Andrew Sullivan raises a very interesting question, but inadvertently so, in the process of another rote excoriation of the New York Times. (It’s easy—link to their corrections page and proceed to foam at the mouth). Since Sullivan doesn’t archive his output (unlike the New York Times) I’m posting the relevant bit in full:
THE TIMES VERSUS ISRAEL: I pointed out in my New York Sun and Washington Times column today that a New York Times story yesterday reported the capital of Israel as Tel Aviv. Here’s the official correction:
An article yesterday about a man accused of having tried to hijack an El Al plane en route to Istanbul from Tel Aviv on Sunday referred incorrectly to Tel Aviv. It is not the capital of Israel; Jerusalem is.
Two things to note. If the Times’ editors need to, they can make a correction within a day. So why do they delay for weeks sometimes on factual matters that are just as simple? Second: how did someone make this mistake? This isn’t very sophisticated fact-checking. There are two explanations: the Times doesn’t even have basic reporting skills any more or ideological aversion to Israel was a part of the problem. Or both. And to think this was once the paper of record.
It’s fine for Sullivan to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Bloggers are meant to be opinionated. But it helps if they are rational. Which is why it’s a little rich to demand that the NYT behave in a manner befitting a “paper of record” but then insist that it treat as fact something that is the subject of a highly charged political debate.
For it is a fact that only three countries currently recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: Israel; Costa Rica; and El Salvador. The US and every other western nation have wisely decided to delay their decision on Jerusalem—East, West, or Greater—as the capital of anything until final status talks are concluded. Hence the embassies in Tel Aviv.
In the US, Congress has repeatedly pressed Clinton and now Bush to relocate the US embassy in Jerusalem, most recently in the bill authorizing the State Department’s budget for 2003. But both presidents have made it clear that US policy remains unchanged.
The NYT did get it wrong when it called Tel Aviv the capital of Israel. The foreign embassies there might lead the shoddy journalist to assume this, when in fact their location is provisional, with a view to moving to Jerusalem as soon as they get the green light.
But it is the NYT correction that raises the interesting question. The paper has now stated, for the record shall we say, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. (And you’d think Sullivan would be a little more appreciative.) If newspapers are supposed to be neutral on such matters it would have sufficed to omit the two last words of the correction. If newspapers are expected to toe the line of their own government’s foreign policy it would have sufficed to omit those same two words.
Or perhaps we should expect the US paper of record to side with the foreign government on such mattters, as a matter of policy. There is one precedent that I can think of: Burma being called Burma by the US but Myanmar by the NYT.
My own take on this is that the New York Times has decided to become the newspaper of record for Costa Rica.
[Sat, Nov 23 2002 – 10:31] Felix (www) (email) I’m confused here. The CIA World Factbook says that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. My Times Atlas of the World says that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. Israel says that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, and certainly the Knesset is in Jerusalem. Everybody seems to be in agreement that the Times got it wrong when it said that the capital of Israel was Tel Aviv.
It seems clear to me that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, and that for eminently sensible reasons, the rest of the world has refused to officially recognise that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. That, however, doesn’t make it any less true that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem.
Stefan — you have first-hand knowledge of this — if you were to ask your father what the capital of Israel was, what would he say?
[Sun, Nov 24 2002 – 10:07] Stefan (email) I agree completely that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel. But I do not need to make an on-the-record/off-the-record distinction because I do not have an official capacity in which my opinions matters. Government officials certainly do. The question is, do newspapers “of record”?
Turn the question around. Is Jerusalem the capital of Palestine? The Palestinians certainly claim it. Other countries have taken a wait-and-see attitude here too. What do you think the New York Times should call the capital of Palestine?
I think such decisions should be left to the op-ed pages because they cannot help but be political.
[Sun, Nov 24 2002 – 11:53] Felix (www) (email) So, Stefan, you’re saying that if you asked your father what the capital of Israel was, he’d say that off the record it was Jerusalem, but on the record it was, um, er, something which Belgium was waiting for a resolution to the Palestinian question before it made its final decision. Or something. As though it’s up to Belgium what the capital of Israel is.
It’s certainly not the job of newspapers of record to keep a diplomatic silence on any issues at all. Countries have capitals, and if it’s blindingly obvious what the capital is, then there’s no reason at all why the newspaper shouldn’t name it as such.
And in case you’ve forgotten, Palestine doesn’t exist yet as a country. When it does, there’s a very good chance that Jerusalem will be its capital. It’s not inconceivable: if the authorities in Bonn had decided to move the capital to Berlin a few years earlier than they actually did, then Berlin would have been the capital of two different countries as well. If Jerusalem is ever declared the capital of Palestine, then the New York Times should refer to it as such.
Fact is, Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel for more than 50 years. How long is this ridiculous charade of Israel being a country but not having a capital, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, going to go on? I mean, apart from the people who deny Israel’s right to exist at all, is there anyone who thinks that Israel doesn’t have rights to at least some of the city?
[Sun, Nov 24 2002 – 12:55] Stefan (email) If you’re saying only West Jerusalem is entitled to be the capital of Israel, I’d have no qualms, but you’d find the Israeli government in sharp disagreement with you. The city limits of Jerusalem extend well into Palestine–and much of this land has been used to build a ring of Israeli settlements to dispell any notion that anything less than all of Jerusalem will stay Israeli. This land was not in the 94% Arafat was offered at Camp David.
Since the Israeli government has taken to interpreting the statement “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel” as an endorsement of their policy that all of Jerusalem is Israeli, the US won’t say it. And since getting the press to report your version of events as fact is part of the game, The NYT statement, free of the mitigating explanations we’ve had here, amounts to a PR victory for Sharon.
[Sun, Nov 24 2002 – 14:32] Felix (www) (email) Why don’t we just make Jerusalem an independent state, a bit like Vatican City? It can be administered by the UN, under a kind of Hippocratic “first do no harm” mandate to respect all claims to holiness etc. The secular work of government can and should be done elsewhere — Tel Aviv being the obvious place for the Israelis.
And when we’ve achieved that, we can all go on pilgrimages there on flying pigs…
[Sun, Nov 24 2002 – 18:35] Matthew (email) you’re in peculiar company, stefan. this comes from an admittedly highly fishy-looking letter attributed to bin laden, published in today’s observer:
(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there.
[Mon, Nov 25 2002 – 04:47] Stefan (email) I’m sorry Matthew, I though he was acting as your paper’s mouthpiece:
“Who can forget your President Clinton’s immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he ‘made a mistake’, after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?… ”
[Mon, Nov 25 2002 – 09:33] Matthew (www) (email) not that i really bear any responsibility for the edit page–apart from an accident of marriage, of course–but you really ought to be consistent, dear. you quote bartley elsewhere on your blog thus: “President Clinton’s sin was the same as President Nixon’s: not the burglary but the lies, not the sex but the lies.”
in any case, thought the letter was fascinating for its odd eccentricities, such as sympathy for female flight attendants on u.s. airlines.
any your email’s down.
[Tue, Nov 26 2002 – 15:43] Charles Kenny (www) (email) Very cheap, Matthew, and you, too Stefan –just because Hitler was a veggie, doesn’t make all veggies Nazi, just because Osama and the WSJ and Stefan all agree about Clinton doesn’t make the WSJ or Osama as evil as Stefan.
[Wed, Nov 27 2002 – 11:05] Matthew (www) (email) well, not necessarily