So You Want to Be Jerusalem Bureau Chief…

How to tackle -- and not tackle -- the most delicate assignment in journalism.

BY RON KAMPEAS | FEBRUARY 17, 2012

Even before she gets to Israel, Jodi Rudoren, the new New York Times bureau chief, is already explaining why she'd prefer not having "Zionist" attached to her name.

And to a Jewish reporter at a pro-Israel website, no less.

Rudoren, whom I've never met, should know this: It could be worse.

Instead of telling Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon why she's not a Zionist, she could be explaining why she'd prefer not having "Jewish" attached to her name.

It's happened.

Abe Rosenthal, the paper's legendary executive editor, may have favored David Shipler for the post in 1979 not just because of his eye-catching reportage from Saigon and Moscow, but because he also thought he was ending the paper's ban on sending Jewish reporters to the region. As Rosenthal subsequently learned some time after making the assignment, Shipler is not, in fact, Jewish.*

Rosenthal's determination to end the ban finally came to fruition in 1984, when Shipler ended his tour and was replaced with Tom Friedman.

The bizarre circumstances of the Shipler tale -- couldn't Rosenthal have used the typical devices ("So, where are you going for the seder?") that assess Jewdar before he made the decision? -- bespeaks the fraught relationship the Old Gray Lady has with the Old Testament's People.

The Sulzbergers, the longtime owners of the Times, were famously nervous during World War II about reporting the Holocaust, often burying revelations of its horrors on its inside pages.

"Deep down, my father probably would just have soon not have been Jewish," Judith Sulzberger is quoted as saying in The Trust, the authoritative biography of the newspaper by Susan Tifft and Alex Jones, of Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the wartime owner who banned the use of phrases like the "Jewish people."

That reluctance had momentous consequences: Then, as now, what appeared on the Times's front page often determined the news agenda for competitors and wire services.

The late Daniel Schorr, who started out as a writer and then a desk editor with my employer, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, bailed for the mainstream media in part because he could no longer stand to read the horrors coming across the JTA wire, edit, and relay them to subscribers (among them the Times, at the time) -- and then, see nothing make the papers.

The ambivalence persists to this day. Tifft and Jones gleefully chronicle how, depending on who is pissing him off and why, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., the current chairman, will bark that you know what, he's Jewish, or you know what, he's not. (He's an Episcopalian, albeit one with Jewish ancestry.)

So, following the lead of Arthur O., or "Pinch," here are some rough rules for Times bureau chiefs (and other journalists) for navigating the world's most delicate reporting assignment:

1. Polish that Sunday school Hebrew

It helps. The close 1996 elections, pitting Shimon Peres against Benjamin Netanyahu, were close enough that it took from Tuesday poll closing to Friday afternoon to make the official call. On Friday morning, I was staking out Likud headquarters in Tel Aviv with a bunch of other journalists, waiting for word that could translate into a news alert for my then-employer, the Associated Press.

Netanyahu's spokesman emerged and said, in English, sorry, we still can't call it, and then in Hebrew, for the Israeli press: Come inside, I've got news for you.

The Reuters reporter and I gave each other a quick "Can this guy be this stupid?" look and followed them inside the building.

Netanyahu was by that point sure he would win (he did) and he wanted the Israeli reporters to get the news out before the Jewish Sabbath cut off a significant portion of the country from news broadcasts. Instead, Reuters and AP were the first to have the alerts.

I'm being a little unfair to the spokesman; until around the mid-1980s, it had been a point of honor among most foreign correspondents not to speak Hebrew. The wires were first to wise up and hire locals who could speak the language. Soon the major dailies followed, and then by the 2000s it was no longer unusual for foreign hires to be familiar with the language. (There was never any such reluctance, as far as I can tell, with Arabic.)

Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: MEDIA, MIDDLE EAST
 

Ron Kampeas has been the Washington bureau chief for JTA since 2003. He worked for the Associated Press as a foreign correspondent in Jerusalem from 1998 to 2000.

SQUEEK

11:13 PM ET

February 17, 2012

Why US coverage of foreign news is weak

All FC of any major global media outfit based in Jerusalem should know Hebrew and Arabic. Ir's shocking they don't. It has to limit their understanding of the ME's complex politics.

 

PEARPANDAS

1:01 PM ET

February 19, 2012

Agreed

They could easily quote somebody wrong or misunderstand something that is being debated. It really does not bode well for those who are presenting and unbiased opinion to not speak both languages!

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

12:00 AM ET

February 18, 2012

well, its curious why CNN just dumped its ...

some or all of their jewish journalists in israel...only arabs cnn reporters in israel now...

they used to have a policy where both would be assigned to cover stories, but it seems like that's just changed...

I wonder whyyyyy....

could it be part of the 2012 pro obama media machine?

 

LEONIDASLEONIDAS

7:31 AM ET

February 18, 2012

Good point

Both CNN and BBC have a clear anti-Israel bias.

 

SABABA03

6:08 PM ET

February 19, 2012

Bashing Israel

Media outlets think, Bashing Israel sells more papers, and increase TV rating.

 

FUNKEDUP143

8:05 AM ET

February 20, 2012

I Entirely Disagree

I would argue the inverse that CNN and the BBC have a "Pro" Israel bias.

In fact I have a recent example to back up my assertion -

http://www.alanhart.net/the-bbc-censors-its-own-report-on-tunisias-jews-saying-no-to-israel/

 

LEONIDASLEONIDAS

7:39 AM ET

February 18, 2012

Much of the media, including the NYT, has an inherent bias

against Israel.

They also highlight any news from Israel out of proportion.
A country of about 7 million people gets more coverage than most other countries in the world.
And due to the nature of the media - most of the coverage is negative.

Thus we end up with a distorted picture, in which Israel is demonized and vilified beyond all measure.

 

TARQUINIS

12:24 PM ET

February 19, 2012

Zionism is racism and unending war

For the following reasons it seems to me that the Zionist enterprise has reached its dead end. Iran is not the problem. It is they who are desperate. A new war against Iran, Turkey, Egypt, or repeatedly devastating Lebanon, can only make a bad situation much worse.

No two state solution: it is now foreclosed by forty years of illegal annexations and forced colonization of the West Bank. Look at a map of the "settlements". They seem to be located in such a manner as to make a Palestinian state not viable. Some 500K super ardent Haredi occupy these "settlements" and it is a fantasy that they ever would leave to make the Palestinian state feasible, nor stay in peaceful accomodation with one.

No one state solution: Unacceptable. A state unitary, democratic, and non-sectarian with one person one vote confronts the frankly racist thesis of a state dominated by a particular religious or ethnic group.

No sustainable Apartheid solution: The servile condition of the Palestinians in the West Bank, surrounded by vast concrete walls, and forbidden even to drive on the roads upon pain of immediate and non-recourse confiscation of their vehicle, and the worse reality of the unfortunates in the Gaza ghetto, imprisioned for life, cannot endure in the modern world.

See Shulamit Aloni's summation of this at: http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-i...

No "population transfer" solution: Expulsion of millions of Palestinians to Jordan at the point of a bayonet is not feasible.

No military solution: The vast military power of Israel and all its nuclear weapons are useless to resolve this impasse.

Ergo, there is no solution. Dead end. Yes, Israel remains in full control of US policy, but unending war can only in time come to one conclusion.

For my part, I just want America off this bus before it goes over the cliff and takes us with it.

 

LEONIDASLEONIDAS

12:13 PM ET

February 20, 2012

TARQUINIS - Take off your tinfoil hat,

and get out of your mom's basement.

Outside you'll find a real world, full of wondeful objective facts, awaiting your discovery.

 

SCOTT83

11:07 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Why is this here?

There is nothing less interesting (or more odious) then listening to the media talk about the media.

I live in Israel and I couldn't care any less who is the NYT bureau chief.

I don't care because, like the vast majority of English speaking people in this world, I don't read the NYT.

In fact, I don't even know anyone who reads it.

The last time I checked, it still had the same stable of tired, tenured columnists who ceased being relevant in 1974.

Like 98% of the literate world, I get my news online from a number of news sites, none of which I could not live without if it dropped off of the planet.

Get over yourselves.

 

EXPOSING HYPOCRITES

8:55 AM ET

February 21, 2012

Great news! Iran no longer needs nuclear reactors for meds...

Guess what? Iran says it needs reactors for medical isotopes to fight cancers, right? well, Canada has pioneered a new technology for making medical isotopes for cancer without having to build nuclear reactors...its called a cyclotron and they cost roughtly 1-3 million per machine.

check the article....title is "new finding may solve isotopes shortage, and its written by margaret munro in the national post....you can google it,,,

so there you go! iran now doesnt need to enrich nuclear material! isnt that amazing????? no more excuses for iran!

 

NATIVIDAD DARCANGELO

2:59 AM ET

March 17, 2012

Jerusalem Bureau Chief

In my opinion, It is great to be Jerusalem Bureau Chief. so great, I love want to be. Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.