My minder at the AIPAC policy conference was Jason Rosenberg. I don't know much about him, except that he's not a full time AIPAC staff person, he worked as a volunteer for the conference. A quick google search turned up that he seems to do media consultant for Democratic party related issues and events. I'm not really sure. Phil and I first met him when we arrived at the AIPAC conference. After getting our credentials he brought us up the escalators and showed us to the press area in the main plenary hall. Initially, he struck me more as an usher of sorts, to help media avoid the throngs of conference goers and navigate the enormous Washington, DC conference center. Only later it was clear to me that he had other responsibilities as well.
I should start by saying that, for the most part, AIPAC’s staff was incredibly welcoming and gracious to Phil and me. In all honesty, I was never really clear on why AIPAC agreed to give us credentials to cover the conference. It’s not a secret that Mondoweiss is critical of the Israel lobby and takes shots at AIPAC, and we had heard that other less out spoken journalists were being denied credentials (for unclear reasons). We were two of over 300 reporters who were credentialed for the Policy Conference this year including seven Arab television networks, several Israeli media outlets, all the major US TV outlets, including CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, C-SPAN, APTV, Reuters, the New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Huffington Post, Politico, Think Progress, the American Prospect, and the Inter Press Service. Also, Jason and other AIPAC staff were very attentive to our needs, would promptly answer any questions we had and were always available to us. There was some friendly ribbing, like when one AIPAC staffer reminded us that we’d used them to raise money for our site, or when they referred to us and some other lefty journalists as the “anti-Zionist minyan,” but in all honesty he wasn’t that far off. I just wish we had actually hit 10 people to make a quorum.
Things started to change for Phil and me near the end of the second day of the three day conference. We were in the gala event, enduring the numbing repetition of the roll call of all elected officials in the room, when Phil was pulled aside by an AIPAC staff person. I couldn’t hear the conversation, but knew it was a response to a post Phil had published earlier only 10 minutes before. Phil agreed that he had missed the nuance in AIPAC’s position, and filed another post. We both figured this comes with the territory of the immediate publication on the internet.
I didn’t think too much about it, until the next day. It was the pinnacle of the conference, with back to back keynote speeches by John Kerry and Joe Biden. It was the moment we were all waiting for as it would be the first real indication of how the Obama administration was going to engage with AIPAC and all that we had seen over the previous two days. As part of my work with Mondoweiss I was twittering the speeches, as things were unfolding too quickly for blog posts. The trouble began about five minutes into Biden’s speech when I tweeted an article from YNET that caught my eye from my email:
Not mentioned at AIPAC: Israel begins revoking Arabs' citizenship - http://tinyurl.com/d2hrh3 #aipac
8:56 AM May 5th from TweetChat
The text “Israel begins revoking Arabs' citizenship” was the headline of the article that had been posted on YNET, the website for Yedioth Ahronoth the mostly widely read newspaper in Israel.
Within a minute or so of posting, Jason tapped me on the shoulder. In a low, insistent whisper he told me that the post was unfair and that I needed to correct it. I was really confused and caught off guard. I was half trying to hear what Jason was saying and half wanting to pay attention to Biden’s speech, the real reason I was there. I asked him what was unfair? He said what I sent out did not reflect the content of the article. I told him I didn’t write it, that it was the headline Ynet had given the article and that I was only passing it along. He said I needed to change it. I reiterated that I hadn’t written it, Ynet had, and I had only forwarded it. He then argued with me that the article dealt with terrorists and that wasn’t clear from the headline. He said that people were already starting to forward (or "retweet") the post and it was important to correct it. Again I told him that I didn’t write the headline and that I wasn’t going to change it. He insisted. I began to realize that this was not a request but a demand, Jason wasn’t going away. I was missing Biden’s speech. Jason then clarified that AIPAC does not comment on internal Israeli policies, so it was unfair for me to expect that this issue would come up in the conference. In the moment it struck me as disingenuous as AIPAC is always referring to Israeli democracy as an argument for a strong US/Israel relationship (which revoking citizenship would seem to contradict), but it also felt like a technicality that I could use to end the stand off, so I told Jason I would make that correction. I turned around to refocus on Biden’s speech. A few seconds later Jason asked, “Are you going to do it?” I hadn’t realized that he was still there. I thought I could maybe have until the end of the speech. Guess not. I posted this:
RE: Israel begins revoking Arabs' citizenship. AIPAC reminds me that they do not comment on Israeli domestic policies. #aipac
9:02 AM May 5th from TweetChat
It’s surprising to see six minutes passed during this exchange. It felt like a minute or two if that. Caught up in the moment I didn’t really think about it. It wasn’t until after the conference that the importance of what happened really sunk in. Part of this came from talking with other journalists who were there, and others who weren’t let in at all. At least one other journalist, who also has a critical perspective, had a similar experience of having an AIPAC minder over their shoulder, insisting on changes. I told them as a newcomer to the journalistic side of things that I didn't know what to expect and that part of me suspected that this is exactly how things always worked in Washington. They told me they had never seen anything like it.
I was about to just chalk it all up to a first time learning experience until I found out that The Guardian’s Chris McGreal didn’t even get into the conference, and wasn't happy about it. He had been approved to go but the week before ran a piece saying that AIPAC funds members of Congress, which is not the case--AIPAC is not a PAC--then amended it to say that the group “drives fundraising for some members of Congress” – which AIPAC also felt to be inaccurate. McGreal said it was an issue of interpretation. “Well I’m withdrawing your credentials for the conference unless you correct it,” he says an AIPAC spokesperson told him. “This is absurd. I won’t bow to threats,” McGreal said. He duly showed up at the convention center but was told he wasn’t welcome. He says his treatment was “unpleasant, aggressive,” and “heavy handed,” and crossed a line: for all the criticism he got working as a correspondent in Israel for four years, he never had credentials revoked.
The more I've thought about my experience the less shocking it has become to me. I’m not naive enough to think that Jason and the AIPAC staffers are not there to spin the journalists who get access. They allow us in and in many ways we were a captive audience to whatever AIPAC wanted to feed us. The line that I feel was crossed what that between providing spin and attempting to impose content. The pressure that was exerted on me went beyond giving information on background to insisting on editorial changes. I’m not sure what would have happened if I flat out refused to make the changes, and I’m sorry I didn’t find out.
You didn't post "loud and stormy applause" at each such point, either. Probably because you are a self-hater.
"I’m not sure what would have happened if I flat out refused to make the changes, and I’m sorry I didn’t find out. " Adam, good thing you didn't find out. We needed gavel-to-gavel coverage of your reportage on Mondoweiss, so glad you were there for the duration. It was a dopey dispute on the part of AIPAC's minder (reminds me of the "minders" they have in Scientology), since it really had nothing to do with the content of the conference itself. One ting's for sure — Mondoweiss is on the must-read list of the AIPAC brigade! !
"They allow us in and in many ways we were a captive audience to whatever AIPAC wanted to feed us. The line that I feel was crossed what that between providing spin and attempting to impose content." A captive audience to whatever AIPAC wanted to feed us? Whoa! Half of Congress was there. They are answerable to the American people, not AIPAC. I dont give a shit how much money AIPAC rakes in, there is NO WAY it compares to how much US taxpayers give to Israel every year. Ordinary US folk fork over $3 billion minimum annually and they dont know they do. You had every reason to be there. This group is responsible for extracting US taxpayer dollars from the US Treasury for a foreign nation. Further, while Israel has no constitution and no First Amendment rights, American people do. And this conference was held in our capital, not Tel Aviv. When our Congressmen and Vice President make an appearance at a conference like this, it is no longer a 'private' affair — taxpayer dollars pay for that time on stage and in the audience — and anything an AIPAC minder tells you is immaterial. Next time tell him to go fuck himself. You, Adam, have nothing to apologize for. AIPAC does.
McGreal was reporting on AIPAC, so you can understand their saying that if he wanted an invite he should give their version. But you weren't. You were just reporting on something you saw in Ynet while you happened to be at AIPAC. It's none of their damn business how you quote Ynet. The story had nothing to do with them and didn't mention them, did it?
Adam, you ought to expand this post and submit it to the Columbia Journalism Review. Although, if the morality-challenged and constitutionally ignorant AIPAC minders read this blog, they may jump the gun and head you off at the pass. But if anyone wants to get a clear idea of what AIPAC attempted to do to Adam, re-read his account above and substitute ASPCA for AIPAC and it should be clear. Adam, your instincts were 1000% correct. [Kinda reminds me of the unseemly Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) that attempts to shut down any content they dont like based on anti-semitism screeches. Their argument is that sites are private and therefore can control content. And they argue that there is no such thing as free speech on the Internet...ergo, they get to be the thought police. Convenient. Problem is these jerks are Israeli with no understanding of what the US is about.]
Man, they don't waste time over at AIPAC!! One bad tweet out of you, and they're on it!
No, the story I was posting had nothing to do with AIPAC.
This is just the first step towards revoking the Israeli citizenship of all non-Jews. First they'll start with "terrorists." Then they'll go after "terrorist supporters" who criticize Israel too strongly. Then they'll go after "terrorist supporters" who criticize the citizenship revocations too strongly. Then they'll go after "terrorist supporters" who protest land confiscations. When they're finished, there will be as many Arabs citizens in Israel as there were Polish citizens in the Third Reich.
Columbia Journalism Review? Maybe the Pulitzer prize. Flesh it out more and you may win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Very depressing. The thought police are right there, at a Lobby convention in First Amendment USA that is like a Catholic Mass a large portion of Congress attends every year, genuflecting to a foreign nation and crossing their chests with Likud holy water. Who needs a pope when we have AIPAC? JFK was the least of our worries, turns out. He proved it by getting himself shot while battling our monetary system and Israel's secret quest for nukes. Now we have Bankers uber alles & Israel uber alles, as we slide down the tube of hoodwinked, headed for the demise of the first nation that was constructed as a system of fairness.
The CJR isn't that vaunted. It's a trade rag where you report ethical issues.
McGreal was reporting on AIPAC, so you can understand their saying that if he wanted an invite he should give their version. Incorrectamundo if you take one cent in taxpayer funds or are instrumental in changing US policy or law, or your organization has a damn thing to do with Congress as an operating matter. If they want their version to get out, they can hire a PR person; you dont mangle the First Amendment or ask the Fourth Estate to be your stenographer. US Government officials appeared on that stage. AIPAC invited them. By doing so, AIPAC gave up the right to call it a private conference.
Correction: ELECTED US Government officials appeared on that stage.
RE: " AIPAC press strategy during the 2009 policy conference – 'heavy handed' or business as usual?" RELATED ARTICLE – "How to Make the Neocons Crazy About the Middle East: Tell Them the Truth" – by Ira Chernus, May 13, 2009 LINK TO ARTICLE – http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/21768
Great accounting of seemingly 'trivial" encounters of the third kind. Somebody here was reminded of the JIDF. To me this smacks as finer way of doing just what the chinese have done before – and during – the olympics. No mention of Tibet had gone unpunished. credentials were threatened and summarily revoked for the slightest violations. Minders (in the same mold of extremely polite but unfailingly insistent) were everywhere reporters were. Penalties for violations of their "code" were swiftly reprimanded – and penalties exacted from offending publications. Chinese bloggers were effectively silenced, as was lots of the blogging from inside the 'approved" locations. Interesting that twitter was just getting off the ground then. Food for thought here? A disturbing corollary – the Chinese succeeded in controlling the information (including repercussions of the air-brushed, scrubbed 'age" of the girl gymnasts, not to mention poor old tibet). AIPAC succeeded too – not with you as much but with the MSM – and what i call off-msm (as in off-broadway?) big time (yes, I do mean HP). How interesting that there was nary a comment anywhere about the fact that one-half of our elected officials – and the VP – were dispatched to address a conference designed to help a country ruled by a right wing government, determined to carry out what can only be called a right wing oppressive agenda. Roll calls and name taking of the who's who in American politics. And the two speeches I heard from Cantor and Hoyer were literally spine chilling – they were both as close as can be to incitement against Iran (and between the lines, muslims in general), complete with comparisons to hitler and what not. As for Biden – despite some sentences about that poor 2-state meme (inserted no doubt to deflect the obama critics), it was an obsequeious, pandering speech, the likes of which I've never heard before (because I didn't tuned in to C-SPAN before?). yet, the reporters who so went on about a "bow" to saudi ruler, said nothing. Mondoweiss said some things – though not nearly enough (to my demanding tastes). In fact, you let Biden off easy (this iis a hint: there's no expiration date on this issue). But here's the depressing part; Glenn Greenwald who is indefatiguable on the issue of media accountability and cozy culture of washingtom reporters with those they cover – said hardly anything on what must be one of the great love-fests dooming our national discourse on matters of policy, human rights, foreign affairs and plain justice. I do wonder though – what if some of these speeches were televised in prime time rather than the wee hours so more Americans could actually hear them? Still, in the tribal world it is a sign of respect that you got apparently one of the better minders. One that pays rapt attention. It means you are in – as in 'the outer circles". Maybe we should be watching you guys……
i don't get this strong attachment to israel by american jews. i have seen this type of attachment in people who have immigrated to the US and still have very strong feelings for the 'old country' that they left behind. as more and more generations pass, there is less and less attachment to the 'old country.' but most, if not all, of the jewish americans who put israel first are born in the USA. someone please explain this phenomenon.
So, you are reporting six minutes of discomfort over a three day event. Were there others there that new you? Did they harass you? You were able to publish over an extended period of time, including much material that was not embellishing of the event. I would hope that that is the most discomfort you ever experience in "enemy territory".
Richard, telling a journalist — and Adam is a journalist — to fix a story is no different than telling a judge to fix a case. It used to invoke outrage when you heard about it; but for you to dismiss it as a discomfort to Adam is, frankly, far more outrageous to me.
Witty has no principles. He is an ardent Zionist and shapes his arguments to fit his ideology. Hence, the analogy you provided, MRW, will not penetrate.
Adam, that's a really interesting post from the twittosphere, where many of us have not yet flown. The fierce urgency of now. You write, it's published, your AIPAC handler shows up demanding correction, you resist censorship, he clarifies what is misleading, you negotiate a pretty clever way out, he insists that this be done now, you oblige, all in the time it takes Joe Biden to move his foot from one side of his mouth to the other. Very impressive. The question re McGreal is, could he have gotten his credentials back if he had published a correction to the effect that AIPAC is a "public affairs committee" not a "political action committee," doesn't raise and dispense political contributions the way a PAC does (which requires registration and disclosure), but works indirectly and powerfully by providing guidance and direction to a lot of political moneymen who may sympathize with and support AIPAC, and may in fact take guidance from AIPAC, but are not AIPAC and in a legal and technical sense, make their own decisions about who to give their own money to. If so, it was too bad he refused to bend, because the second version is more accurate.
Very interesting glimpse on the larger atmosphere, Adam. "I’m not sure what would have happened if I flat out refused to make the changes, and I’m sorry I didn’t find out. " That's a recurring theme in life it seems. Next time you will be prepared. The trouble began about five minutes into Biden’s speech when I tweeted an article from YNET that caught my eye from my email: This passage puzzles me slightly in context. Net addiction? What I don't quite understand is this: You were checking emails during Biden's speech? But bothered that he kept you from listing? Well we are all multitasking nowadays. But still?
Amazing isn't it?
Blogging does not make one a journalist. Is Martillo a journalist? Where's the link to Martillo's page? Phil decided to go PC?
Guilty as charged.
Another interesting post, Dana. Yeah, this: Roll calls and name taking of the who's who in American politics. I mean, that is what is really disturbing. It's waaay more than a Who's Who. These are elected officials. Congressmen. And to call a roll call to say, in effect, lookee-here we got half the elected government officials on our side (or too scared not to participate) is stunning to me. I can't think of any other group that has the balls to do that. AARP? NRA? Who?
As for Biden – despite some sentences about that poor 2-state meme (inserted no doubt to deflect the obama critics), it was an obsequeious, pandering speech, I have to check, if I can find it somewhere. Still, in the tribal world it is a sign of respect that you got apparently one of the better minders. One that pays rapt attention. It means you are in – as in 'the outer circles". Maybe we should be watching you guys…… ;) Actually, I think it was very professional to try to be helpful and make them feel comfortable. But you are correct, it's a sign that they pay attention. I noticed that Camera.org followed Mondoweiss Twitter feed. …
You were able to publish over an extended period of time, including much material that was not embellishing of the event. ?????? What does AIPAC have to do with what Adam "is able" to publish?
Yes, peculiar response. This is a clearly subjective take. Atmospheric. But doesn't pass Richard's stern judgment it feels. But then maybe it's a sign that Phil and Adam perfectly complement each other since Richard is now criticizing Adam in his well-known urbane moral tone, that so far was reserved for Phil.
Sophism on your part. Adam attended AIPAC 'credentialed' with a press pass, or didn't you know.
At a private conference with a huge amount of elected top governmental speakers present, some pontificating from the podium, a man in the audience representing the blogosphere press is nudged to edit an instant post, another is nudged to retwittter the headline of an article he was merely passing on in twitter. Since there were no brownshirts lining the conference room walls, and the nudgers did not physically coerce the two blog reporters, Richard Witty opines, why are they whining about a few suggestions by conference "handlers?" This in context that the AIPAC conference packed with US congressmen and with key regime speakers, did not even appear as noteworthy in the MSM, but only on C-SPAN in the hours unavailable to people who work every day. After all, what's six minutes of whispered bullying over three days of shaping the future of US foreign policy to make the two bloggers hop on the band-wagon in the endless parade John Q Public never sees or hears"