Felson writes:
I was actually exasperated reading the NYT story. I guess it's good that they acknowledge it was about Israel,
but Mazzetti and Cooper seem to take every opportunity to paint Freeman
as an unhinged fringe figure, without providing any context about his
"controversial" statements about Israel. Look at some of the language:
I was actually exasperated reading the NYT story. I guess it's good that they acknowledge it was about Israel,
but Mazzetti and Cooper seem to take every opportunity to paint Freeman
as an unhinged fringe figure, without providing any context about his
"controversial" statements about Israel. Look at some of the language:
* "…Mr. Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush, angrily withdrew his name from consideration and charged that he had been the victim of a concerted campaign by what he called “the Israel lobby.” (as opposed to just saying "the Israel lobby" or "the pro-Israel lobby"; it's like the NYT is trying to make it look like just another kooky statement on Freeman's part)
* Mr. Freeman had long been critical of Israel, with a bluntness that American officials rarely voice in public about a staunch American ally." (This is AIPAC language!)
* "It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steven J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,
a pro-Israel lobbying group." (Absolutely no mention of the whole
espionage thing in this sentence or anywhere in the article. Hmm,
wouldn't this be particularly relevant to mention since the article
brands Israel America's "staunch" ally?)
a pro-Israel lobbying group." (Absolutely no mention of the whole
espionage thing in this sentence or anywhere in the article. Hmm,
wouldn't this be particularly relevant to mention since the article
brands Israel America's "staunch" ally?)
It read more like a whitewash to me; they had to write something
after all the grief they took yesterday, but they wrote it for a
pro-Israel audience that doesn't want to read anything negative about
"our staunch ally."
after all the grief they took yesterday, but they wrote it for a
pro-Israel audience that doesn't want to read anything negative about
"our staunch ally."
[Weiss: I asked Felson what he meant about the "grief" the Times got. He responded:]
The blogs were on their case and it spread to the mainstream, via Politico. Michael Calderone wrote:
The blogs were on their case and it spread to the mainstream, via Politico. Michael Calderone wrote:
My colleague Ben Smith, who's been on top of the saga, pointed out on Tuesday night that
Freeman withdrawing showed how a story “doesn't need ever to cross into
more traditional media precincts to play out with congressional
involvement and executive action.”
Freeman withdrawing showed how a story “doesn't need ever to cross into
more traditional media precincts to play out with congressional
involvement and executive action.”
They were challenging the NYT's relevancy, so the NYT responded– with a weak story.
