Charles Freeman Appt. Doomed by 'Less of a Lobby, More of a Mob'?

The appointment of Charles W. Freeman Jr. got the Tanya Harding treatment, for certain, but not from the "Israel Lobby" according to the explicit words of the Washington Post.   (The "Mob vs Lobby" portrayal comes from a quote from Time magazine's Joel Klein).

But the rest of the report shows how close some of the ties of that mob are to the lobby.  Steve Rosen is forbidden to talk to members of AIPAC, but he can 'blog' to them. 

AIPAC swears it stayed out of the fight, but according to a report in the Washington Post "Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' For Withdrawal":

For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," spokesman Josh Block said.

But Block responded to reporters' questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: "As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background." 

Oh you mean like publicly available information on a"blog"? 

David Brock has told us about these kinds of information 'venders' (would be the polite word) that the news media rely on.   Picture your intrepid reporter making his way through the wilderness of oft' deadly DC traffic to get to the lobbyist's 'press office' ... Oh Wait, they probably just call or email.

 The Post and many of the finest news organizations often put a veneer of 'nothing to see here, move along for those who are weak minded or who want to believe that the Post is covering for them while they give full view to those used to looking through the scrim.  

What hurts is when that fine curtain becomes a brick wall as it often does when a certain nation gets their war hat on or puts one on us. 

We can't expect the Post to   s p e l l   e v e r y t h i n g   o u t   f o r   u s.   They'd lose what's left of their advertising budget, but I find those that use veiled articles can reveal more to us than those publications that don't.  

I don't mind the latest LA editorial "An open debate on Israel" which also gives us information:

Freeman was not the sort of person they were ever going to like. He once said that "the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending." He also said: "American identification with Israel has become total." Israel, he once said, "excels at war; sadly, it has shown no talent for peace."
Those are certainly provocative statements. On the other hand, Freeman was backed by a group of 17 former U.S. ambassadors who described him as a man of integrity who "would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments," and defended by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, who called him "a person of strong views, of an inventive mind in the analytical point of view." 

On the whole though we've gotten a lot less information from Sam Zell's Tribune Co. than they used to offer before the deal between the board and the billionaire, and their 'intelligence' reporter mysteriously churns up information that tends to sound like he's had a chat with Cheney before every piece.   I joke when one of Greg Miller's pieces come out that he's been with his Deep Throat people again.   But his Deep Throat people and even his own assessments sound like they are controlled by someone seeking war (especially w. Iran) or seeking to twist administration messages into toxic pretzels. In fact, he's rather like the Senator Kitt Bond of journalism.

The veil allows some publications to pass on doses of the information we need while still being able to sell ads widely without huge boycott calls.  I don't know decent newspapers could survive without it.  And I think it's eminently preferable to having an intelligence reporter that seems to be working more for one side than as a journalist.  We've seen where doctored intelligence has gotten us before.

Miller has already done some heavy damage to open discussion on important subjects that obfuscated major issues between the people and the new Obama team.

So, Cheney's laughing that the LA Times is being called "open".  

I'd prefer to take the veil.   (Ha ha)

But seriously, we could rant and whine about both the Post's and the Time's methods, but you know what?  They are what make blogs and blog readers powerful.  If we can get this spread around enough the American people will be powerful enough to control our own government instead of letting special interests push us into wars for them ever again.

I found and read the WP article earlier this morning, but Hat Tip to @mparent7772 at Twitter and the Mondoweiss blog for the link to the LA Times editorial.  

tags: israel  charles freeman  israel lobby  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit