The journalist who alleged one of President Obama’s top spin doctors fed fictitious talking points to a complicit media in order to put a positive spin on the controversial Iran nuclear deal is fighting back against critics who’ve attacked his reporting.
“I stand behind every single word I wrote. This newspaper does, too. The New York Times has looked closely at every complaint leveled against the piece and has found absolutely nothing to correct. If anything is found to merit a correction, it will certainly be corrected,” the New York Times Magazine’s David Samuels wrote Friday.
In a May 5 story, titled “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru,” Samuels described how Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes used the press to help lay the groundwork for passage of the Iran deal.
Though many have characterized Rhodes admitted manipulation of the press as deeply distasteful and unethical, Samuels said this is not so.
“I think Ben Rhodes is the bravest person I’ve ever met in Washington,” he wrote. “If it sounds weird to say that Rhodes is both a manipulative spin doctor and a deeply honest, creative person who believes strongly in the policies he spins for, well, that is still the truth.”
In his May 5th profile, Samuels named two reporters specifically, the Atlantic’s Jeffery Goldberg and Al-Monitor’s Laura Rozen, as being important parts of Rhodes’ efforts to sell the Iran deal.
Rozen and Goldberg have denied the story’s charges.
On Friday, Samuels addressed their concerns.
“The reason I chose to cite Rozen and Goldberg as important conduits for the administration’s foreign policy message is based on two kinds of evidence. One: This very idea was suggested to me in taped interviews with White House staff members who dealt with these journalists; in interviews with other journalists; and in interviews with other people who read their work,” he wrote.
“Two: My own reading of both Rozen and Goldberg for years had suggested to me that this was a fair thing to say about their work. It seemed at least worth mentioning the names of some journalists in a 9,500-word article about a writer who tells stories to the public, using journalists as one of his instruments,” he added. “If I didn’t name any of those journalists, readers might fairly conclude that Rhodes was in fact terrible at his job — or that journalists, especially those who live in Washington, belong to a special category of person who must never be criticized, even gently.”
And as for Rhode’s admitted distaste for the press: Samuels explained the White House spin doctor was just being honest.
“I did not pry this critique out of Rhodes, nor did I introduce him to it. He has far more familiarity with the 21st century news cycle than I do,” he wrote.
He added on a sadder note, “The issues that Rhodes raises in my profile — about the reshaping of the media, the way American foreign policy has shifted, the way the world works now — none of these things are being discussed, either.”
“Somehow, for a small group of people with very loud megaphones, the point right now seems to be me — or rather, a digital pinata they have slapped my name on. It seems fair to say that Rhodes won our bet,” he added.
