The New York Times Magazine is defending its report alleging 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, against complaints from some of the reporters named in the story.
The magazine’s editor-in-chief used social media Thursday to address the criticism.
“[First] off, every story published in the NYT Magazine is thoroughly fact-checked. Rhodes’ piece was no different,” said editor Jake Silverstein. “Since publication, [the story] has been re-reviewed. To date, there have been no corrections made. In short, we stand behind the piece 100%.”
The May 5 story, titled “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru,” describes how Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes used the press to help lay the groundwork for passage of the Iran deal. The profile’s author, David Samuels, named two reporters specifically, the Atlantic’s Jeffery Goldberg and Al-Monitor’s Laura Rozen, as being important parts of Rhodes’ effort.
Rozen and Goldberg have denied the story’s charges, and Rhodes has also denied any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, Silverstein said the magazine stands by its reporting.
“The fundamental thing to understand about this story is that it is a profile of Ben Rhodes, not a story about the Iran Deal specifically,” he said on social media. “Because Rhodes trusted Samuels and gave his time, Samuels was able to inhabit his subject’s world view, which is what a good profile does. As a reporter, Samuels’ style is not to be a fly on the wall. He engages subjects, argues, offers his own opinion. That’s how he reports.”
“That’s how he reported this story. He and Rhodes had many long conversations (most of them taped),” he added.
Silverstein also addressed critics who’ve noted Samuels himself is not fan of the Iran deal.
“David was not shy [about] expressing thoughts [about] a whole range of topics,” the editor wrote. “The point is, Rhodes had a good sense of where David was coming from, & David got a good sense of where Rhodes was coming from too.”
“It is not accurate to say, as some are, that David is an ardent neocon who assiduously opposed the Iran Deal,” he added. “[Y]es, David has views on Iran, some of them strong, but the position being attributed to him by some is a caricature.”
Bottom line, Silverstein noted, Samuels’ “personal views” did not taint the report, and the characterization of how Rhodes and his crew operate is still accurate.
“That portrayal is based on extensive reporting and it has not been materially challenged by Rhodes himself,” he wrote.
Rhodes, meanwhile, continues to spin his own media profile, publishing a lengthy Medium blog post this week explaining that he did nothing unethical in selling the White House’s version of the Iran deal to the press.
