Oh, boo hoo hoo
Steve Rosen, who is suing his former employers at AIPAC, complains to JTA:
“They not only took away my income, they took away my work,”
I know exactly how he feels. Check out this old Columbia Journalism Review article, after the jump.
AIPAC ATTACK?
Charges of Pressure at a Jewish Weekly
January/February 1993
by Daniel Eisenberg
Eisenberg is an intern at CJR.Before the summer of 1992 Washington Jewish Week was best known for its keen political and investigative reporting. A highly regarded independent Jewish newspaper, it received four 1991 awards from the American Jewish Press Association, not to mention four Laurels in the past four years from CJR. Recently, however, the paper has faced allegations that political pressure played a significant role in the demotion and subsequent resignation of its editor.
This tale of politics and publishing began at a picnic one Sunday in May 1991, when Andrew Silow Carroll, managing editor and de facto editor-in-chief of Washington Jewish Week, was invited to address the area’s “alternative” Jewish community. The picnic, sponsored by a number of groups on the left of the political spectrum, included a workshop on the relative power and political leanings of Jewish-American organizations, including the powerful pro-Israel lobby — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — about which WJW had run some tough pieces. In his speech, Carroll commented that in recent years, AIPAC had drifted to the right, while left-wing groups, for their part, “had been too strident in their criticism of Israel.”
Carroll’s remarks were summarized in a memo written by an AIPAC intern who attended the workshop. The memo cited Carroll’s comments on AIPAC’s power and his remark that “as long as we are meeting on park benches and the right is meeting in hotel ballrooms, the Jewish community must still be embracing the right.” The memo called attention to Carroll’s use of the word “we” to refer to the left. That summer, AIPAC’s foreign policy director, Steven Rosen, brought the memo to the attention of The Washington Post’s Lloyd Grove, who, in a series on AIPAC, reported that the lobby had asked Carroll to take his regular AIPAC reporter — Larry Cohler — off a certain story, and that Carroll had refused.
Then, in April 1992, Carroll was in effect demoted. Linda Gordon Kuzmack, an academic who had worked at the United States Holocaust Memorial Council but who had no professional newspaper experience, was brought in above him. Stripped of most of his responsibilities and offended by his publisher’s choice, Carroll resigned on June 8. Two months later Kuzmack, who was having trouble running the paper, was asked to leave.
At about the same time, an article by Robert I. Friedman in the August 4 Village Voice reported that AIPAC’s Rosen had leaked the memo to board members of WJW in an effort to get Carroll fired. The report sparked a rash of angry editorials within the Jewish press, which, like the labor press, the Catholic press, and others, can be sensitive to charges of interference from the organizations they cover. Most of the Jewish press is financially dependent on major Jewish institutions; Washington Jewish Week is independent.
Leonard Kapiloff, the publisher, disputes the claim that the memo had anything to do with Carroll’s demotion: “My problem with Andy was falling circulation.” He adds that he has consistently defended WJW’s tough reporting an AIPAC.
Carroll acknowledges that circulation was a problem, but notes that he took over the paper at the beginning of a recession. He remains convinced that “AIPAC’s pressure played a strong part” in his downfall.
One thing seems clear: AIPAC’s Rosen did want to bring about change at the paper. He told the Baltimore Jewish Times that “keeping the paper in the hands of the ‘alternative’ crowd was unhealthy.” And he has acknowledged to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he provided the information in the memo to a WJW board member as evidence that Carroll “sought to bring down the organized Jewish community.”
The board member, Richard Schifter, a former assistant secretary of state for human rights, admits that Rosen mentioned the memo to him but denies ever discussing it with the weekly’s publisher. AIPAC, for its part, claims that Rosen told Schifter about the memo only after Carroll had been demoted.
While the charges flew back and forth, trouble continued at Washington Jewish Week. For several weeks after Kuzmack’s dismissal, a group of staff members — including features editor Judith Sloan Deutsch and copy editor Carol Arenberg — ran the paper. In early September, both were fired, told by publisher Kapiloff that he “could not tolerate divided loyalties on the staff” — a reference to Deutsch and Arenberg’s perceived loyalty to Carroll.
Larry Cohler, meanwhile, remains at Washington Jewish Week. In a letter to the Baltimore Jewish Times last August, he voiced concerns about his former editor’s plight: “Do they [AIPAC] find it appropriate that a senior AIPAC official, whose efforts are supposedly devoted to fighting anti-Israel groups, should direct his considerable resources against the livelihood of mainstream Jews working at a local Jewish newspaper with which he disagrees?”
Kapiloff, for his part, claims that WJW is back on its feet again, with rising circulation and a renewed commitment to the local Jewish community. His new managing editor, meanwhile, if Eric Rozenman, formerly the editor of Near East Report, an AIPAC publication
Advertisement

JustASC is written by Andrew Silow-Carroll, Editor-in-Chief of the 
March 19th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
It is not clear from your article whether Rosen’s problem with Carroll and his subordinates was due to a difference of opinion, or to concerns about bias. We are told in your story, for example, that “the lobby” had asked Carroll to take Cohler off a story.
1. Accusations in the third person invisible (“the lobby”) tend to discredit the accuser, in this case the writer of the story, Eisenberg, and Carroll himself for not being more careful with what he publishes.
2. It is never stated whether the problem Rosen brought to Carroll was due to perceived bias by Cohler, or due to a difference of opinion between Rosen and Cohler as Carroll seems to want us to beieve.
This leaves the careful reader thinking the piece might be a smear job, not responsible journalism.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Okay, let’s say it was bias, shoddy reporting, malpractice. (It wasn’t, and in Larry’s long history of reporting on AIPAC at the Washington Jewish Week he was never asked to print a correction.) But for argument’s sake, let’s say the problem was bias.
Do you think it the proper role for an AIPAC official to seek the removal — not a correction, not a meeting between AIPAC officials and the editorial board — but the removal of a newspaper editor by distributing a memo based on their own spy’s — oops, sorry, observer’s — account of a speech given at a picnic run by other legitimate Jewish organizations, and the political assumptions made by whomever commissioned and/or wrote the memo?
Remember, Rosen didn’t pass around a list of innaccuracies or even indicators of bias based on the reporting we published. He never sought a meeting with me or my publisher. In fact, if Eisenberg didn’t characterize the nature of Rosen’s complaints, it was because AIPAC was never able to detail exactly what errors, if any, Larry had made — their complaint was never that the articles were incorrect, but that a Jewish newspaper had dared to print them. Even when the “lobby” (okay, its chief spokeswoman and its chief counsel)asked me to remove Larry from a story, their complaint was not that his previous reporting was biased or inaccurate, but that some of this stories had been cited by AIPAC’s opponents in legal action against them — and thus he was “too close” to the story (an interesting point, although a little like asking Seymour Hersh to stop reporting on Abu Ghraib or My Lai because his articles had become exhibits in the government’s subseqeunt investigations).
Rosen didn’t even pass around examples of my reporting, editorials or the like, of which there were many, and out of which, if we had a difference in “opinion,” he could presumably have made a case for my “bias” or incompetence. No, he passed around a memo attacking me for having spoken at a picnic, and told a reporter that as a member of an “alternative” crowd, whatever that is, I was unfit to edit a Jewish newspaper.
The fault for demoting me rests on the shoulders of the newspaper’s publisher. But I’ll ask again — if AIPAC or any lobbying group has a problem with a reporter, do you think the problem is best handled by a/ addressing the publisher or editorial board directly with a sheaf of evidence of bias or innaccuracies or b/ seeking an editor’s firing through the distribution of material gathered in secret and distributed behind the scenes?
Do you think it the role of AIPAC or any lobby to use its considerable powers of persuasion to insist that reporters at a Jewish newspaper subscribe to a certain political view, and that newspapers only hire those who do?