In the wake of Charles Freeman’s withdrawal from consideration for a top intelligence post, the Washington Post today published and editorial headlined “Blame the ‘Lobby’“:
For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman’s appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn’t bother to contact the Post editorial board.
This is true–no one was talking to the editorial board. They were talking toreporters–at least, that’s what one learns elsewhere in the Post today:
For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, “took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it,” spokesman Josh Block said.
But Block responded to reporters’ questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: “As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background.”
dis_in_gen_u_ous (adj) : lacking in candor (i.e., futzing with the facts)
see http://www.washpost.com/news_ed/editorial/editboard.shtml
Fair enough. Block spoke with three reporters. Still easily distinguished from “lobbying,” which unless the definition of that term has changed recently, is “speaking with influential legislators.” Unless the three reporters were people like Bob Schieffer, Christiana Amanpour and Anderson Cooper, I don’t think that Block’s “background material” on Charles Freeman would have been anywhere near as influential as the hard-line lobbying AIPAC’s often been accused of.