Bruce Wolman urges me to stop talking about Jeffrey Goldberg. He says that Goldberg "willfully ignores material counterfactuals to maintain his narrative" and suggests that my perseveration will bring me down to Goldberg's boxcutter level. I'm not convinced. Goldberg is glib, entertaining, and alive–great qualities in a journalist–and, while I would agree that his thinking is always undone by an emotional narrative of Jewish powerlessness, the most important thing is that Goldberg's been elected. He's the most powerful Jewish journo in the world not thru some freak but because Jewish people/editors have elected him. It was said during his New Yorker days that Goldberg was editor David Remnick's id (a now-archaic Freudian word meaning Iraq). That wisdom is reflected in this story that Wolman tells me:
One night four years ago I went to see Seymour Hersh at Adas Israel Synagogue here
in Washington, DC. At the time Goldberg was also working for the
New Yorker, and he served as the moderator for the evening, asking
Hersh various questions.
The questions were mainly about Iraq, Abu Ghraib and the Nixon
era, but at a certain point Goldberg tried to raise Israel-Palestine,
basically parroting the Clinton/Barak narrative in his question.
Hersh laughed and replied, "I'd rather run through the streets naked
than talk about Israel and the Palestinians." I was the only one in the
audience who saw the humor in Hersh's reply, and then Hersh
followed up by saying "all you need to know about the issue can be
found in Ha'aretz, the Israel newspaper." Since I had been reading
Ha'aretz every day for exactly that reason, I let out an expression
of approval which Hersh acknowledged. This endeared me to Hersh,
but not to the rest of the audience.
After the talk, there was a reception. The crowd gathered around
Hersh and Goldberg asking questions. I must say that Hersh
patiently stood around answering every question posed to him,
even from those people who were kind of hostile and in
disagreement with him. He was a perfect mensch.
I went up to Goldberg and asked him if he had read Clayton
Swisher's "The Truth About Camp David," a book which I had
just finished. He said he had seen it, and then added "what
about it?" I replied, "you may not agree with it, but it was very
well sourced and it seems to me you have to at least respond
to his facts if you are going to support the Clinton/Barak claims
that it was all Arafat's fault." He snarled back, "What, just because
you think a book is important, I have to? President Clinton, himself,
told me that Arafat was the reason the peace talks failed and the
President's word is all the proof I need."
Well, I was astonished. What kind of journalistic ethic was that?
Bill Clinton may have many strengths, but truthfulness when
it goes against his self-interest is not one of them. Moreover, his
wife was now a Senator from New York, so would anyone expect
Bill to defend the Palestinians? Besides, Swisher actually started
his research with a view opposite from his conclusions. As a former
security guard for Madeleine Albright, he was able to get access
to many of the key players from all sides. The book, although
mostly ignored, was an important contribution to the discussion.
I was so pissed at Goldberg, I responded with something like,
"that's just about the most elitist attitude I've heard. What kind
of journalism is that" and then walked away to hear Hersh
continue to answer questions.
Goldberg tried to move away and even drag Hersh with him.
He disappeared for some minutes. Answering questions
from the masses was not for Goldberg.
I must say I couldn't stand the guy from that point on. I even
kept a file of his articles, which I found more and more
outrageous.
But I was wrong about him. He is not elitist. He is adolescent.
A propagandist masquerading as a reporter.
