New York Times Finally Covers Chas Freeman Saga — After It’s Over
As many others have noted, one of the stranger subplots of the whole Chas Freeman saga has been the refusal of the big news orgs, particularly The New York Times, to touch this story. That this silence has been deeply mystifying is probably the one thing supporters and foes of Freeman can agree upon.
Today The Times finally ran a story about the whole mess — after it was already over, of course. But The Times didn’t seem that interested in figuring out why Freeman was ousted.
The paper quotes Freeman blaming the “Israel Lobby,” and then places one call to AIPAC, whose spokesperson says that the group never took a formal position on Freeman. The paper lets the matter rest there.
But as Ben Smith, Andrew Sullivan, Max Blumenthal and others have already shown, pro-Israel forces were instrumental in turning the Freeman pick into a major controversy. Reporters who covered this closely were subjected to a barrage of info and spin from that camp.
Nor did the paper didn’t do any real digging to try to settle the question of whether Freeman was really the lightening rod his critics claimed.
The paper’s overall silence is even more bizarre when you consider that its hometown Senator — Chuck Schumer — played a major role in Freeman’s ouster, airing his opposition in private conversations with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
It’s sobering to think that if the paper had weighed in on this earlier, particularly on the editorial page, which drives opinion in Congress, the outcome could have been very different.
Even weirder: Anyone getting their news strictly from the big news orgs wouldn’t have had any idea that this big battle over a major intel pick — one whose outcome could have real consequences — was happening at all.
The homepage of this blog is here. Its RSS feed is here. And its Twitter feed is here.
You know they had a quick blurb on Freeman withdrawing on Morning Joe and I was quite surprised but then I thought about it. I think the only reason its being reported now is because of Chas Freeman’s statement yesterday that basically unloaded the clip on the pro Israel lobby. I think the major news organizations almost had to pay attention at that point even if only to put out a very superficial story about it. Now I think the question is if that will be the end of it or will it inspire some folks to take a little bit deeper look at the situation. It won’t help Freeman but if they end up talking about what really went down and who the key players were it might make them less inclined to engage in that kind of a smear campaign next time. But you have to know that every news org is going to be wary of being labeled as anti semites as evidently Joe Klein, Spencer Ackerman, and Ezra Klein, all Jewish journalist, have been labeled because of their pushback on this issue.
Greg
.
Check out how much AIPAC didn’t take a position.
.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/did_chuck_schumer_kill_the_freeman_appointment
.
“Schumer didn’t need anyone to tell him” Freeman was problematic, said one former official at a pro-Israel group. “He’s been in the business a long time, and he’s got good staff. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t call AIPAC for research material.” (An Aipac official told the New York Times that the group “had not taken a formal position on Mr. Freeman’s selection and had not lobbied Congress members to oppose it.”)
Greg…any wild guesses as to why this is? I don’t have a good enough grasp of the underlying dynamics to even have a hint of why big media avoided this story for so long.
SchrodingersCat
.
Might be because they didn’t want this kind of smearing done to them for reporting on it.
.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/05/the_best_defense_is_to_be_offensive_a_response_to_chait_goldfarb_and_goldberg
Thanks for weighing in on the Times’ (&, I might add, pretty much the Post’s) curious sin of omission on the Freeman controversy. It must have been, for openers anyway, a choice of an assignment desk editor. The editorial board, after all, is not going to comment on a ghost story; i.e., one their paper doesn’t cover.
Best comment on Freeman’s (forced??) withdrawal — Spencer Ackerman, who says only, “Pound of flesh: extracted.”
The Constant Weader at RealityChex.com
sgwhiteinfla: Thanks for the link. That put the whole ugly episode in a little bit of context for me.
Isn’t that pretty much how the NYT (and WaPo) always does it? All the news you need, released way too late to make a difference. They are threading the needle – trying to be credible as “papers of record” at the same time advancing the agendas of those who run the business.
I call it Woodwardian journalism – the people making the news control how it’s reported (in exchange for access). Journalists have become political information launderers.
“pro-Israel forces were instrumental in turning the Freeman pick into a major controversy. Reporters who covered this closely were subjected to a barrage of info and spin from that camp.”
Who are the “pro-Israel forces” and “that camp” exactly? I’m not challenging you, but those terms could mean Jon Chait or they could mean some AIPAC-like organization. There’s a difference. Then we’ll know who the Lobby really is.
OH, big surprise. The Israeli lobby is alive and well in the editorial rooms of the MSM.
Before my comments are dismissed as those of a typical anti-Semite, consider my admiration for truly American, honorable Jews. Roger Cohen, Richard Cohen, Thomas Friedman come to mind, to name only a few. They don’t give AIPAC, neocons and Israel a pass on everything Israel does, nor do they believe Israel’s and America’s interests are mutually inclusive and intertwined. It’s time AIPAC is exposed for what it is, a dangerous lobbying arm for a far right element in the politics of a foreign country, Israel. And Charles Shumer might as well be the Senator for Tel Aviv in addition to Senator from Wall Street. He as much as blackmailed the administration over Freeman, knowing his support for the Obama agenda is critical to its success. The China and SA things are straw men, a ruse which Zionists hid behind when they realized that Freeman has not been willing to hold Israel blameless for all its actions. To label Freeman an enemy of human rights is the height of hypocricy on the part of Zionists who have treated Palestinians as brutally as Jews have been treated over the centuries.
Calling a spade a spade, the Israel Lobby has denied the American president a voice in our intelligence efforts which Obama wanted to have available to us in an official capacity.
Follow the money. The tail wagged the dog because the money is in the tail. And therein “LIES” the tale.
AIPAC should be required to register as an agency of a foreign government.
Anyone who believes that Freeman was knee-capped by a two week “whining by ill-informed hacks” is in denial that the Israel Lobby once again successfully thwarted our real democracy’s efforts to bring sunshine to government and realism to the Middle East mess.
Not that I’m totally impressed, but this is more than I expected when I found a link on Delicious telling that the info is awesome. Thanks.
Agreement Year,concept sight reform shape week free pound failure wave reader painting break direct discover care glass rural impossible consideration damage almost party probably result lack treat code much come budget deep interview pressure investigate before about direct son northern more above change limit necessarily link walk concerned read energy rain southern long familiar withdraw the want you anyone shout clean environment actually major explain teach concerned record school account victim else sense yet section incident baby aim contribution slowly financial market get course educational theatre beside brother industry