Letters to the Editor
-
Joe Conason, have you read Glenn Greenwald?
First, you do the lame maneuver of not linking to the actual post which made allegations so people can't check if your framing them correctly.
Here's the post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html
Here's a quote:
In one email, Blumenthal wrote: "The record on Obama's fabled 'judgement'? So how would he conduct himself in those promised summits without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro, and Assad? Let's look at how he did with Tony Rezko."
That reads like someone with a distinct agenda to me, Joe.
You are resorting to the same equivocation other insular media types when confronted with evidence of insider maneuvering.
You can't even admit that this behavior got close to ethical line, even if it didn't cross it.
Occasionally some of Blumenthal's friends expressed objections to the items he sent out, and I sometimes replied to him with a mocking jab myself. But those were all private exchanges. I reject the idea that I am obliged to report on my conversations, whether electronic or verbal, with a campaign aide, even on the most controversial matters.
I guess the military advisor scandal, or Judy Miller's actions don't mean that much. Except I'm sure you'd say they do. I'm sure if McCain advisor was an ex-reporter sening his colleagues links to blog posts full of propoganda, you and Salon would think there was something unsavory about it. Perhaps even if it was an Obama staffer.
Here's the thing Joe. In our current news narrative, connections and associations are an issue. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes not.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, journalists should not be allowed to exempt themselves from this issue.
If you're going to make an issue about the methods by which John McCain gets a free pass, you can't look the other way when a similar pattern appears elsewhere. This wasn't just a source, Joe - it was someone with an agenda.
If it didn't cross the line it was damn close, and you know it.
The clear assumption behind Dreier's blog post is that Blumenthal somehow endorsed the specific content of every negative story he sent out. But that assumption is logically flawed because among the items he has regularly sent out is a daily blogosphere roundup authored by Clinton staffer Peter Daou
It's not Daou's emails he's talking about, Joe, and you know that.
Blumenthal works for Clinton, the connection between action and intent is pretty clear. These emails repeated the most egregious rumors about Obama. Claiming no one was going to take them seriously doesn't mitigate that. If that was true, then why did Bluementhal include them?
He had an agenda, and nothing you can write will change that. And I'm wondering why you feel the need to deny it. That's the big queston.