Jeffrey Goldberg is a great example of how you never went broke in journalism by turning in sloppy and tendentious work that served the interests of powerful men. The frustrating thing is that he occasionally turns in good and thoughtful work, as with his eloquent piece on the settlement movement in Israel, but then uses it to bolster his self-appointed position as intellectual arbiter of the shtetl. (Ironically, his writing about Jews is shallow and cramped, as with this post about Brooklyn Jews, which is as cliched and outdated as is possible without using the words plotz or shmear.) Much as he poses as a bad-muchacho ex-Mafia reporter, his response to the ridicule he deserves is to, say, have his editor tell people that he’s calling the FBI on his oh-so-threatening critics. Like all such bullies, he’s actually a pussy.
Anyway, all this is on display with his recent post trying relentlessly to manipulate Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch’s words until Roth concedes some non-existent wrongdoing in raising money from a handful of private Saudi citizens through, among other things, highlighting HRW’s work holding Israel accountable for human rights violations. When a reader takes Goldberg to task for his sloppy implication that HRW shouldn’t "talk to Arab audiences about Israel," he’s horrified at the absurdity — did it not occur to him? — and replies that "perhaps there should be a rule that Human Rights Watch not raise funds in its main target countries." Since HRW criticizes the human-rights practices of every country on earth, presumably that means the organization can collect some space cubits on Alpha Centauri.
Matt Duss writes the next chapter, collecting a a reply to Goldberg from HRW’s Sarah Whitson:
In talking about our work, we point out that we are as critical of Israel as we are of every other country in the Middle East. That really comes as a surprise to people in the Middle East when they hear that, because they have the opposite perception.
To which Duss adds: "Discussing the very real and intense hostility that right-wing pro-Israel groups show toward HRW’s reporting — hostility to which Jeffrey Goldberg has, through sloppy and tendentious journalism, now added some weight — is obviously not the same as invoking ‘the Jewish lobby.’" Look out, Duss! When the shtetl police kick at your front door, how you gonna come?
I get the sense that Goldberg posted his follow-up because he retains a measure of intellectual honesty. Hey fella: cultivate that, yeah? You’re not entirely corrupted, and you don’t seem to even mean to be corrupt. So how about you approach your work with the rigor that the topics you cover deserve?
Login Here




8 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
That Brooklyn Jews post was really an adaptation of a cliche about how New Yorkers are unfazable in general. Have not followed the actual subject of the post.
However giving space to David Wolpe shows that he knows his limitations.
It read a lot more like a deeper straining of the cliche, but I’ll gladly take the hit if I misunderstood it.
Do you know what venal means? Because you haven’t provided any evidence that Goldberg is “venal.”
Also, nothing in what Roth said limited his attack to “right-wing pro-Israel groups,” as opposed to anyone who questions HRW’s reporting.
I don’t mean that Goldberg is literally corrupt, if that’s what you mean; I think I address the point in my last graf. But it wouldn’t be the first time my rhetoric has gotten away from me.
On the second point, I think what Duss was driving at was the elephant in the room — right-wing organizations that exist to pressure HRW through stories like this in order to stop it from reporting on Israeli human rights violations. The issue in the fundraising pseudo-scandal isn’t actually anything that HRW has reported, and yet that reporting is the reason that elements on the right have been pushing this story out.
I commented somewhere exactly to this effect right after seeing the Goldberg post. He has a cordial conversation where Roth writes some 500 words (over 700 if you count the fwd’d letter in his initial response) at least… possibly more if these are excerpts. He waits until Roth says something that’s easily misparaphrased as antisemitic and then writes a vile paragraph that’s sure to be repeated across the Internet (and it has… I’ve seen nothing quoted from that post except for the dishonest last paragraph). Because his arguments are so dishonest and paper-thin, Goldberg doesn’t allow comments, so I posted this on Ambinder’s post linking to Goldberg:
In that sense, Goldberg is literally corrupt. His effort here is dishonest and juvenile and really embarrassing to even be in the Atlantic let alone approvingly cited by Ambinder and unchallenged by anyone else.
Did you even read the whole conversation (as posted, no clue if it’s complete)?
In every bit of that correspondance, including the note dishonestly paraphrased by Goldberg, it’s obvious that Roth’s talking about anyone who questions HRW’s reporting regardless of its merit and not anyone who questions their reporting — only those who fight back with lies and deception absent a reasoned argument.
I guess you’re right that Roth or Goldberg never specified that these groups are “right-wing” in so many words? Are you denying that they are?
While I enjoyed that brick-through-window entry, I have to say my main beef with Goldberg here is that he starts with the proposition “it sure looks like these guys hate Israel, let’s talk to them and see if they do” and then characterizes a series of nuanced answers as “evasive.”
I can even see the logic behind that understanding of HRW’s responses, except that I think it’s evasion motivated by a desire not to give ammunition to one’s detractors rather than–as Goldberg seems to imply–some secret anti-Israel agenda.