Not Really a Journalist, But a Real Riot

Yisrael Medad..
My Right Way..
18 September '14..






Jodi Ruderon seems to be in doubt, since she wrote this in today's New York Times:

The authorities counted 42 “riots” — participants call them protests — on a single night in July.

Now, to be fair, she at least should have encapsulated 'protests' also in quotes.

But, I wonder, what is her definition of riots that she would cast doubt on the police version?

In addition, this bit:

More than 300,000 of Jerusalem’s 830,000 residents are Palestinians. They are not citizens, but get social-welfare benefits from Israel and travel fairly freely.

is misleading.

First, if they wanted to, they could, under certain conditions, become full citizens. Their choice not to even apply. [that last section update thanks to SF]

Second, they are permanent residents of the state of Israel and have the right to vote in municipal elections but not Knesset elections. Not many do,

New York Times Kvetches over Israel Election

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
21 January '13..

The New York Times had a problem reporting Israel's election campaign -- a liberal, secular paper having to cover a Jewish state with a more conservative and religious bent. It's been, to say the least, very frustrating for Jodi Rudoren, the Times' Jerusalem bureau chief, who turns her pre-election analysis into one big, long kvetch. ("Israeli Campaign Turned Its Back on Most Pressing Issues" Jan. 20) Such chutzpah for Israel to depart from The Times/Rudoren agenda.

Rudoren's biggest worry is a rising "national-religious sector" with a new batch of politicians wearing -- horror of horrors -- "signature knitted skullcaps."

She acknowledges that Prime Minister Netanyahu is headed for reelection on Tuesday, but doesn't like the prospect. Not one bit. Bibi will win, she writes, "despite a gaping deficit, despite a stalemated peace process, despite a political partner (Avigdor Lieberman) indicted on fraud changes, and even though Netanyahu waged a war with Gaza with mixed results."

Rudoren obviously would prefer a different leader for Israel -- and, boy, does it show. Throughout the article, she laments the collapse of the center-left in Israeli politics, her types of people, with a concomitant rise of religious Zionism.

Who Might Paint a Grim Picture of Israeli Arabs? Really?

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
17 January '13..

As far as the New York Times would have you believe, the picture of Arabs in Israel is exceedingly grim. According to a lengthy article in the Jan. 17 edition, Arabs constitute a "long-marginalized minority" that is increasingly "alienated by Israel's right-wing government," and that has to endure "treatment that is discriminatory and undemocratic." ("As Israeli Vote Nears, Arab Apathy Is a Concern" by Jodi Rudoren, page A3).

Bolstered by selective interviews with disaffected Arabs, Rudoren, the Times' Jerusalem bureau chief, tells her readers that Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens raises "real concerns over the health of Israeli democracy."

Arab turnout in Tuesday's election may drop to 51 percent, she writes ominously. She also quotes Ahmad Tibi, an Arab lawmaker, who charges that "in Israel, there is discrimination in every part of life -- education, infrastructure, unemployment."

But is this ultra-gloomy assessment accurate? Far from it. Arabs in Israel are on an equal plane when it comes to legal, civil and political rights. Yes, there are remaining gaps on the economic and social scene, but these gaps have steadily narrowed. In fact, Israel's Arabs enjoy far better lives and better living standards than their counterparts in neighboring countries.

Here are a few realities Rudoren chooses to omit:

The NYT - Equipped with a worldview that can trump the facts

Rick Richman..
Commentary/Contentions..
24 December '12..

On December 7, the New York Times website ran a “correction” to Jodi Rudoren’s article on the E1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim (a community of about 40,000 Jews living less than two miles east of the capital). The Times acknowledged that, contrary to the article, the E1 plans “would not divide the West Bank in two” and “would not technically make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible” (emphasis added). As Israeli ambassador Michael Oren noted, one would know this if one were to “just look at a map.”

Elliott Abrams wrote that it was “just plain extraordinary” that the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief “knows so little about the geography of the Jerusalem area that she could write such things.” He suggested a reason for her errors:

“Here’s my theory: that just about everyone she knows … know that they are true. Settlements are bad, the right-wing Israeli government is bad, new construction makes peace impossible and cuts the West Bank in half and destroys contiguity and means a Palestinian state is impossible. They just know it, it’s obvious, so why would you have to refer to a map, or talk to people who would tell you it’s all wrong?”

Israel - As The New York Times Interprets

Jodi Rudoren

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
18 December '12..


Last Sunday The New York Times printed a summary correction of all the errors made in a December 2 article by its Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren. Her Times story was about Israel’s announcement that it would proceed toward additional construction in Jerusalem and several settlements, including in the area known as E-1 that separates Jerusalem from the city of Ma’ale Adumim in the West Bank.

Here is the correction, in full:

An article on Dec. 2 about Israel’s decision to move forward with planning and zoning for settlements in an area east of Jerusalem known as E1 described imprecisely the effect of such development on access to the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and on the West Bank. Development of E1 would limit access to Ramallah and Bethlehem, leaving narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem; it would not completely cut off those cities from Jerusalem. It would also create a large block of Israeli settlements in the center of the West Bank; it would not divide the West Bank in two. And because of an editing error, the article referred incompletely to the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Critics see E1 as a threat to the meaningful contiguity of such a state because it would leave some Palestinian areas connected by roads with few exits or by circuitous routes; the proposed development would not technically make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.

By any standard that’s a remarkable correction. Let me rephrase it without the Times‘s defensive use of “imprecisely.” A more honest correction would have said this: “The Times reported, not as opinion but as fact in a news story, that the new construction being planned by Israel would cut Ramallah and Bethlehem off from Jerusalem, divide the West Bank in two, and make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. None of those assertions was true, so we have to withdraw all of them.”

NY Times Whitewash on 'Palestine' - Again

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
15 December '12..

Words matter. And exact words matter most of all. Especially in the Middle East, where Palestinian leaders -- whether Fatah or Hamas -- have twisted and denatured nomenclatures to disguise their radical aims and reliance on terrorism. Their semantic makeovers instead present a civilized and acceptable face to the world.

And they're getting away with it, as most Western mainstream media help them distort words and language to suit Palestinian propaganda agendas.

Here's how it's done, for example, in the Dec. 14 edition of the New York Times, in a dispatch from Nablus by Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren, who writes about Hamas flexing its muscles in the West Bank ("Hamas Rally in West Bank Calls for Palestinian Unity," page A11).

Hundreds of men and boys, Rudoren reports in her lead paragraph, were sporting the signature green of the "militant Hamas faction." Right off the bat, Rudoren trots out the familiar euphemism "militant" so as to prevent readers from getting the real scoop on Hamas -- that it's a terrorist organization, with a genocidal agenda against Jews and a declared intention to eliminate Israel. There's nothing shocking about "militant," and that's of course the point of why the Times uses it -- to sanitize and perfume this Palestinian terrorist outfit.

Thousands of Rockets Rain on Israel, but ...

"...During and after Israel's counterterrorism offensive, the father is beset by questions from his children. "Like so many people here, Mr. Khoudari said the most difficult thing was trying to explain the situation to his children," Rudoren writes. "All of them have one question: why? Why Israel attack us, why Israel tries to make our life more complicated. You cannot give the direct answer."

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
26 November '12..

While in Gaza, New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren took some time to interview Jawdat Khoudary, one of the wealthiest men in the coastal enclave, who presides over a major construction company. Khoudary, 52, is a well-traveled lover of antiquities whose family has lived in Gaza for more than two hundred years. And Rudoren also tells readers that he cultivates thousands of cactuses in his 100,000-square-foot compound ("As Bombs Fell in Gaza, a Rich Cactus Lover Could Cultivate Only Patience" page A10).

This idyllic picture is interrupted by eight days of Israeli bombardments, which left Khoudary a bit shaken but otherwise OK.

So much for background. The most interesting part of Rudoren's article focuses on discussions Khoudary has with his five children -- two girls who studied at American University in Cairo, two older boys working toward engineering degrees at the Islamic University in Gaza, and the youngest boy, who loves to travel.

During and after Israel's counterterrorism offensive, the father is beset by questions from his children. "Like so many people here, Mr. Khoudari said the most difficult thing was trying to explain the situation to his children," Rudoren writes. "All of them have one question: why? Why Israel attack us, why Israel tries to make our life more complicated. You cannot give the direct answer."

At this point, any reporter worth his/her salt would ask Khoudary the obvious question: Why, Mr. Khoudary, won't you give them a direct answer? Why won't you tell them that Israel's eight-day bombardment was a response to years of thousands of rockets fired at civilian populations in southern Israel from Gaza? Why, Mr. Khoudary, won't you point a finger at terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad that are making your family's life so complicated?

The NY Times relishes the prospect of Bibi getting his comeuppance

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
09 November '12..

It's no secret that the New York Times detests Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- in its news columns as well as on the editorial page. So it comes as no surprise that, after President Obama's second-term victory, the Times relishes the prospect of Bibi getting his comeuppance, big-time, from the White House.

In a post-election dispatch, Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren eagerly reports that Netanyahu may have risked Israel's "collective relationship with Washington" by rejecting Obama's demands for concessions to the Palestinians and by showing a preference for Mitt Romney, a long-time friend of the prime minister.

"His strained relationship with Mr. Obama may prove more than a temporary political headache," Rudoren writes. She goes on to quote Israeli pollster Mitchell Barak, who opines that if as expected Netanyahu is returned to power in Israel's January elections, "we all know he is not the right guy" to deal with Obama. Piling on further, Rudoren darkly predicts new frictions with Obama because of Netanyahu's "hard line position on Iran." Plus, she adds, a second-term president, "freed from electoral concerns, may prove likelier to pursue his own path without worry about backlash from Washington's powerful and wealthy pro-Israel lobby."

Thus, if you're going after Bibi's scalp, why not toss in as well a well-worn anti-Semitic conspiracy about rich Jews cracking the whip in centers of power. To give even more heft to her anti-Bibi diatriabes, she also reaches to Bob Zelnick, a former ABC news correspondent, who remarks that Obama "both dislikes and distrusts Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he is more likely to use his new momentum to settling scores than to settling issues."

Jodi Rudoren (NYT) on National Service in Israel: News Fit to Frame

Gilead Ini..
CAMERA Media Analysis..
13 July '12..





In her front page story today about a volunteer national service program in Israel, New York Times reporter Jodi Rudoren notes that "62 percent of the Arab public backed the program."

It is curious, then, that 82 percent of the article's quoted words from Arabs are spoken against national service. (This figure actually understates the disproportion. It does not take into account the two Israeli professors who highlight only perspectives against national service, nor does it include the quoted words of posters that likewise argue against the program.)

The problem here is not that Rudoren provides fake quotes. Of course she doesn't. It's an issue of framing. Even though most Arabs in Israel support national service, the piece is written in a way that leaves readers with an overwhelming and predominant sense of Arab opposition to the program.

Readers hear from a single young Arab girl, Nagham Ma’abuk, who supports and participates in the national service program. But her voice gets lost in a staccato of statements by opponents of integration and national service: Ehab Helo comes out against integration with the state. Radical Arab parliamentarian Hanin Zoabi jumps on the opportunity to level sharp words agaist national service, and against Israel as a whole. Four teenagers express that they are "against, against, against and against" the program. Rozeen Kanboura adds another "against." And Ayan Abunasra makes her "articulate" case in opposition to the program.

Frankel - Bulltwit

Yarden Frankel..
Honest Reporting/Backspin..
08 May '12..

Check out this Twitter response to one of our readers that the Jodi Ruderon article on the Islamic Jihad prisoners’ hunger strike failed to include an Israeli response.

What a line of bulltwit.

Jodi, while we’re glad that you take our concern seriously and know that you “could have done more,” do you really believe that including the IPS comment makes a difference?

Really?

Let’s take a look, shall we?

In your article, you used:

1. Indirect quote from “Palestinian Minister of Detainees”

2. Direct quote from Islamic Jihad prisoner: “I love life” (No mention of the lives of Israelis murdered by Islamic Jihad that he definitely does not love -ed.)

3. Direct quotes from Palestinian mob in support of jailed Jihad members

4. Direct quote from Hanan Ashrawi, PLO Executive Committee member