Anonymity Vs Anonymity
Glenn Greenwald has
a very interesting post alleging that AIPAC grossly abused anonymity granted by journalists to imply that Charles Freeman was being paranoid (and presumably anti semitic) when he claimed that they were involved in reversing his appointment as chairman of the national intelligence council. Basically it was possible for Joshua Block to suggest that he had not campaigned against Freeman, because he had made journalists promise to keep his campaigning on background.
Greenwald strongest evidence is
an article by Walter Pincus which includes
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.
Oh yes. Three
anonymous journalists who can't write that an anonymous source is trying to mislead the public over their own signatures without huge costs but who can become anonymous sources themselves.
Hah Mr Block, two can play that game, or, in this case, four can play that game.
I love it.
Now note that Block has not been caught lying. He said "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," not 'didn't campaign through discussions with journalists on background'. He's clearly good at his job, misleading while not lying.
However, Fred Hiatt is totally incompetent. A Washington Post editorial included
"Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his" the day before Walter Pincus proved that the tirade was not a crackpot tirade at all.
Is there anything that an opinion editor can do in an effort to prove he should be fired that Fred Hiatt has neglected to do ?
