A few weeks ago Dion Nissenbaum was outraged at a stunt pulled by Israeli journalist Ben Caspit. Caspit put words in the mouth of Sen. George Mitchell, have the envoy say,
“Our policy is simple,” US Middle East envoy George Mitchell was quoted as saying. “The Israelis lied to us all these years. And now it’s over.”
The problem is that Mitchell didn’t use those words. Or at least as a later article by Caspit makes clear, he didn’t use those exact words and he didn’t say anything similar in the meeting Caspit reported on. However, Mitchell apparently did say something similar in a telegram.
It is interesting that Nissenbaum is so exercised by Caspit’s taking liberties here. For one thing the administration has pretty clearly lied about American commitments with Israel. And apparently Ambassador Kurtzer has changed his story to suit the administration. This doesn’t make Caspit’s deception (or “fake but true” reporting) correct, but Nissenbaum’s outrage at Israeli journalism seems rather selective.
Strangely, too he seems none too outraged by articles appearing last week claiming that Gilad Shalit was about to be released. (“imminent” one headline read.) Nissenbaum writes:
Reports like these pop up in the Israeli media about once every three or four months.
Israeli journalists rely on anonymous sources who reportedly suggest that a “breakthrough” has been made and that only a few details need to be hammered out.
But the “imminent” story I wrote about last week was a lot more than a report about the possible release of Shalit. (Clearly, I should have been a lot more skeptical of the report.) It was seemingly advocating the strengthening of Hamas, the isolating of Salam Fayyad and cast PM Netanyahu as the heavy. (In other words, all the stars had aligned and all that was required was for Netanyahu to be a little less stubborn and agree to Hamas’s terms.)
And It was based on a single “reliable” European source. Will this source be referred to as “reliable” in the future?
Nissenbaum claims that such reports appear frequently in the Israeli media. This sort of reporting seems a lot worse than Caspit’s breach. Of course it is typical of reporters all around. They’ll find a source who will provide them with a story they wish were true. Then they’ll quote the source and write how the possibility could come about. Well the story is “true,” because the news is that the source said it, not that the content of what he said was true. Caspit, at least, accurately conveyed the feelings of the Obama administration.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
