DOV WAXMAN: Thank you all for coming. I am Dov Waxman.

I've actually had the chance to meet

most of you and they're newly installed

director of the Nazarian Center of

Israel Studies here at UCLA. And I very

pleased to be welcoming Jodi Rudoren as

my very first guest in my new in this

new capacity. So I'm very happy to be

having this conversation with her and

very happy to see all of you here on

what is another eventful news day here

in the United States and in the world.

And we will get to talk a little bit

about that so let me just you you've got

our flyer so you're probably already

well aware of Jodi's many

accomplishments. She recently became back

in what September 2019 the editor in

chief of the Jewish daily, Forward. The

most venerable Jewish newspaper in this

country if not in fact in the world I

would say, with a very long and

distinguished history. And Jodi has taken

the helm and really transforming the

newspaper into a new kind of digital era

which we will hear a little bit about.

Before joining the Forword, Jodi was for

many years in the New York Times - another

very venerable paper of course..during

which time she served from 2012 to 2015

as the Jerusalem bureau

chief covering Israel and the West Bank

particularly and the Gaza Strip as well

for the Times.... I

also want to mention though that Jodi

has also been a Chicago bureau chief of

the ...and education editor, so we also may

talk a little bit about what's happening

on campus on campuses and Jewish

students on campus and the questions of

anti-Semitism on campus. And and I just

learned now that she was also...began her

career as at the LA Times and spent

some time living in LA as well and so if

there's any specific LA questions that

you want to ask as well we hopefully

will have some time to do that. So we're

going to begin first of all having a

conversation and then I will open it up

toward the end. We'll leave plenty of

time for your questions. So we've out any further ado let me

welcome Jodi Rudoren to UCLA and maybe we'll begin with our

first question. We're going to have to

share this this microphone. I should let

you know that this event is being

recorded although your questions won't

be recorded but that's why we have to

use this microphone Okay let's see if

that's working. So I want to begin first

of all with your time at the New York

Times and that's obviously something

that many people want to hear about as

the so-called newspaper of record. What

The Times writes about Israel and what

it doesn't write about Israel is heavily

scrutinized. And as a reporter, as the

bureau chief you must have been faced

with a lot of questioning, a lot of

scrutiny over your over your reporting

and what your Bureau was covering. How challenging

is that for a journalist. Is that

unique that level of scrutiny to compare

to being a bureau chief in Jerusalem for

specifically focusing on Israel.

JODI RUDOREN: Thank you Dov and thank you all for coming.

It's great to see you and thanks to UCLA

for having us. We, myself and my

colleagues Rachel Feddersen and Lisa

Lepson the publisher and vice president

of development of the Forward are in

town for a few days. We were at the Z3

Conference yesterday at the Stephen Wise

Temple which was really interesting.

We're speaking, Dov and I together, are

having a conversation tonight at Valley

Beth Shalom. And it's really great to be

back in LA. I don't think I've been here

in many years but I did live here

between 1992 and 1997 when I worked for

the Los Angeles Times. And actually I was

just reminded this morning of one

of my favorite stories I did here when I

was covering the LA City Council was

when the decision was made to restore the

Boyle Heights Synagogue. And I went to

the synagogue when it was in deep

disrepair and wrote a front-page story

about that before the City Council vote.

And they voted to restore it and I don't

know exactly what's happened since then.

But I if we have time I would love to go

over and check it out.

So yeah let's jump right in and talk

about. As I said, I was there from 2012 to

2015. The way I usually describe that is

two Gaza Wars and two Israeli elections.

Well it used to seem like two

in less than four years with a lot. That

has been taken over. My successor

David Halbfinger will do the hat trick

of three in a year, and we can get more

into that later on. But so it also it was

a really interest it....A lot of people

talk about the bureau chief...the

Jerusalem bureau chief of the New York

Times. That job as some people describe

it as the most difficult job in American

journalism or global journalism.

Everybody really. There was when I

went quite a bit of consensus that it

was definitely the most scrutinized job.

One of the interesting things which I'll

kind of frame out for you in the next

couple of minutes is that the experience

of doing that job between 2012 and 2015,

and all of the things that I found

radically different about that job

versus everything else I had ever done

in journalism which was very varied. I

got back literally on January 2, 2016

and basically over the last four years

most of the things that were unique to

that job have now become part of

everything in journalism..in American

journalism - and particularly on American

politics. So there were..there were three

big ways that I found covering the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be

totally different from everything else

I'd done before and much more intense

and difficult. And the things I had done

before included things like covering a

presidential campaign, covering abortion

politics, covering the debate over

intelligent design, and teaching

intelligent design in public school. So

it was not like conflict free I wasn't

like a life style writer. But I found

three really big differences in covering

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict particularly

for the New York Times. The first was

that there were no axiomatic facts; there

were no like agreed-upon you know this

is this is the this is the facts and

this is my take or my opinion. So in my

career and I started doing this when I

was 13 years old and I've been basically

doing the same thing pretty much ever

since then. I had found that you know

typically I mean all journalism is

basically about arguments and conflicts,

right whether that's between neighbors

or a lawsuit or political fight. And I

always had in my mind that typically

when you're covering like some kind of a

legal something with a legal battle you

know you would sort of call up like the

ACLU lawyer and they would kind of brief

you in. The ACLU was kind of a

trusted source; they would basically tell

you here's what the whole litigation

history is cause you're jumping in in the

middle of the long fight. Here's the core

facts and here's our argument and here's

the opponent's argument. And then you

call up the opposition and they would

basically do the same thing for you. And

I found when I got to Jerusalem that

what was missing was this idea of any

kind of agreed-upon facts. And that there

was...That you would call the two sources

and they would the two sides on a

dispute and they would like just...It was

as though they were talking about two

completely different stories, and I found

it very very difficult to discern where

the facts began and where the kind of

opinion or argument or take began. The

second huge difference was in this in

the kind of scrutiny and the extent to

which the people who were activists in

the conflict and who were on sides had

decided that scrutiny of journalism or

really undermining journalists and

journalism was a kind of front in the

battle... I.... My take on this, and I was there

you know 20 years after ...20 years right...

about 20 years after Oslo - long after the

Second Intifada, which the whole place is

really in PTSD from. Still long after the

separation barrier was built up there

was I think as both sides had started to

understand that

that straight-up activism on the ground

felt increasingly futile towards the

peace process. That they had taken to

this new kind of battlefield, which was

and it was enabled by and enhanced by

social media...was that to undermine

journalists and journalism was a way to

advocate their position. And this was

true really on both sides of the

conflict. It was not at all done by

Israelis or Palestinians; it was all done

by the Diaspora supporters of those

people and their... and their fight. It was

on the kind of right... it is a

very well-endowed endeavor. There's a

lot of money spent on groups like CAMERA.

They had a big billboard outside of the

New York Times building criticizing us

for a long time that was very expensive.0

And on the other side there was not as

much money invested but there was quite

a lot of time invested. There were

numerous bloggers who devoted their

whole lives to tearing apart me and my

colleagues and...and the New York Times

has a kind of a special place in that

world. So that was very, very difficult.

There were a lot of personal attacks.

I can get into more detail about it if

you wish. So that was the big second

thing. And the third thing which I guess

is actually really what underpins the

first two, was I started to understand....

sorry....Relatedly, the the polarization of

the sources was another thing I found.

That people who were engaged in the

conflict we're getting their news from

very, very different places - and getting

therefore very very different versions

of the story. And reporting was falling

away in favor of of the sort of more

opinionated narrative thing. What I came

to understand, my explanation for all of

this - about why... was why was the coverage

of the conflict and the response the

coverage of conflicts so different from

anything else I'd ever done before. And

from what I saw my colleagues

experiencing in other places around the

world where there were difficult

conflicts. My explanation for it was that

in in this conflict the the positions

and understanding of what was going on

was so defined not only by narrative but

by a narrative that was core to people's

identity and that people were really

unable to process information about the

conflict, separate

from kind of their defining principles

about who they were and where they stood

in the world. So this idea of where bias

happens, or where political perspective

happens, was all messed up because it was

very much about kind of who you are. Now,

so as I said, I got back here on January

2, 2016 - not here but not that far from

here: America. Anyway, and really what I

saw happen over the next kind of year

and a half and continuing on till today

is all of those things started to be

true about everything in the news map

and particularly American politics. So it

is very difficult to find axiomatic facts,

right? We have a polarized world and with

which... it's sort of like we see basically

people get news sources from increasingly

from polarized, biased sources that come

from their perspective. Also there's a

complete lack of it...I mentioned....I forgot

to sort of talk about the the empathy

gap between Israelis and Palestinians,

and we can get back into that. But we

have the same thing playing out now with

Trump supporters and non-Trump supporters.

You have the basic reaction to whatever

news happens. You see people - the people

who like Trump think whatever the Trump

position is is good - and it's very

similar. And the other thing that's

happened is that the scrutiny and attacks

on journalists who are covering American

politics are very, very similar. They're

personal. They're based on the people's

identity. You know what what.. If you

follow Maggie Haberman and what...how she

is kind of treated in Twitter is very

similar to how...you know...and

interestingly, her father who was the

Jerusalem bureau chief of the New York

Times during the First Intifada was

treated in a pre-social media world and

then how I and my colleagues have been

treated in the social media world. So we

have now seen these things that were

seemed very typical of that conflict. I

extrapolated onto the broader political

map. I wish that I could say that the

Jewish world or and the conflict had

sort of somehow gotten better in that

context. But in fact, I think now that

this is true of a broader swath of the

news map, it is even more intense in the

parts of the world that the Forward is

covering. So it's not a happy picture. It

was the hardest

job I have ever done; it was also the

most, you know stimulating, inspiring,

challenging and exciting job I've ever.

It was a great privilege to cover the

conflict for the Times and to be in....

to live in that place and work. I

mean it's a... it's a great place to be a

journalist because there are so many

stories everywhere and because people in

general. I mean you got Jews who are have

a lot of opinions. You had Palestinians

who have a lot of opinions. A lot of...

Everybody is incredibly warm and

welcoming and loves to talk. There are

great stories. There's a great history. So

I don't want to you know the..the... The

challenge of consuming and analyzing

American news about the Middle East is I

think a significant one, but it is like a

true kind of paradise in a way for

journalism... for journalists to kind of

swim in story.

DOV WAXMAN: So let me just...let

me just follow up on the challenges of

reporting on Israel and the conflict.

First of all, you mentioned about you

know how it's really disputed facts and

and generally adherence to different

narratives. So for a journalist who's

seeking the facts and or seeking to

report just the facts, that's obviously a

big challenge. Another big challenge it

would seem to me in reporting on the

conflict is that that it's not only the

facts that are disputed, but the very

words, the language. RUDOREN: oh yeah right. WAXMAN: So

every word that you use I mean you...everyone chooses to refer to

the West Bank as the occupied territory,

for example, or occupied Palestinian

territory. Talk about the

1967 war as the six-day war, so even...it's almost the very basic

instruments that you use become so

contested. The other the other thing that

strikes me that many people question

about the the reporting of the conflict -

and this is a question I've heard a lot

as well - why is the media so much focused

on is the conflict over Israel-Palestine.

Like why does that get so much attention

when other - let's take the

example of Yemen, for example, where many

more people are continuing to to die or

even the war in Syria or Ukraine.

What accounts for this

strong focus. Now some people obviously

make the claim that there's a media bias.

What's your explanation?

RUDOREN: So um. I love the

conflict code question better. But I'll

do the other one first. No it's a great

question and it's a fair question,

although I think the response that I'll

give sort of debunks the question too.

As I first went to

Israel in 1987 on a teen tour. Like many

other people, I went to Poland and then

to Israel with USY. And I was a

journalist then; I worked at my high

school newspaper, and I definitely saw

the world in story kind of back then. And

I just remember - and I'm sure many of you

had a similar experience to this. I was

really moved by kind of two things that

really spoke to me as a person as a Jew

but also as a journalist. And I think is

what brought me back there so many years

later. One was the way that you literally

see layers of history in the land and

can imagine. How the I mean just

literally can see how different people

lived over such a long time. And the

second was that there was this kind of

inherent conflict and passionate fight

over the big picture and then therefore

in so many little places. So that's again

is where sort of story like happens. And

I think you know the short answer to

why American news organizations or

global news organizations and the New

York Times in particular is...as some

people would say...seems obsessed

with the conflict is... I mean this is the

most important place to the world's

three major religions. There is no

other place that is as important to as

many different kinds of people and it is

being intensely fought over, which is the

core of journalism. Add to that for an

American news organization, in particular.

I mean people always accuse the New York

Times of sort of over-covering it on a

kind of per-capita basis. But in fact,

every aspect of the United States is

over-invested in Israel compared to

every other place. Start with the

military investment, which is on a scale

compared to every

their ally or place around the world.

You know there is no chart that

could show the scale. Go to philanthropy.

In terms of you know everybody in this

room has probably walked around

Jerusalem in Israel and seen a lot of

American names on buildings. More

recently, we have an out-sized business

investment in Israeli tech companies and

other companies, and we have

certainly an out-sized Israeli-American

community compared to the size of Israel.

We have...There probably WAXMAN: in American Politics of course.

RUDOREN: Obviously because of those other things plays a

completely out-sized role in the American

political discourse and in the electoral

politics in particular. So for all those

reasons the New York Times also covers

it really intensely. Now it's also worth

saying that we always get this question.

It's like what about the Rohingya, what

about Syria, what about Yemen. So the New

York Times like most of what you know

about those things you have read it in

the New York Times.

The New York Times has bureaus not only

in Jerusalem but in Beirut and and oh my

god I've lost this...Sorry.... Baghdad,

Cairo. There are many Middle East

correspondents. They are covering all of

those wars intensely. We've broken so

many stories about Yemen and Syria.

People risk their lives to go there and

write amazing things about those places.

We are not under covering those places

just because we are covering Israel

intensely. I would also say that one of

the things that has radically changed

since I was there is the amount of

coverage about Israel, which is basically

just a shifting of the news map as in

the Trump era. Partly because of Trump

and the way that the coverage of

Washington and Trump has grown in

importance and space. And also because of

this I mean Brexit is taking some of

that energy. I saw some...one of my

predecessor...my successor, excuse me David

Halbfinger. I mean... I saw some number.... I

don't remember I think he wrote 75

stories in a year. And like most of my

years I wrote 250 stories. So there's

less coverage. But that's

going to...gonna come back eventually. I mean it's a

place of intense intense interest for

Americans and for American Jews and for

American institutions and it's covered

because of that. WAXMAN: I mean just as a

practical matter in terms of the

logistics of reporting. RUDOREN: it is also a

great place to report. WAXMAN: So I mean the the

ability to be able to quickly and easily

reach a story like file your story quickly. And in Yemen it

might be difficult to access to a satellite.

RUDOREN: This isn't as true as it used to be. But it also used

to be true. There are more foreign

correspondents based in Jerusalem than

in any place other than Washington for a

very long time. I don't think that's true

anymore.

and for a time a lot of news

organizations, not the New York Times ....but

had one Middle East correspondent who is

based in Jerusalem they would cover the

whole region. But let me get to the other

question cause I just love that question;

it's so interesting and and it's

interesting how it's moved to. So I

actually wrote a piece about this about

what I call 'conflict code'. And I then

wrote a memo for my successors about it

because there was all the stuff I just

didn't know. I was like I.... I thought they

were like these plain English meanings

of certain words and the conflict code

meaning of them. So I first ran into this

very early in my time. I wrote a small

little feature story about this weird

thing happening in the tent on the way

to Hebron where a sheik and a settler

were like having - it wasn't Track 2 - it

wasn't Track 3 - it was like Track

18 talks. They were like sitting there

trying to make peace in this tent. And I

just wrote this feature story about it

and I referred to Hebron which also

even the way you say - is it Hebron or Hebron. You can decide.

Whatever. I work for Jewish news

organization now, so I'm more comfortable

just going with the Hebron. Anyway, I refer

to the city as as ....within a story in

which I referred to this as the occupied

West Bank I also used the word disputed,

because Hebron or Hebron - or whatever.

As you know, this... this place is I would

say within the West Bank perhaps one of

the most fiercely fought over. You use

word contested...I'll get back to that in

a second...places. It is you know you you

obviously it's where Baruch Goldstein`

blew up...the

Cave of the Patriarchs. It's this...There's

this crazy special agreement where you

know in the old city that all the

Palestinians were kind of removed and

and there are these settler houses

and there's like IDF soldiers stationed

to basically keep. On one little driveway

there are like eight IDF soldiers

stationed there to keep people who live

in these two houses across from each

other from killing each other.

It's an incredibly hotly-contested spot.

So I refer to it as disputed. I had no

idea at the time that disputed is

conflict code for what the right-wing

calls the occupied territory because....

they basically don't....some people don't

acknowledge that it's occupied and

therefore call it disputed territory.

Perhaps some people in this room use

that term. So I really didn't know that. I

thought it was like disputed. Like

fought over. Like people are having a

dispute. I thought it was an English word.

Anyway, it was very funny because a

couple years later. Maybe...maybe like a year later.

But remember when [Mahmoud] Abbas

went to the UN and they approved the Palestinian state in

2013. So the response to that had to do

with this territory called E1 - now

we're getting into....I don't

have a map. Anyway, E1 is a kind of

area northeast of Jerusalem near a piece of

Ma'ale Adumim - the settlement.

And it is a fiercely-disputed place

because it is perceived. If Israel

were to put settlements there, it is

perceived as a particular block to a

contiguous block of Palestinian state. It

was really disrupt. S we were writing

very much on deadline. I was working with

people in Washington and other places.

I'm writing this story on deadline.

I forget exactly what happened. It was.... I

think it was a Saturday. And I see the

story go up in real time and it says in

the headline - like something something

disputed territory. And I was like you

know Call right up to New York - and I'm

like no, no we can't call it disputed; we

have to call it contested. Like and it

was like. And so this is you know there's

at some point this becomes this insane

ridiculousness over this over these

questions. I mean language obviously

matters. We are in the word business.

But when I talk about this kind of

industry that has grown up around

scrutinizing or criticizing the media.

A lot of it is like pointing at

these words and then and then

politicizing words. And the map

has moved....So many many moons

ago the dateline on New York Times

stories would actually say occupied

Palestinian territories. And the the New

York Times has referred to the West Bank

has occupied forever. The State

Department refers to it as occupied or

did until very recently. The United

Nations does. So....after I got

back when I was editing the Israel

coverage there was a kind of new wave

from the right saying that we shouldn't

refer to it as Palestinian territories.

That that was pre-determining the

outcome. And as you just alluded to, the

the State Department doesn't really

use that language anymore. The truth is

the thing is that the Israeli government has

acknowledged that this is a military

occupation. They have not ever changed

that determination, so I have no problem

referring to this as an occupied territory,

although. And if you're thinking in

your head, but Jordan occupied it before. I know. I got it. I know.

Which if you don't mind. I'll just

keep going for a minute because there's

another question that's related to this

that I just think is really interesting,

which is one of the real problems about

the way that people consume this

coverage. Again because of those identity

issues is they basically seem to and

maybe this is a bad day to use this

analogy. But they sometimes seem to look

at every article or development as

though it's a bad report about a

basketball game. And they're...It's like a

scorecard they're just looking at. And

what they're looking at is, is this good

for my team or not. Is this good for my

team or not.

and so they'll. And they often do this in

in in the realm of like how much

background was in there. So for you may

remember, I think it was in 2015 there

was one of a series of big blow ups

around the Temple Mount. And yes I

understand it's either the Temple Mount or

Al-Aqsa Mosque, you could say it either

way. Yes it's the holy. It's the third-

holiest place in Islam. It's the holiest

place in Judaism. I got it. It's all... it's

all there. But there was a particular

blow-up around it and Jordan actually pulled its

ambassador over this. It was really a crisis.

And we were covering it and writing

quite a lot about it ...news stories about

it ...and I got two different and

interesting complaints. It was actually the

only time my father really complained

about something in this context. But...So

from Jews...Some Jews

wanted in that story...in the story

about like, today Jordan pulled its

ambassador over this conflict. These many

people have been killed....He and other people wanted

me to have in that story that when Jordan was in

control of the old city, Jews were not

allowed to even go to the Western Wall.

Those of you - that was until 1967. So it was a little

bit before I was

writing about it. And then I got from the

other side, that I should mention in this

story that Palestinians from Gaza are

not...Oh I'm sorry. The the crux of

what had happened - the new thing - was that

that Israel had for the first time since

it had been in control of the Temple

Mount, closed it to visitors altogether,

including Palestinian visitors. So

Palestians were not able to worship. So

that's a critical point. So some Jews

wanted me to point out that in 1962, Jews

were also not even allowed to go to the

Western Wall. And then other people

wanted me to point out that Gazans

needed special permission to go to

Al-Aqsa all the time. So it wasn't just

today they were banned; they were always

had to have some....I was like, right....

Neither of those things would help

anybody in Nebraska understand what

happened today. They are not helpful to

context for today. They are just a way to

say: Okay, I feel bad about this bad thing

my side seems to be doing to the other

side, but they did something worse to me

a long time ago and everybody should

know about it. Because my side may be you

know mean today but other people have

been meaner. And sometimes, I mean it just

was like, people always wanted there to

be more background in a story to give

more myths about what the other side had

done. And I used to think - I used to say

that the nut graph of every story I

write should be (the nut graph is like

the basic background paragraph) should

basically be like Abraham had two sons,

there was Isaac and there was Ishmael....

And then but it's like an 800-word news

story you know so there's not always

room for Abraham. WAXMAN: As someone who

teaches and writes about the same

I also often get the same question,

why did you begin there. So part of it is

the question of where you choose to

begin the story, which is itself

influences the nature of the narrative.

But also there's always more information

and there's always in particularly

in an area saturated with so much

history and where there's been a

long-running conflict, there's always

more that you can put in. And so

there's always going to be people that...

The easiest criticism to make is what

you've left out. RUDOREN: Right and I think I mean

one of the important things about

the journalism context, wherever. It's

really about the fullness of your body

of work. Every story cannot tell every

story. But the point is that over time,

you would feel like you got a textured,

three-dimensional portrait of the people

living in this place, the things they're

arguing about, and and some of the

history. WAXMAN: So on that point I would like to

move on and talk a little bit to talk about

your work at the Forward. But in terms

of the coverage of Israel. The other

issue that's often raised particularly

by Israelis themselves I think - and I

face this....How much

attention should be paid to the conflict

versus the many other aspects of Israeli

society right. Like that experience

of living in Israel, particularly living

in Tel Aviv. You know in many ways the

conflict is not the issue that dominates

the conversation or dominates...So

it's very easy for Israelis to relegate

it down ...not see it as the

big issue. And they want you know to talk

about tech or lifestyle or whatever. Um

and so the question of how much - how

much weight to give it in the coverage

of Israel. As I said, I faced a similar question

here and directing the Nazarian Center. How

much should we focus on and have events

about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict versus

all the many other facets of Israeli society.

RUDOREN: So I think it's a

great question to answer in the context

of the two different organizations.

Because I think and it relates back to

that first question about like over

coverage. So the the conflict

is the thing that is where... why the

American military and the American

political system is so kind of over-

invested in Israel. And so that for the

mainstream New York Times....thinking about

how to cover Israel versus Yemen versus Britain or

whatever. It's like mostly about the

conflict or about Iran or about you know

the various ways in which Israel is a

world player and is a driving force in

American diplomacy, geopolitical movement.

And that..it's not only about

the conflict and there is a piece of

that that's about tech or wine or some

of the - and I have written about those

things too. So but... but for the New York

Times, I really do think that....Like the

reason we have such a big presence there

really is about that alliance and that

connection. For the Forward, it's

different. For the Forward we have I

think we certainly care about the

American political system. I mean the

Israeli politics, Israeli diplomacy,

Israeli....the conflict, the future. You know

and ..just honestly I mean the

driving question here is will Israel

survive as a Jewish state...as a

Jewish democracy. And so that is of

critical interest to our readership. But

also all that other stuff is of really

deep interest. And so I think you know

Israeli television and other cultural

exports, Israeli food, Israeli dance. You

know ...the relationship

around pluralism and liberal Judaism. And

the fight over religion and state. These

are critically important issues to our

readership an also the

New York Times, which is sort of a Jewish newspaper.

But know it's much easier to say like, that that opportunity to sort

of revel in Israel's complexity and

vibrancy and culture and history is, I

would say, a central part of the Forward's

news map in a way that it might not have

been in The New York Times. WAXMAN: So a final

question kind of transitioning from your

time at the Times to the Forward.

Reporting from the Times as a

Jewish journalist and then you know

the particular challenges of that. You

mentioned your father being disappointed

with you know. The difficulty of

having to take on the role as a kind of

you know objective, impartial observer

and yet always being scrutinized in

part as a Jewish journalist. Maybe

there's kind of a different

standard ..Held up to a different standard. And

then being a Jewish journalist at the

Forward speaking to a Jewish audience.

Does that then shape the way you think of

your role as a journalist. And one case

your identity something you may wish to

kind of put to one side, if you like. And

then the other case, it becomes a central

part of the mission of the

newspaper. RUDOREN: So people used to ask me

all the time about what it was like to

cover the conflict. To be the Jerusalem

bureau chief as a Jewish journalist, as

opposed to a Jewish journalist in the

Jewish news map. and it's a question

I really struggled with because I... I mean

I've never not been Jewish; and I've

never not been a woman. Like I don't know

how. It's hard for me to say how it

affected my coverage. I mean it clearly

was related to my deep interest into the

place and to my introduction to the

place. I mean I went there on a USY

tour. I wouldn't have been thinking

about going to Jerusalem if I hadn't

been Jewish. People also would very much

always ask why so many of the Jerusalem

bureau chiefs were Jews. WAXMAN: Never used

to be the case. Right? Was there not a shift

in terms of how the Times. RUDOREN: Since

Tom Friedman in 1984 I think - maybe

all but two have been Jewish or something. It's a lot.

But the answer is like, well

first of all Jews are not 2% of the New

York Times; they're a lot more than that;

second of all, a lot of Jews are

interested and going there. And for me it

was also like the only foreign

correspondent's post that made sense to

go to with young kids. And so you know it

wasn't like...Anyway that's what it was.

What I was gonna say though is...the

question on the scrutiny and the public

flagellation of the New York Times

bureau chief - and of other

international journalists. It was

incredibly personalized on both sides by

the fact that I was Jewish. And it

is clear that is worse for Jews than

anyone else. While I was there,

the Washington Post bureau chief was not

Jewish; his assistant, or his second was

an American Israel..or maybe she's a Canadian-Israeli,

as mine was a British-Israeli. And she got all the same kind of Twitter

crap that I got. But he didn't.

And people would just. You know Jews

would attack you. How could you betray

your own people. Palestinians would

attack... or not Palestinians, but their

supporters, would attack you as... you know

obviously or yeah....there was

ridiculous criticism about my husband

living in a Zionist bubble and this

whole video - was an insane thing. But so that

was clearly a way in which people tried

to personalize and kind of attack me. And

one of the first things people......really

personal and ugly stuff. But for me. My framing

way of looking at the world really has been as

a reporter for my while life. Both professionally

but really it's how I function in the world too.

So it wasn't really hard to put aside

really whatever... It was lovely to live there as a

Jewish person. It was easy..it was easy to

integrate with the kind of Anglo Jews

for our personal life... but...But as a

reporter.. I was a reporter... I mean one of

the great glories of being a reporter is

the opportunity to go into subcultures

that are not your own and to explore

them. I did go have an advantage

talking to some kinds of Israeli Jews,

although other kinds of Israeli Jews are

really different from me. And you always

have to be careful as a reporter when

you report on something that you

actually know from personal experience.

That you're not kind of skipping the

step of really figuring out what's

actually going on in this community or

in this story and presuming too much. So

I think reporting is usually the answer

for me. I will say... I'm sorry I'm

answering too long. But the

difference now is that you know my

basic job covering the conflict for the

New York Times was really to not to be beholden

to all of these advocacy groups

who were very engaged in my coverage in

a kind of formal activist way. But to

really think about people who really

wouldn't understand the Middle East or

have any information about it if not for

the New York Times.

Not the people engaged in the conflict. My job now is

totally different. I mean I'm serving. We

are creating journalism for the

Jewish world and we are trying to create

a platform for civil discourse in a very

divided Jewish world. In a world that is

deeply divided over Israel. And we want

to give fair, deep reporting and also

very importantly host an opinion

conversation. People who profoundly

disagree and see things a different way. And

engage people in seeing perspectives

that are different from their own and

respecting them. And that's the project we're

in now. And it is a project that's about

kind of not bringing the Jewish world

together like a kumbaya way, but like

giving the Jewish world a serious

independent news source about Israel and

everything else that it can rely on and

and and kind of engage with that is not

polarized and biased and full of vitriol.

WAXMAN: So just to follow up on that,

yeah nowadays as you mentioned people

are increasingly consuming their new

sources income political ideological

silos. They want to read

information that already confirms their

existing views.....but

increasingly they don't like it when

somebody else is given a platform whose

views they disagree with. The Forward

I think under your leadership

is very ...has taken on this

this part of this mission, if you like of being

a big tent or trying to host

discordant voices, particularly in the

op-ed pages. RUDOREN: Yup. WAXMAN: And to you know, to show

these different. How difficult is

that given the public desire

increasingly to only really - whether you

know whether it's through our Facebook

feeds or newspaper subscriptions if we

have them - to only be exposed to the

opinions we already agree with and like.

And the fact that you're making this

effort to you know include people who

would - whom many of your readers don't

want to hear from. RUDOREN: Right I mean it's a

great question and it's interesting that you

framed it as kind of how hard

is it. It's not actually hard. It's really

natural. Cause if you're kind of interested in

understanding like what the f**k is

going on then you really need to see

what's going on in different corners of

our world and of our community.

And the the actual task of getting

people with different perspectives to

write and to write well is... is like ...

the natural way we as journalists would

go about doing things. So... But but

we get a lot of s**t for it. So

you know, it's maybe a little bit

difficult in that way. I honestly think

one of the most pernicious problems in

the Jewish world and in the American

political space is this instinct to

define people out of the debate. To focus

heavily on where the red line is on who

is too far, too crazy, too different, too

whatever. And instead of like wrestling.

And I really think this is about the

lack of empathy. I didn't tell my little

empathy story, so I'll tell it now. I

wrote the story on Yom HaZikaron one

year about an American-Israeli mom whose

son had been killed in the Yom Kippur

War and about the fact that for 40 years

on Yom HaZikaron there had been a

Memorial Day. There are

memorials or big, big public memorials

all over the country and also all of

these small memorials. And for 40 years

people have been coming to this woman's

little thing for her her son Gilad. She

was now an old woman living in kind of a

nursing home or like a retirement home. And

the little ceremony was there. And people

from his scout troop came and people

from his unit who had served with him

came there. There had been something like 27

kids named Gilad after this guy. So there was just

this very powerful story about something

that many of you may already know, which

is the way that Memorial Day plays out

as a very intimate and personal and

individualized experience in Israel,

because so many people have been touched

by violence. It was a small story. I'm

sitting at lunch with Yohanan Plesner

of Israel Democracy Institute that day - a really smart guy, and I get a text right

in the middle of lunch

from the spokesman for the PLO. And the text

says, your lack of empathy for

Palestinians is unbelievable. And I was

like huh.. I was like what is he talking

about. I kind of forgotten the story...

I was like I really don't know

what he's talking about. And I realized

it was about this story. And I was like

there was like no Palestinians in this

story. He was killed by Egyptians in

1973. And I was really like..It took me a

minute. I just....I was really pissed

and I really...didn't get it, and I

realized - oh the story was full of

empathy for this woman. And this idea was

that if you were empathizing with

Israelis or Jews that you somehow

couldn't be also empathizing with

Palestinians. Which is this idea that

empathy itself was a zero-sum game, which

is to me like the opposite of empathy.

The whole point of empathy is

that it's available to everybody. It is

the key tool of good journalism. It is to

understand a situation from another

person's perspective. That is the

definition of empathy. And I was really

like devastated by it. I just thought, oh my

god - this is. And I realized it was

this crisis of the narrative and

identity ....WAXMAN: Competitive. RUDOREN: Competitive. yes.

and I was like. Anyway, that

is also what we now see in our community

in our Jewish community but also around

Trump, which is nobody. The biggest

problem in our politics is people not

trying to understand why Trump...is

Trump-haters not trying to understand

why Trump voters support Trump and Trump

voters not trying to understand why people on the other side

see him as a particular danger. And that

is all about empathy. And I think I got

off a little bit off in your question.

But really we need in our

community. I mean we are...

I'm running now a community publication.

it's a big community. it's actually

layers of communities on top of each

other and around each other. It is a

fractured community. It is a diverse

community. But ultimately we are talking

about the Jewish community a news

organization to serve the Jewish

community. And we have a responsibility

to have empathy across that community

and to try to understand what the hell's

going on and why people think what they

think. There was an incredibly interesting

moment at the Z3 Conference yesterday

where at the opening plenary the head of

Z3, Zach Bodner, talked about the

definition of this Zionism 3.0 and

kind of the the notion that it needs to

be a big tent. And he talked about...though

there are boundaries who should be

in the tent, who shouldn't. Basically said

anti-Zionists are not welcome at this

conversation if you don't kind of buy

into the idea of the Jewish state. And

Yehuda Kurtzer from the Shalom

Hartman Institute, he wasn't saying like

no no we should all hang out with anti-

Zionists. But he really poked back at Zach

on this in this incredibly smart way. He

said, if you truly want a big tent the

first thing you talk about is not where

the poles should go. Because if you do

that, if you start by talking about how

to limit the conversation, you're not

really gonna hear the conversation. And

it's not...He wasn't saying there

shouldn't be any boundaries or some

things are....Of course some things are out

of bounds, but he was just like focusing on

defining people out of the debate is the

wrong place to start. And I totally agree

with that. WAXMAN: I mean just from a commercial

point of view though there's a challenge

nowadays because obviously empathy

doesn't sell as well as kind of anger in

many ways right. People feeling that

indignation seems to be what sells.

Empathy doesn't sell as well. And so from

a media perspective - and this is what you

know......

RUDOREN: I think that truth,

accountability, storytelling, insight - I think those

things really do sell. I think people

really do want independent, well, deeply

reported, smartly and engagingly told

journalism. I do. I mean

there's been a huge outpouring at the

New York Times for high-quality

journalism. They have five million people

paying for the New York Times today. It's

astounding. And I think that we can sell

truths and empathy and insight and

analysis and debate. I think we can. And

if I'm wrong, then I'll get another job.