Times Editor Defends Lack Of Coverage Of Chas Freeman Mess
Interesting: The editor who oversees The New York Times’s national security coverage is defending the paper’s decision not to write about the Charles “Chas” Freeman saga before today.
In an email, the editor, Doug Jehl, said that the campaign to take down Freeman “fell short of the bar” because his post as National Intelligence Council chief “lies well below cabinet rank.”
People on all sides of the Freeman fracas were mystified by The Times’s decision (and that of other major news orgs like The Washington Post) not to cover the story while it unfolded. The paper’s hometown Senator, Chuck Schumer, played a major role in Freeman’s ouster, airing his opposition to Freeman in private conversations with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
So I asked The Times for a response to the criticism, and got back this from Jehl:
We did initially elect not to write a story about the campaign against Mr. Freeman. In deciding how to deploy our reporters, my initial judgment was that this squabble fell short of the bar, since the head of the National Intelligence Council is not a Senate-confirmable position and it lies well below cabinet rank.
But the fact that the campaign proved successful certainly justified Mark Mazzetti’s story in this morning’s paper, and we are continuing our reporting efforts today.
A Democrat involved in this controversy says he’s already heard from Mazzetti and says that judging by the questions, Mazzetti may be drilling down pretty deep into the story. So stay tuned.
The homepage of this blog is here. Its RSS feed is here. And its Twitter feed is here.
Part of me understands the NYT’s decision. They were late getting there, so they tried to take some kind of high road. Still, this was a pretty bizarre turn of events. Have to imagine Jehl is taking some heat from the newsroom’s higher-ups for it.
Part of me understands the NYT’s decision.
Me too and partly because I can see that they could decide that this wasn’t anything that was going to be noteworthy because it is a lower level appointment.
On the other hand, I’m always suspicious when Israel is involved and that’s just so damn sad. I never used to be that way. I find it one of the tragedies of history that Israel has lost its soul and turned into what so many of its founders fled from.
I should have said: “one of the greatest tragedies of history…”
i go fast, leave out words.
I hate to see my name three times in a row, but I owe this to you, Greg – you are doing an incredible job here. You aren’t a blogger anymore. You are a straight journalist with direct contact and storied you originate rather than pickup elsewhere.
You’re just doing a fantastic job – I’m not worthy.
thanks Tena — and I know you don’t believe me, but the site’s success also depends on commenters like you.
Hmmmm, so its not a big story when the apointment is announced and a campaign against Freeman is ongoing. But it IS a story after that campain is a success and Freeman withdraws. I am just going to blockquote the part of his response that makes me call bullsh*t
.
.
That unequivocally shows that the campaign was happening but chose not to report on it when it could have mattered. WEAKSAUCE man and truly cowardly if you ask me.
typing too fast, should read
.
“That unequivically shows that they knew the campaign against Freeman was happening but chose not to report on it when it could have mattered”
Greg
.
Just curious if you have tried to contact JStreet for a comment?
I will stay tuned, Greg, because I suspect there’s quite a bit more to this story than Jehl’s response suggests. Thanks for staying on it.
Frankly, I wasn’t terribly interested in this story myself (I have a sense of fatality about anything involving Israel – I just think “why fight it?”). Now I am terribly interested and that’s thanks to you, Greg.
I would likely have not paid much attention to this, but now it’s getting quite fascinating.
You sure, Tena, that you really didn’t mean to say “one of the greatest, most awfulest, most heinous, most foul and rottenest, worstest tragedies in human and kozmik and galactic history”? C’mon, let it all hang out.
“Mazzetti may be drilling down pretty deep into the story. So stay tuned.”
Hilarious! The NY Times first loses credibility by refusing to cover the story, and yet now Greg thinks we should all wait with bated breath for their ‘analysis’ of what happened. Don’t we ever learn? Who the hell cares what The NY Times has to say about this now? They missed the boat, provided a weak reason for why they missed it, but now we are to trust their after-the-fact analysis? Who cares to bet that the Israel Lobby and the NeoCons will be the bad guys in The NY Times version of this? Who’s going to be stupid enough to give The NY Times analysis any credibility? Gee, so long as the Israel Lobby and the NeoCons are the bad guys I’ll bet Greg will. Pathetic – The NY Times is not to be trusted on this – they’ve already shown that to be the case to anyone who has been watching this unravel.
Greg
.
OT but have you seen this? I think it would make Rassmussen’s head explode
.
http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2009/03/rush-limbaugh-weighs-down-heavily-on-republicans/
C’mon, let it all hang out.
You obviously are not familiar with my commenting.
Maybe I’m just over-credulous, but I buy NYT’s explanation. They probably didn’t think the appointment would be a big deal. Even when the criticisms started, I read a few sources saying, essentially, “This will still get done.”
And then…it didn’t. So now they have to cover what happened, which they are. I’ll be interested to see what Mazzetti writes.
I think I understand the Times’ decision not to run with it, but I don’t believe their reason for not running it was because they thought it was a non-story. I don’t trust the Times or the Wapo or any other member of the Press to get to the truth of an issue, not after the way they aided and abetted the bush gang. And they’re certainly not going to cross the Israeli lobby, especially in NYC.
Jehl: In deciding how to deploy our reporters, my initial judgment was that this squabble fell short of the bar, since the head of the National Intelligence Council is not a Senate-confirmable position and it lies well below cabinet rank.
Not sure which would be worse: that Jehl is telling a lie about his reasoning or that he is telling the truth about his judgment.
I think the Times missed the boat and I don’t think that Jehl’s explanation is incompatible with that.
Newspapers have to be careful not to bite off more than they can chew, and try to take on too much at one time, and they’ve been busy finding out if Obama is really a socialist. So it is understandable that they weren’t able to tackle the two projects at once and overextend themselves.
Also, Freeman’s letter last night added an, um, explosive facet to the story. The whole controversy was pretty much confined to the blogosphere, so we can’t really expect the prints and the wires to keep up with that, can we?
Greg, I echo Tena in how impressed I am with the great reporting you are doing on this blog! Excellent!
(p.s. Can you ask your overlords get down with some preview for us?)
The incident hasn’t been covered in the Times or much of anywhere else because The Lobby, which is to say the Israeli foreign agents who run AIPAC and other similar groups, controls not just the U.S. government, but the commanding heights of the U.S. news media. They wanted this to be hidden away, but it’s not going to work.
Has anyone mentioned that the Post is calling for the AG to drop spying charges against Steve Rosen and his alleged co-conspirator? That’s the same Steve Rosen, former AIPAC member, who led the charge against Charles Freeman.
John Hartland + CDW : Except your hate to Jews have you some real evidence to your insanity?
John Hartland + CDW : Except your hate to Jews have you some real reason to your insanity?
That’s it, I’m starting my blog