Thomas Friedman and the Red Lines in Journalism on Israel and Palestine
Thomas L. Friedman, author and New York Times columnist, on Nov. 6, 2019, in New York City.Photo: Mike Cohen/Getty Images for The New York Times
Many people are unhappy about some recent pensees from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, headlined Understanding the Middle East Through the Animal Kingdom." Friedman explains that Iran is to geopolitics what a recently discovered species of parasitoid wasp is to nature."He informs us that Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq are like caterpillars in which this wasp lays its eggs, and those eggs are the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and Kataib Hezbollah."
This is imperialistic blather straight out of the 19th century, except horribly written - imagine Rudyard Kipling after an anvil fell on his head. But the column is useful because itreconnects us to a 1982 incident that illustrates how, when it comes to the Middle East and Israel, the management of the Times has sometimes been to the right of Friedman.
In 1982, Friedman was a mere reporter, recently hired by the Times and stationed in Beirut. Israel had invaded Lebanon that June, in an effort largely aimed at destroying the Palestinian Liberation Organization. A front-page story by Friedman, dated August 5, reported that Israeli planes, gunboats and artillery rained shellfire all across west Beirut today."
That was not exactly what Friedman had filed, however. He had written that the shellfire was indiscriminate." That word was quietly deleted from the article by editors in New York. Notably, the Washington Post ran a piece the same day describing the shelling as Friedman had: indiscriminate.
Friedman was outraged at his editors. He sent a memo back to the Times headquarters, arguing that I am an extremely cautious reporter. I do not exaggerate. ... You knew I was correct and that the word was backed up by what I had reported. But you did not have the courage - guts - to print it in the New York Times. You [emphasis in original] were afraid to tell our readers and those who might complain to you that the Israelis are capable of indiscriminately shelling an entire city. ... I am filled with profound sadness by what I learned in the past afternoon about my newspaper."
Then the memo was leaked to the Village Voice. What happened next is described in Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword" by David Shipler, Friedman's fellow Times reporter and co-recipient with him of the Polk Award for their coverage of the war in Lebanon.
According to Shipler, Abe Rosenthal, then the executive editor of the Times, demanded that Friedman fly to the U.S. for a dressing-down. However, by the time Friedman arrived in New York, Rosenthal had been calmed down by other editors. The two had a stern talk and Friedman kept his job. ... His success since has made him practically invincible to retribution for speaking up, which he says he feels free to do."
This is a compelling story with many morals.
First, at the summit of the U.S. media, it reveals the lines that reporters may not cross, at the cost of potentially losing their jobs. Normally these lines are invisible to news consumers. As The Intercept reported last month, CNN runs its Israel and Palestine coverage through its Jerusalem bureau, where its reporters operate under the shadow of the country's military censor. And an extensive expose published Sunday by The Guardian illustrates that staffers at CNN believe the network is skewing its reporting on Israel, much as the Times did in 1982.
Second, despite the conservative belief that corporate media outlets are anarcho-syndicalist collectives run by their workers, it turns out these outlets have owners and executives who are in charge and ultimately determine what the outlets run. Not surprisingly, what they run tends to heavily favor Israel, as The Intercept recently noted. It's encouraging, however, that journalists at these organizations occasionally rise up as Friedman did in 1982: The Times is currently dealing with a wave of internal debate over its reporting on sexual violence during the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas.
Third, this aspect of how the world works tends to drop out of history. Even Friedman does not mention his 1982 outburst in From Beirut to Jerusalem," his famous book covering his sojourn as a reporter in the Middle East. Had you ever heard about it before? My guess is you have not, unless you are either professionally peculiar, or a friend of mine who I recently called to harangue about this.
Fourth, people and institutions are complicated. In a famous review of From Beirut to Jerusalem," Palestinian American intellectual Edward Said describes Friedman's writing as strangely ignorant," full of comic philistinism," and offering dictums that are moronic and hopelessly false." On the other hand, Said writes, Friedman is capable of uncompromising analysis" and compassion and affection thus occasionally get through Friedman's remorseless machine."
Israel's War on Gaza The same thing is true for the Times itself. Somehow it is simultaneously the worst and best newspaper on earth. On the one hand, it runs crimes against human cognition about the insects living in the Middle East. On the other hand, it also regularly produces brilliant investigative reporting, sometimes even about Israel.
This complexity is extremely cold comfort for the people who are brutalized by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, it's important to comprehend if we're trying to understand reality - something we should want to do, no matter how difficult and frustrating it can be.
The post Thomas Friedman and the Red Lines in Journalism on Israel and Palestine appeared first on The Intercept.