Times Fronts AIPAC Story That Washington Post Ignores
Not surprisingly I have been following the story of Steve Rosen's indictment under the Espionage Act since the beginning.
I had thought it was fizzling out but now, with the addition of the Harman angle, it is bigger than ever. Until today it's never been close to the lead story in the New York Times.
But here it is.
Of course, this should be the Washington Post's story. On Congress and lobbies, the Post tends to dominate the turf, with the Times breathing down its neck.
This time the Post is ignoring the story despite all the leads produced by Congressional Quarterly which the Times ran with and built on.
Where's the Post? Nowhere. Not one word.
Here's a wild and crazy guess. The Post, which under editor Fred Hiatt, has become an Iraq war loving, Israel-is-always-right, Iran-is-about-to-strike neocon paper just doesn't want to touch a story like this. It would rather be scooped in its own backyard then go with the biggest news story of the day.
Just goes to show how important it is that the New York Times survives. The story was big yesterday. Today the Times made it impossible to ignore -- except by the Post which, to its credit, has never claimed to be the "newspaper of record." That is still the Times.
PS As usual, Laura Rozen of "War and Piece" has some great independent reporting on this story. Check it out.
Message to WaPo: Die quickly.
MJ: Mainstream media has been circling the drain ever since they subcontracted their credibility to the USG by "embedding" themselves with the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
April 21, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And let me add: Most other national newspapers are also dying because they no longer offer journalistic fare. They just serve as propaganda outlets for the governments.
But the Post is the worst. And it needs to cease operations first.
April 21, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What utter nonsense. It is obvious you don't have the first clue about what is going on in the newspaper industry and why it is in such trouble.
Here are a few inconvenient facts for you:
1. Newspapers used to rely on classified ads for almost half their profits. This has nosedived in recent years as people use Craigslist and eBay.
2. Circulation numbers for newspapers have been dropping more or less continuously for about 20 years, even before the advent of the Internet. Peak newspaper ciculation was in 1989 IIRC.
3. Many newspaper companies carry very large debt loads, and have slashed editorial staff to keep up with debt payments.
4. Online revenue, while growing, isn't replacing lost print circulation revenue.
The idea that lost journalistic standards explains the troubles of the newspaper industry is so patently ridiculous to anyone who knows the industry (Disclosure: I am a consultant to media companies) that I am amazed that anyone could say it with a straight face.
This is not to say we shouldn't criticize the media for its mistakes. There are plenty of mistakes. But let's not confuse this with the economics of the industry.
Most likely there is a simpler explanation as to why the Post decided not to delve more deeply into the Harman story and it probably has nothing to do with Fred Hiatt's editorial proclivities (it is a common canard that the political bent of the editorial page explains news judgment). Those decisions are made by Post editor Marcus Brauchli. Most likely, it was an error in judging how much the story had "legs".
April 21, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTD: "What utter nonsense. It is obvious you don't have the first clue about what is going on in the newspaper industry and why it is in such trouble."
That would presume that I cared about the cause of their financial troubles. It's an issue of sentiment, really. WaPo and NYT are mere tools of the government, particular their editorial pages. And because of that, I hope they go out of business.
Thanks for the background facts on the industry.
April 21, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try. You stated as a purported fact that the reason the newspaper industry was dying was their journalistic standards had deteriorated. Now that I've told you you're full of s----, you're changing your story and pretending you don't care about why newspapers are dying. At least have the courage to argue your point.
But of course the idea that the major newspapers merely serve as propaganda outlets for the government is equally nuts.
There's a reasonable argument to be made that Washington reporters can get too close to their sources. But that's a far cry from saying the media are just tools of the government. If you knew anything at all about reporters, you'd know that many of them itch to be the next Woodward and Bernstein.
And what about the story that kicked off this thread? Is that the media acting as a propaganda outlet? Seems to me that this story embarrassed a number of people in the government. Is the government embarrassing itself as a sort of bank-shot propaganda effort? Enquiring minds want to know.
April 21, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTD: "Nice try."
Yes, I know it was. Thank you.
BTD: "There's a reasonable argument to be made that Washington reporters can get too close to their sources. But that's a far cry from saying the media are just tools of the government. If you knew anything at all about reporters, you'd know that many of them itch to be the next Woodward and Bernstein."
Either they are too close to their sources, i.e., the MSM is carrying water for their sources, ipso facto, acting linke tools for the government, or they are investigative reporters trying to get to the truth.
Please make up your mind.
April 21, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
you overlook the fact that no one here, just a guess, would trade the information they get for what is in the pages of a newspaper.
while its true about the classified ads, its also true that no one having access to the internet would dream of using newspapers as their source of information.
and that accounts for the fact that people over 65 are the largest % of newspaper readers.
(and have you ever listened to the point of view of someone who gets their information only from papers?)
ultimately that's the reason they will all die out.
April 21, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you knew anything at all about reporters, you'd know that many of them itch to be the next Woodward and Bernstein."
Some of them probably itch to be the 1973 Woodward, but I suspect many others wish to be the 2003-2009 Woodward--the stenographer to the powerful, the weathervane who praises Bush when he's on top of the world and becomes much less worshipful when he's on the way down.
April 22, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Mythbuster: The newspaper industry (and the rest of the news media) has plenty of failings - often gets the story wrong; tends to represent the interests of its wealthy owners, etc. etc.
The reality is, however, that the only way information necessary for the functioning of democracy gets out to the public is through the news media, with all its failings, particularly newspapers, which provide the bedrock of "information" that all the rest of the news media -- radio, tv, internet commentators -- rely upon.
I've worked for newspapers all my life and have been constantly frustrated with their failings. But the media I feel that most accurately reflects reality -- TPM, Salon, The Nation, Keith Olbermann, etc. -- relies upon newspapers to dig out the facts needed for their stories and commentary. They simply do not have the staff or money to do all the reporting necessary. If and when newspapers go down -- and I fear they might -- it will be a dark time for informed debate and democracy itself.
April 21, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bring on the debate. But really: Do you honestly believe the MSM at all when they report on our government, particularly on the Pentagon. They have absolutely no credibility.
Do we really need to review all the track record of our "great" newspapers, like Judith Miller in the NYT, since 2002. The big media, including the newspaper chains, are stenographers for power.
April 21, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, newspapers fail all the time -- as in judith miller -- but I can also point to many other articles in the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and many other papers that offered real and crucial information, like the NYT article that led to this whole discussion.
One must read through and interpret the information, which is often misleading, incomplete and misinterpreted, but without newspapers or an alternative institutional framework of similar width and breath, that information will simply not be available.
As of right now and for the foreseeable future, I see no alternative resource that could begin to replace the function of newspapers. Much as I like TPM, their tiny staff would be lost without the information provided daily by newspapers. I suspect Josh Marshall would admit as much if asked.
April 21, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, you state
"3. Many newspaper companies carry very large debt loads, and have slashed editorial staff to keep up with debt payments."
From my reading, these debts and staff cuts are often self inflicted as attempts to make a larger profit for shareholders. The problem is then exacerbated by lowering readership because the reporting quantity and quality suffers. And the cycle continues.
April 21, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't normally agree with you, Brad, but from my own experience as a newspaper reporter and editor (in the past), I agree with your four points.
However, you lost me with your last point:
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, as is MJ. And I find all of the partisan assumptions (on all sides) about why a newspaper covers, or doesn't cover something generally pretty naive. You may be right, but it is just your opinion.
But MJ has a point, and I want to hear from the Post's editor about why they haven't deemed this story worth covering. Are they working on their own reporting on it, and just aren't ready yet? They could have just gotten beaten on the scoop, and unless things have changed in the business a lot, are probably trying to come up with something the NYT didn't find yet.
That sort of competition is what's healthy, and is another plausible explanation for for the lack of a story in the WaPo.
Of course, they could just be Neocon tools, too, which has the virtue of being a simple explanation.
April 21, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that is the least likely explanation. Do you really think the editor of The Washington Post - of all newspapers - would pass on an opportunity to dig into a potential major Washington scandal? That would be like People magazine passing on a story about Brad and Angelina splitting up. It just wouldn't happen. It's what these guys live for.
I'll revise my previous speculation. The most likely explanation for why there hasn't been any follow-up from the Post is that they were caught flat-footed and couldn't get a reporter on the case. There is a link on the Post website to the CQ story.
April 21, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great lefty minds think alike.
In addition to MJR and the present keyboard, there is the Pulitzer Prize committee , who gave the not-yet-so-fredhiattised WaPo six golden stars last year but only one yesterday. And the exception hardly counts, since it went to an obvious beneficiary of Affirmative Action and the Obama Election who cannot be imagined to think orthodox thoughts approved of by the Commentariat and the Weekly Standardisers.
VERY happy days!
April 21, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing the Times' looming bankruptcy is pushing them in a positive direction.
People tend to "see the light" when faced with death.
April 21, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be missing the big story on Harman. There was no leakage of NSA wiretap content or target until now. How come?
April 21, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Careful AIPAC, it looks like the sunlight is peeking through the cracks...
MJ, do you think the Rosen trial will finally proceed next week?
April 21, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
juan cole points out what this is all really about. Harman Scandal: All about War on Iran
April 21, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rep. Jane Harmon (D-Tel Aviv) was only doing constituency work.
April 21, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
ht: phil weiss
The sunlight is striking the night flower which is starting to wilt and hopefully die.
April 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness to Rep. Harman, she just strikes me as another careerist who literally will put her ambition for advancement before the interests of our nation. Israel? A rich donor? Whatever.
A few months ago, we disbanded a large herd of these people. They called themselves the "Bush Administration."
April 21, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the same Harman who in 2006 coauthored a report with Rep. Peter Hoekstra about Nukes in Iran.
Here is the Washington Post report of IAEA's response:
"U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.
Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302052.html
April 21, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh picky, picky, picky.
April 21, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, forgot to provide the link to the Hoekstra-Harman report:
Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat [I.e. attack immediately]
http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/IranReport082206v2.pdf
April 21, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rozen's reporting on this issue is an attempt to obscure and distort it. Jane Harmon is the victim of some partisan crap although she lobbied the NYT to stay mum on their wiretap stuff?
Oh, give me a break.
This has nothing to do with the torture business and Rozen knows it.
Jane Harmon on MSNBC was allowed to portray herself as one with the other nameless little people victims of warrentless wiretaps and Andrea Mitchell allowed her to pretend that she was unsure whether or not she was caught up in an authorized operation.
The record was unambiguous on THAT point, ladies.
Despite the fact that the CQ author has declared that there was no nefarious element of "timing" here, speculation continues to ignore Stein's claims.
So, to play along, I will introduce another element of influence that actually has bearing on the AIPAC case; two of the Israelis implicated in it have been appointed to influential positions in the bibi/liebi govt, Naor Gilon and Mossad guy Uzi Arad. In fact , Arad had a little visa problem because of it and has been assured by "senior administration officials" that it will go away.
You want a good reason for some pushback? Both of the above characters will be dealing with their American counterparts in the areas of diplomacy and security. Gilon is Lieberman's guy and Arad is Bibi's.
Talk about timing.....this was written before Arad's confident prediction proved accurate:
"Any reversal of U.S. policy regarding his visa status is likely to be read both here and abroad as yet another indication that Obama remains wary of confronting Netanyahu and his right-wing supporters in the so-called "Israel Lobby" here, even on issues of serious concern to U.S. counter-intelligence officials who have long complained about Israeli spying."
......
"With Freeman out of the way, Arad’s status could well mark the next test of how much influence Netanyahu and his supporters here can hope to exercise on the Obama administration.
Already, the former spy has provoked at least one remarkably awkward situation during the visit to Israel last month of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
.........
"Clearly briefed on Arad’s status and his identity as the "foreign official" cited in court records in the 2005-06 prosecution and conviction of former Pentagon official Lawrence Franklin, Clinton reportedly suggested that each side limit itself to three people. To her surprise, Netanyahu reportedly agreed and then asked Meridor to leave the room.
According to sources quoted by foreignpolicy.com, Clinton was uncharacteristically tight-lipped during the exchanges that followed. Significantly, Meridor resigned several days later."
........
"He (Arad) also predicted that the visa issue would soon be resolved to his satisfaction, although, given the embarrassment of his encounter with Clinton, the outcome remains somewhat uncertain.
One former senior U.S. counter-intelligence official told IPS that, based on his experience, "(the FBI) may do a Department of Justice white paper on the damage Arad has done to our national security interests" when he applies for a visa.
'But in the end the White House and State Department will make the visa decision, probably on the basis of politics,' he noted, suggesting that the combination of the Israeli government and its backers here would likely prevail over the recommendations of the FBI’s counter-intelligence officials.
At the same time, he added, the FBI may recommend that the visa be granted to 'let him run,' while surrounding him with heavy surveillance. "
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46367
April 21, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the Post? Nowhere. Not one word.
Here it is:
Prosecutors Considering Dropping Espionage Charges Against Former AIPAC Lobbyists
You had to figure that was one angle of the story the Post's neocon lite apparat was NOT going to ignore -- no matter how thin the sourcing or speculative the reporting.
In truth, the whole "agents of a foreign power" thing was a crock from the word go. I mean, it's not like Israel is a separate country or anything.
April 21, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jackson Diehl: The Power Behind the Throne?
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/sb-20070429swyl
April 21, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
jane harman advocated wiretapping the little people and blocking the ny times from publishing bush's wiretapping story. now she is outraged that she was wiretapped. more irony, please. The Greek Goddesses Themis and Nemesis have spoken. but there is no need to feel sorry for poor, poor jane harman
April 21, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink