Freeman shows blogs better/more important info source than MSM
Freeman issue ignored by MSM - they blacked out coverage till he withdrew.
Blogs - They Are a Killing Field Now
by texpat · 03/13/2009 2:06 pm
The prolific and irrepressible Mickey Kaus of Slate.com has made note of a historic moment in American journalistic history. This week a major, important presidential nominee was forced to withdraw because of controversy surrounding his past associations, positions and lobbying efforts. The story boils down to this:
Charles Freeman is a former career diplomat with extensive Far East experience, Saudi Arabia ambassador , director of the Middle East Policy Council and the original publisher of the notoriously anti-Israel, Mearsheimer/Walt paper decrying the power of the Israeli Lobby in America. He was nominated to the prestigious and powerful position of chairman of the National Intelligence Council by the Obama administration. Amid a wave of criticism in and out of Congress, Freeman withdrew himself from consideration, but not without blaming all the Zionists around the world for his sorry bad luck.
Kaus directs us to the fact this went wholly unreported in the MSM and was entirely a story and commentary taking place in the blogosphere.
You Know This Guy We Haven’t Told You About? Well, He’s Not Going to Be Important! During the Trent Lott scandal, if I remember right, there was speculation that the blogosphere would really have arrived when a high public official suddenly resigned over an Web-borne scandal without the scandal being mentioned in the respectable mainstream press–so if you had only read the New York Times or Washington Post you’d have no idea why this person quit or what the scandal was until he or she was gone. Poof! Killed by ninja blogs.** Well (without regard to the merits of the dispute), the Charles Freeman withdrawal is close to that case, no? WaPo apparently printed its first news story on the controversy the day it ended–i.e. when Freeman withdrew. Ditto the New York Times. … What does this event signify? Not to be too portentous, but it signifies you can no longer be a well-informed citizen if you just read the Times and Post print editions. You have to go online. Sorry, Mom!
The entire controversy originated and sustained on internet sites and was not reported in either the Post or Times until Freeman quit. This represents a milestone very few would recognize. Internet and citizen journalism has arrived, folks. Previous incidents like the Lott resignation and Dan Rather’s problems were an uneasy joint venture of the old and new media.
To further prove this point and illustrate the ineffectiveness of today’s major dailies, Alexander Bolton, of thehill.com, actually called up members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and others to find out if they had been contacted by the nefarious and invincible Israeli Lobby, something no newspaper or magazine bothered to do.
Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), the vice chairman of the Intelligence panel, said Freeman’s accusations against pro-Israel lobbying groups were off base.
“Unfortunately, Ambassador Freeman is suffering from some kind of delusion. I think a lot of people objected to his previous statements regardless of any lobbying.”
Bond said he did not receive any contact from AIPAC and had not even heard of two Jewish groups that came out against Freeman’s nomination: the Zionist Organization of America and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
and the primary target of Freeman’s wrath stated:
AIPAC, perhaps the most powerful pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington, said that it did not take a position against Freeman’s appointment.
Senator Chambliss said he was never contacted about Freeman by any pro-Israeli organizations:
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), another Republican on the Intelligence panel who objected to Freeman, said he was not contacted personally by any pro-Israel lobbyists.
“He had absolutely no analytical experience, that’s what caused me great concern,” Chambliss said of Freeman.
Democrat Alcee Hastings, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also said no one contacted him to object to the Freeman nomination:
Hastings told The Hill that the House Intelligence panel was scheduled to meet with Freeman the same afternoon he withdrew his name.
Hastings said he was not contacted by any lobbyists prior to that scheduled meeting, which was then canceled.
“I’m close to AIPAC. If they did come out against Freeman, I was not in the loop because no one called me to say a word about Charles Freeman,” said Hastings.
So much for that version of the Zionist/Jewish conspiracy to control the world…See ya later, Charlie !
Like Mickey says, if you want to be informed in this day and age, read the blogs [ and LST ] because it may be the only place you will ever see the story !
lonestartimes.com |
