The Public Editor of the New York Times responds to the Bronner's Affair

He said: "Web sites like the Angry Arab News Service have called him a propagandist for Israel." Yes, I called him that because he is just that: a propagandist for Israel. But the entire piece is rather lame: so he basically is saying that there is nothing wrong with his reporting and that there is nothing wrong in his son bombing Palestinians, but that he should be reassigned. It does not make sense and it only shows that Mr. Public Editor was unwilling to speak his mind. Plus, it is so inunintelligent when people resort to the Bill O'Reilly defense: when he daily cites somebody calling him conservative and he then finds a nut who calls him a leftist. That, in O'Reilly's minds proves that he is unbiased. Public Editor does the same with Bronner. Plus, I like how he calls on former NYT reporters to offer an "objective" verdict. Oh, yes. I was expecting that the public editor is going to ask an Israeli military commander to serve as a referee here. He asked David Shipler to who served in the region for a year and a half and who wrote a book that adhered to the notion that the Arab-Israeli conflict is right-versus-right (which is at least less biased than right-versus-wrong that Bronner believes in.) I was not happy with Shipler's book and I corresponded with him on the matter. Then Shipler reviewed a book on Arab culture for the Times. I talked to him about it because I was outraged. I said to him: how could you review a book on Arabic culture when you know no Arabic? I can't imagine that I would review a book on, say, Russian culture. Even if I had Russian meals or traveled in Russia. He said to me: but they asked me. I said: say no. Tell them that you are qualified. But somebody needs to ask the Biller Keller this: what if Bronner's son had joined Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades? Would he also hold the same position? (thanks Sarah)