Times has yet to learn the
importance of disclosure. And the concealed relationship again
concerns a Times reporter who writes from Jerusalem: This time, it’s
correspondent Isabel Kershner.

Kershner has a record of misleading reporting (Extra!, 7/10, 4/11,
1/12) that reflects the New York Times’ bias toward the Israeli
government perspective.

But even more damning is this: Her husband, Hirsh Goodman, works for
the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) as a senior
research fellow and director of the Charles and Andrea Bronfman
Program on Information Strategy, tasked with shaping a positive image
of Israel in the media. An examination of articles that Kershner has
written or contributed to since 2009 reveals that she overwhelmingly
relies on the INSS for think tank analysis about events in the region.

The close family tie Kershner has to the leading Israeli think tank, a
branch of Tel Aviv University, has never been disclosed to readers of
the New York Times. The paper did not return requests for comment.

The INSS is well-connected to both the Israeli government and its
military. Many of its associates come from government or military
careers; its website boasts of the group’s “strong association with
the political and military establishment.” In 2010, according to INSS
financial documents, the Israeli government gave the institute about
$72,000.

The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz (10/5/08) identified INSS-produced
papers as backing the “Dahiyah doctrine,” an Israeli military doctrine
that calls for disproportionate force to be used on civilian
infrastructure in Gaza and Lebanon during operations against Hamas and
Hezbollah. The doctrine was applied in 2008–09 during Israel’s
invasion of Gaza, and was cited, along with the INSS papers, in the UN
Goldstone report, which accused Israel of committing possible war
crimes (9/25/09).

Goodman’s job within that context is spin. “The media is of strategic
importance in a political and military conflict, since it has a
formative influence on the degree of legitimacy that each side
enjoys,” he writes in an explanation of the Bronfman Program on the
INSS website. “Israel must devise a strategy to impact positively on
international and Arab public opinion and overall disseminate its
message more effectively.”

The INSS is certainly disseminating its message effectively in the
Times. From 2009–12, there were 17 articles Kershner wrote or
contributed to where officials from the INSS were quoted, far more
than other comparable think tanks Kershner uses for analysis. Over the
same time period, for example, the Shasha Center of Hebrew University
was quoted two times and the National Security Studies Center at the
University of Haifa was quoted once.

It’s normal, of course,for Kershner to have sources in a
well-connected and respected institution like the INSS, and she has
never used her husband as a source. But it’s extraordinary to report
on Israel/Palestine without ever disclosing to readers the tie
Kershner has to someone in the heart of Israel’s security
establishment whose job is precisely to make sure that Israel receives
favorable media coverage.

Media ethics expert Kevin Smith, the chair of the Society of
Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee and an instructor at James
Madison University, says that Kershner’s case is a “basic ethics 101
lesson.” In an email, Smith explained: “Repeatedly going to that
agency for information still raises serious questions.... The
relationship that develops here is not healthy for unbiased news
coverage. It’s too awash with personal connections.”

He added that, “at the very least, disclosure is demanded.... You
cannot expect trust or to maintain credibility from the public when,
before they read a word of your copy, you have engaged in an act of
deception by not disclosing your potential conflicts.”

The New York Times’ own ethics code recognizes the problems such a
situation raises. “Staff members must be sensitive that direct
political activity by their spouses...may well create conflicts of
interest or the appearance of conflicts,” one section states. “If
newsroom management considers the problem serious, the staff member
may have to withdraw from certain coverage. Sometimes an assignment
may have to be modified or a beat changed.”

Kershner’s situation, like Bronner’s, also illustrates that many
Western journalists covering Israel/Palestine are enmeshed within
Israeli society, and Israeli society only—hardly a recipe for fair and
inclusive coverage of the conflict.

“While it would be convenient to think otherwise, there is no question
that this deep personal integration into Israeli society informs our
overall understanding and coverage,” one unnamed Jerusalem bureau
chief told Israeli-based British journalist and author Jonathan Cook,
explaining Western media bias in Israel/Palestine (CounterPunch,
2/25/10).

Kershner’s case should be seen as the emblem of this “deep personal
integration.” At the very least, there should be transparency about
her family ties.

Alex Kane is a staff reporter for Mondoweiss and the World editor at
AlterNet. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.


--
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org