In an interview withPoliticoyesterday, the incomingNew York TimesJerusalem Bureau Chief Jodi Rudoren said she “would be eager to talk to” Washington Free Beacon reporter Adam Kredo “about anything.” She may be ruing those wordsthis morning:
The New York Times’ incoming Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren, won’t say if she is a Zionist.
“I’m going to punt on that question,” Rudoren, who is Jewish, told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview yesterday. “I’m not really interested in labels about who I am and what I think.” …
Asked if she considers Israel an apartheid state—as critics of the Jewish state sooften do—Rudoren declined comment.
“I don’t have an assessment yet,” she said. “I’m not sure I’ll ever answer that question in the way you’ve just framed it.”
Both the Beacon and Politico interviews are worth reading in entirety to get a sense of Rudoren’s mindset going into this position. She’s also a great example of the increasingly archaic journalistic value of placing objectivity above all else, including obvious and undeniable facts.
Are you a Zionist? Do you believe the Jews have a right to self-governance? Do you believe the Jewish state has a right to exist? This is an issue that I would think someone would come to a conclusion about by the time they’re Rudoren’s age. Do you believe Israel is an apartheid state? Again, an issue you would expect her to have some position on.
If Rudoren didn’t want to answer these questions because she felt her response might interfere with her ability to practice journalism, she could have said that. Claiming to have no opinion is just not believable.