The only worthwhile aspect of the AP’s response to my Atlantic article is the point it makes about the contradiction at the heart of the idea of a journalistic corporation. Journalists have to tell the truth; corporations have to protect their corporate interests and the reputation of their product. The AP’s product is news, and the corporate reputation in this case is threatened by a journalist doing his job. The executives at the AP face a choice between behaving like journalists and behaving like a corporation; they‘ve chosen the latter, which explains why they think it necessary to categorically reject the message and smear the messenger. A reader able to get past the bombastic rhetoric and sweeping denials understands that the response doesn’t make the smallest dent in the factual basis of my argument or say anything of importance about my essay -- but it certainly says a lot about the thinking of senior people in the “news industry. What it says isn’t good. The explicit ban on interviewing Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor was in effect in Jerusalem after Operation Cast Lead ended in early 2009. Offering examples from 2012 and 2008 (and from Tehran or Pakistan) as proof that Im wrong proves only that the APs corporate spokesmen are deeply worried about the impact of this essay and are throwing anything they can at it in the hopes that something will stick. The AP would better use its time and energies in introspection. This goes without saying, I think, but because Ive been asked: I stand behind every single detail I wrote.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:10:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015