Running the Jerusalem bureau for The New York Times is a tough job in a hypersensitive area, one that attracts more than its share of slings and arrows. So maybe it is best not to hand out extra arrows, as Ethan Bronner seems to have done.
In 2009, Bronner, who has run the bureau since March 2008, joined the speakers bureau of one of Israel’s top public relations firms, Lone Star Communications. Lone Star arranges speaking dates for Bronner and takes 10 to 15 percent of his fee. At the same time, Lone Star pitches Bronner stories.
Bronner says his speaking relationship with Lone Star is minimal, non-exclusive, and “not a very active one”—some half a dozen speeches out of seventy-five or so he’s given over the last three and a half years to nonprofit groups. His speaking fees, he says, are low, and “My public speaking reflects my newspaper writing—it is reportorial, analytical, and non-adversarial—and fully in keeping with New York Times ethical guidelines,” Bronner wrote in a response to interview questions. The Times backs him up. To Bronner’s responses,“We would add only that his speaking appearances for nonprofit groups all conform to Times ethics guidelines, and that we have complete confidence in his professionalism and impartiality,” Eileen Murphy, the Times’s vice president of corporate communications, wrote in an e-mail.
Still, the quantity of Bronner’s speeches and the quality of his news coverage are not at question, only that he takes paid speaking engagements from a firm that also pitches him stories. Complicating the arrangement is the fact that Lone Star has a fairly clear ideological bent, and that Bronner has reported on a handful of the firm’s PR clients—this in a bureau where every nuance is scrutinized. And a reader of the Times’s ethics guidelines might come to a different conclusion about what they say about such an arrangement.
A relationship with a Times reporter is a valuable thing to any PR organization, let alone in Israel, where everything seems amplified—even archeology. Ancient artifacts are used to bolster or refute modern political claims. In 2008, in an excavation in the Israeli town of Khirbet Qeiyafa, near what was said to be the valley where David battled Goliath, an archaeology professor from Hebrew University named Yosef Garfinkel found a shard of pottery that contained what appeared to have been the oldest Hebrew text ever discovered. Garfinkel believed the artifact offered evidence of a kingdom ruled by King David more than 3,000 years ago. Such a find could be used to boost claims that an ancient empire established the historical precedent for the present day Jewish state, though archeologists differ on their interpretations of what Garfinkel found.
Garfinkel asked two of Israel’s most avid archaeology enthusiasts, David Willner and Barnea Selavan, to start a fundraising operation that would allow the completion of the dig. Willner is a settler from the West Bank who hosts a popular archaeology radio show and Barnea Selavan had previously worked as a public relations hand for the Jerusalem Reclamation Project, an organization dedicated to settling religious nationalist Jews in Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Willner and Selavan turned to Lone Star, a Jerusalem-based Israeli public relations firm founded and directed by Charley Levine, a well-connected Israeli media adviser.
Lone Star in turn arranged an exclusive tour for Bronner. “The feeling was the Times was the most serious periodical who could run the story who could generate serious publicity and generate fundraising from the get-go,” Willner said. “And so the feeling was that if it was a New York Times story, it was worth its weight in gold.” Bronner published an October 30, 2008 feature in the Times that examined the historical and political controversies surrounding the dig. Dozens of media outlets also covered the excavation and, within days, the project at Khirbet Qeiyafa had gathered so much attention that the comedian Seth Meyers joked about the dig in a bit on Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update.”

Ethan Bronner's son fights in the IDF. Bronner himself lives in a home stolen from a Palestinian family. His coverage of the Israel-Palestine situation is tragically biased -- how could it not be? -- and Bill Keller disregards the NYT's ombudsman recommendation that Bronner should be reassigned to a different beat.
Any wide-awake reader of the NYT knows that Bronner is hopelessly biased, and the fact that Keller intentionally disregards Bronner's obvious and flagrant ethics problems is part of the reason so few thinking people trust the mainstream media. Agenda-promotion above all: that's the hallmark of today's journalism.
#1 Posted by Ethan Bronner's Guilty Conscience, CJR on Wed 14 Sep 2011 at 01:30 PM
Max Blumenthal is as guilty of biased, and manipulative journalism as is Ethan Bronner and the NY Times. While it is true that I live in the Judean Town of Efrat, its journalistic relevance to the Khirbet Qeiyafa/Elah Fortress was tendentious at best - and completely irrelevant to the story. In fact, archaeologist Yossi Garfinkel lives beyond "The Green Line", as does my partner Barnea Selavan. I pray that Max never need the services of my settler wife - a senior anesthesiologist at Hadassah Hospital. Or the defense of my settler children who serve with distinction in the IDF. Something both he and Bronner might want to consider next time they board a bus, walk into a bank or supermarket. Might be time for them to burn their membership cards in the Archie Bunker fan club - their bias and bigotry are all too obvious.
#2 Posted by David Willne, CJR on Wed 14 Sep 2011 at 01:50 PM
great reporting max
#3 Posted by annie, CJR on Wed 14 Sep 2011 at 03:55 PM
@David Willne - you and your settler criminal friends can take care of your own wounds and outpost grocery stores over the line in someone else's country. Those of us in Tel Aviv and Israeli cities will manage our own shit without having to endorse a creepy set of lies and strong-armed apartheid you attempt to slip into the Times. Did you notice how you didn't really deflect the overwhelming shitstorm you brought upon Bronner by your idiotic self-aggrandizing ways? I'm sure he'll be happy to note your enthusiasm for "Judea" when he's reassigned to Istanbul. I'm also sure you'll have international backup when you're overrun for years of shameless ways that have brought our neighborhood to hell. May you be alone with your fantasies...
#4 Posted by Woody, CJR on Wed 14 Sep 2011 at 04:48 PM
I find the fact that the NYT still calls these criminal land-grabbing thugs "settlers," to be repulsive.
#5 Posted by TheOldSchool, CJR on Wed 14 Sep 2011 at 05:48 PM
Bronner's coverage became even more absurd and despicable with the latest developments in Israel. No wonder people are upset. The diplomatic mess (more like barrage of condemnation from every part of the planet) Israeli government created was covered by Bronner in such a manner that an uninformed reader would think people were too harsh on Israel and Israel was some poor punching bag for the thugs of the planet. And now we see honest journalists getting publicly threatened as seen above comments. Thank you so much Mr. Blumenthal. Thank you every brave journalist who works to bring light into disgusting acts of media ethics butchering like this.
#6 Posted by enoughmediabias, CJR on Wed 14 Sep 2011 at 06:50 PM
Kind of ironic that CJR is publishing articles by Max Blumenthal about journalistic ethics - when CJR themselves called him out for cooking up facts and lying to suit his "story". Check it out right here:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/unforced_error_at_salon.php
and
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/02/09/columbia-journalism-review-to-salon-and-max-blumenthal-you-cant-
Ever since Salon got blasted for publishing Max's story in which he simply made up key details - they have not featured him at all and Daily Beast has also dropped him. He is Persona Non Grata in the mainstream media and has therefore given up on being a legitimate journalist and is now a blogger with an obsessive fixation on publishing anti-Israel agitprop.
He has even resorted to ranting about Zionist conspiracies on Iranian state television. Almost all the commentators praising him are similar anti-zionist trolls who congregate 24/7 at the obsessively anti-zionist mondoweiss site which dailykos has banned for its anti-semitism. CJR can and should do better than this.
#7 Posted by Phillip, CJR on Wed 14 Sep 2011 at 08:37 PM
Kind of ironic that CJR is publishing articles by Max Blumenthal about journalistic ethics - when CJR themselves called him out for cooking up facts and lying to suit his "story". Check it out right here:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/unforced_error_at_salon.php
and
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/02/09/columbia-journalism-review-to-salon-and-max-blumenthal-you-cant-
Ever since Salon got blasted for publishing Max's story in which he simply made up key details - they have not featured him at all and Daily Beast has also dropped him. He is Persona Non Grata in the mainstream media and has therefore given up on being a legitimate journalist and is now a blogger with an obsessive fixation on publishing anti-Israel agitprop.
He has even resorted to ranting about Zionist conspiracies on Iranian state television. Almost all the commentators praising him are similar anti-zionist trolls who congregate 24/7 at the obsessively anti-zionist mondoweiss site which dailykos has banned for its anti-semitism. CJR can and should do better than this.
#8 Posted by Phillip, CJR on Wed 14 Sep 2011 at 08:39 PM
Phillip distorts the CJR story about Blumenthal. The CJR article called out Blumenthal for one line in his story, where Blumenthal relied on sources to claim James O'keefe planned a white nationalist event. It turns out those sources said that O'Keefe was on hand to help set up tables at the event, but could not have known if O'Keefe actually helped plan the event.
The CJR says Blumenthal "flubbed" one line, but does not actually accuse him of "cooking up facts" and "lying". It goes on to say that the essential gist of Blumenthal's story was correct: that James O'Keefe is a racial provocateur, which seems self-evident to me.
In short, Phillip is relying on awfully thin gruel to make the claim that Blumenthal's reporting is untrustworthy and not up to CJR standards.
#9 Posted by joshtk76, CJR on Wed 14 Sep 2011 at 11:40 PM
It is in fact Joshtk76 that "distorts" CJR's repudiation of Blumenthal and his reporting. He neglects to mention that the "one line" that Blumenthal "flubbed" was in fact the KEY line in the story on which his entire piece depended.
Salon was embarrassed enough to have to issue an unprecedented 3 corrections that they have never again given Blumenthal a platform for his thinly veiled propaganda. (It is likely that Blumenthal would never have had a platform in the first place if not for the efforts of his influential father, Sidney Blumenthal, who was a White House aide and former Washington bureau chief at salon.com - talk about a conflict of interest there)
It is no surprise that the only outlets to give Blumenthal a platform are government run propaganda mills such as Russia Today and Iranian Press TV. In fact, Max is so desperate for exposure that he has even taken to writing for mondoweiss which is banned by DailyKos for featuring anti-semitic writers and articles which justified the Hamas shooting of an unarmed pregnant Israeli woman. In fact Mondoweiss is run by Philip Weiss who has a close relationship with Pat Buchanan's Paleoconservative "American Conservative" magazine which has featured articles by Marcus Epstein, the original organizer of the "white supremacist" conference described by Blumenthal. Weiss and the anti-immigration American Conservative share common cause in their antipathy towards the American Jewish community and Blumenthal's anti-zionist rantings on the mondoweiss site brings up some serious questions about Blumenthal's own mental sanity not to mention CJR journalistic standards by choosing to feature such a writer in its publication.
#10 Posted by Phillip, CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 12:11 AM
The overall proof of the Jews' occupancy of Israel for thousands of years can be found in the records (cuneiform tablets and stone carvings) of the ancient cultures of Assyrians and Babylonians, which told of their wars with the Jews.
Recently a scholar in England was translating Babylonian cuneiform tablets and found therein the name of a Babylonian whose name is also found in the Torah account of the 586 BC destruction of Jerusalem.
The proof doesn't get any better than this.
#11 Posted by Kathleen Wagar, CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 12:20 AM
Lame. The claim that O'Keefe was associated with a white nationalist conference in 2006 was "key" not in the sense that Blumenthal's argument hinged on it, but in the sense that this was Blumenthal's contribution to knowledge, since the other incidents Blumenthal talked about were widely reported elsewhere.
And it turns out, the CJR article says that Blumenthal's sources say that O'Keefe was associated with the white nationalist conference. He helped set up tables. Where Blumenthal's sources say Blumenthal was wrong was saying O'Keefe co-planned the conference.
Although it does look like Phillip concedes that the CJR article did NOT in fact accuse Blumenthal of "cooking up facts" or "lying"--that is, deliberately spreading false information. That's progress, I guess.
#12 Posted by joshtk76, CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 12:26 AM
Kathleen,
It seems every people demand national boundaries to the maximum extent of their historical range. If we were to consider these demands legitimate, the world would be in perpetual war.
I don't think that because there were Jews in the West Bank thousands of years ago justifies taking the land of the people who live there now.
#13 Posted by Ron Rosenthal, CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 01:48 PM
David Willne writes, "I pray that Max never need the services of my settler wife - a senior anesthesiologist at Hadassah Hospital."
Giving David the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to assume that he's asking God to keep Max in good health and out of the hospital.
But what if David really meant that his settler-wife would have a hard time delivering quality medical care to Max if he needed it? Or, even worse, that, given the chance, she'd put Max to sleep forever?
I'm not so sure which interpretation is the correct one, but with settlers now focused on Price Tag, I'm inclined to believe that David's revealed that his wife's a bitch. What was her name? And I once thought that Hadassah Hospital hired only ethical staff.)
#14 Posted by An American friend, CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 06:56 PM
"I pray that Max never need the services of my settler wife - a senior anesthesiologist at Hadassah Hospital. Or the defense of my settler children who serve with distinction in the IDF. Something both he and Bronner might want to consider next time they board a bus, walk into a bank or supermarket" Wow! I think that pretty much sums it up on Israeli settlers and exactly who they are.
#15 Posted by Bill Riordan, CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 11:42 PM
Did anyone at CJR condemn Bronner for reporting the lie that Hamas would accept a two state solution?
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/05/nyts-ethan-bronner-when-wishful.html
#16 Posted by Elder, CJR on Fri 16 Sep 2011 at 06:35 AM
Here are the core facts that belie Max Blumenthal's thesis from the prime source, Charley Levine, CEO of Lone Star Communications, Israel.
Despite the shameful inuendo and McCarthyite guilt by association on which Blumenthal attempts to build a case, he himself does offer this mission statement:
"The quantity of Bronner's speeches and the quality of his news coverage are not at question, only that he takes paid speaking engagements from a firm that also pitches him stories."
This is a totally fair question. Had he bothered to ask me for the facts he proceeds to distort, he would learned (these are the 'case examples' referred to in his article):
* The archeological story was pitched and written about by the NY Times (along with CNN, AP, Time Magazine, Reuters, BBC, even Saturday Night Live and 150 other media worldwide) IN THE YEAR PRECEDING THE CREATION of Lone Star's speakers bureau. Mentioning it is clearly misleading since it suggests something that by definition carried absolutely no relevance.
* Danny Danon's op-ed in the NY Times. We worked directly on this with the editorial page team in NY. Bronner never even knew of its existence until it was published.
* Leonard Cohen. I did not work on Cohen's media needs at all. Zero. I prepared internal research for his team. I never contacted ANY reporters about this performance as it was never my task to do so! If Bronner wrote about the concert, it's news to me.
* Museum of Tolerance. Ceased being a client of my former agency in 2006, was never a client of my present firm Lone Star. I think that was before Bronner even arrived in Israel!. In any event, I never exchanged one word with Bronner about this ex-client. Call me old-fashioned, but we work for current paying clients, not past ones.
* The Israel Project: We do government liaison work them, ZERO media relations. We have never spoken to Bronner about this fine organization.
* NGO Monitor: We did one 48 hour project for them in 2009. The article produced by Blumenthal as 'Exhibit A' is dated 2011. We were not involved in that much later issue nor have we ever spoken to Bronner about that organization.
* JNF: An occasional client of ours for projects. We pitched 75 media on an event they did two years ago in Sderot and it was covered by The Washington Post, CNN, dozens of other global media and yes, The NY Times as a result of our pitching.
To summarize: Only ONE of the 'suspicious' articles mentioned by Blumenthal was in fact pitched to Ethan Bronner by us and this 'smoking gun' example was covered internationally by dozens of other media. Bronner would have been remiss had he NOT covered it, but that's my opinion.
Bronner's spoken 75 times to non-profit organizations over 3 years; of these, roughly 6 were engagements scheduled by my speakers bureau.
If you add up the ideas we have pitched to Bronner and the engagements we have coordinated for him, it puts Blumenthal's conspiracy screed into better perspective. He set out to write a hatchet job, conjuring faleshood from disparate elements unrelated to one another. I leave it to your readers to draw their own conclusions.
#17 Posted by Charley J. Levine, CJR on Fri 16 Sep 2011 at 09:22 AM
This NYT arrangement is a recipe for trouble. Don't get paid by the people you are covering. Period. An even more insidious case at The NYT is:
College Admissions Advice - The Choice Blog - NYTimes.com
thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/ - Cached57 minutes ago – The New York Times's The Choice blog examines all facets of college and university admissions, including choosing a school, understanding the process ...
The NYT coverage of higher education, even as compared with the modest advances at the formal Higher Education section at The Australian, is ghastly. The NYT should buy the Chronicle of Higher Education, get it in order, and make it its higher education section Sundays.
It is a conflict of interest for The Choice Blog to be involved in US college admissions racketeering practices when its duty is to conduct penetrating analyses of those abuses. Economically, the opportunity costs of not having a national admissions curriculum composed of the new Arden "Hamlet" and Henry James's "The Turn of the Screw," for example, instead of the barbaric trash of such as the SAT, have never been examined, by The NYT, or the laughably inept Economist's economic intelligence unit.
#18 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 16 Sep 2011 at 02:03 PM
Philip,
You have the nerve to seeth here about people who spend 24/7 hours at Mondoweiss and Max's site, how would you know that if you're not there yourself?
It's clear you are threatened by Max. Shut up and get lost, if you have nothing to offer other than thuggery and intimidation. Max has a lot of fans, he is not persona non grata by the MSM, though that would be a compliment in the USA, as the MSM is of low quality.
You actually compliment Max without meaning to.
Max is the best journalist in the USA.
#19 Posted by Chayma, CJR on Mon 19 Sep 2011 at 02:38 PM
This article is a waste of space; PR firms can conduct themselves as they'd like, choosing their clients and their issues along any lines that are within acceptable behavioral guidelines. There's no crime in being conservative, or for that matter liberal, and it would be nice to see the press stop taking up room with various expressions of their own close-mindedness.
Lone Star is and will continue to be an excellent example of PR at its best, no matter the message.
#20 Posted by Ruth J, CJR on Wed 21 Sep 2011 at 10:33 AM
Has anyone researched monies paid or donated to MB for his work done as an anti-Zionist propagandist in his supposed role as a journalist? For his videos?
In the end, though, this probably proves the worth of the oft-quoted semi-humorous but true flip: "write what you will, but at least spell my name correctly".
#21 Posted by Yisrael Medad, CJR on Wed 21 Sep 2011 at 11:48 AM
Ruth J
The point of the article was not about how Lone Star conduct themselves. It's about Bronner not revealing his links. Not the first time, he didn't reveal his links about his sons draft either until someone exposed it.
It's a simple matter. If you have nothing to hide, why be secretive? Bronner should have openly stated his ties to Lone Star, and about his son's draft, and nobody would have seen anything untoward about him even writing about pitched stories.
Y_Medad
Max Blumenthal is from a prominent family. There are better and more lucrative ways for him to make money, if that is what he wanted. In fact making money of opportunists is an unsavoury tactic of right wing Israeli's. Isn't it the right wing who have sold their souls to Christian fanatics who missionise in Israel because they throw a few crumbs your way?
Journalists like Max cannot be bought, that is why they're so loved and trusted, and why he is so popular.
#22 Posted by Chayma, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 09:51 AM
Yisrael Medad,
How dare you say 'supposed role as a journalist?' with the inference that he is not?
Pray tell, what would an INN blogger like yourself know about journalism? Please stick to INN, aren't you out of place here? Didn't Israel find INN so toxic that they had to host their broadcasts off a ship off the coast of Israel? Apologise at once to Max for inferring he is paid to propogandise.
#23 Posted by Chayma, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 09:58 AM
The whole battle enterprise underwritten by US taxpayer support in a time of "austerity"!
#24 Posted by $, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 11:16 PM
Kathleen Wagar,
Your comment was easily the best (by which I mean absurd to the point of hilarity) in this strand. You took a discussion about journalistic ethics and objectivity at the New York Times and argued the case for their being Jews in the MIddle East 3000 years ago. I think you missed the point.
#25 Posted by Sean , CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 11:47 PM
Chayma - Maxie now works for a-akhbar which is a pro hizballah paper in Lebanon which the NYT said frequently acts as a press release for the hizballah terror group. One of the chief editors of al akhbar said all jews in the middle east should move to europe. Check it out here
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/middleeast/29beirut.html
Was maxs frivolous attack in Bonner motivated by the NYT unmasking of maxs new terror supporting employers? Was maxs new job as a n al akhbar blogger obtained through his connections to the Iranian pro hizballah Press TV to which he gave an hour long interview? I fir one would like to see an ethics investigation.
#26 Posted by Chayma's revenge, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 09:32 AM
@revenge
I don't think that Maxs attack on broner was ordered by his employers at the pro hizballah paper alakhbar but rather was probably motivated by jealousy that bronner is an excellent journalist employed by the NYT while max is relegated to unsavory media outlets such as Iranian state TV, pro hizballah al akhbar, and fanatically anti israel blogs
#27 Posted by YJ, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 02:17 PM
@revenge
you are soooooooooo out of touch, Max CHOOSES to write for what and whom he does. don't you get it? CHOICE,
as for Bronner, he was guilty and in the wrong. He deliberately kept both these incidents secret when he shuold have had them out in the open. First his son's draft into the idf, then his taking speaking engagements from Lone Star without revealing his links to The Times. That is the point.
Max has no competition there, he's the best. remember he doesn't do what he does for money, following the herd is easy in the USA, it's those who can afford to take them on, that shine.
Chayma's revenge
You cannot do anything in Lebanon without coming into contact with ANY kind of organisation that has dealings with Hezbollah. This doesn't mean that you agree with their ideology. It just means business is business.
The USA props up the Saudi royal family whilst at the same time blaming Saudi Arabia for terrorism. Do you undertand? It doesn't mean that the USA is supporting Al Qaeda attacks on the USA when they do that, it just means business is businsess.
Max is not responsible for what Hezbollah do just because the editor of the newspaper does, nor does it mean he and the editors have to agree with each others politics, if indeed what the link you said is true,
Do not EVER attempt to smear anyone like this, it's a common trick of the right wing fanatic Zionists. I hope that is clear.
#28 Posted by Chayma, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 11:15 AM
The first part of my response above was for YM not @revenge, the second part was for "chaymas revenge"
and Chayma's revenge, you're wrong about max's employers, al akhbar is for freelancers,
Again, this is not about money, Max is not a cheap whore like Robert Spencer and other paid propogandists of the Zionist right wing
#29 Posted by Chayma, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 11:19 AM
NYT readers are never allowed to comment on Bronner's articles, and the Times doesn't mind him associating with organizations who are more interested in bombing Israel's neighbors than trying to make peace with them.
You would think that the Times would have learned its lesson with Judith Miller that backing a reporter with an agenda was a bad idea.
#30 Posted by Jim, CJR on Tue 1 Nov 2011 at 07:34 PM