I’ve blogged quite a bit about the Chas Freeman appointment, but there’s a need to post (at least) one more item.
Originally when Walter PIncus wrote about Freeman’s withdrawal he took great care to emphasize the Jewish opposition to the appointment.
Rosen’s initial posting was the first of 17 he would write about Freeman over a 19-day period. Some of those added more original reporting, while some pointed to other blogs’ finds about Freeman’s record. In the process, Rosen traced increasing interest in the appointment elsewhere in the blogosphere, including coverage by Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, and Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic.
Never mind that for every Michael Goldfarb who questioned the appointment there was an equal and opposing M. J. Rosenberg, who supported the appointment.
He followed up that piece with a report on how the Arab world viewed Freeman’s withdrawal. Noah Pollak did an excellent job of skewering that report.
Trend stories, or any story documenting the reactions to an event of one discreet group, are to be avoided by discerning readers because they are one of the best ways for a reporter to conceal his political opinions with a patina of journalistic credibility. (Here’s the obverse story the Post could have run: “‘Israel Lobby’ Conspiracy Theory Increasingly Popular on Political Fringes, in Middle East.â€)
And yesterday James Taranto returned to the original story to note how Pincus subverted “journalistic ethics” in that first report. Taranto observes that by getting three anonymous supporter to confirm that Josh Block, a spokesman for AIPAC, had given them information about Freeman, Pincus was able to seemingly confirm Freeman’s charges about an orchestrated campaign against him.
If you read the relevant paragraph about Joshua Block, your realize something else.
But Block responded to reporters’ questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: “As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background.”
So the AIPAC spokesman responded to reporters’ questions. That hardly supports the charge that AIPAC was working quietly behind the scenes to sink the appointment. The reporters came to Block, not vise versa.
But by emphasizing Block’s involvement, Pincus really seemed to be working awfully hard to support Freeman’s charges of a vast Zionist conspiracy.
However disturbing Pincus’s role in the controversy is, this incident raises another troubling question. If at least three reporters sought out Block, why didn’t they report on what they learned from him?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
