Washington Post Doesn’t Let Up on Moran

Now that the Democratic primary for the congressional seat in the 8th district of Virginia is history, and after The Washington Post ombudsman agreed with us that the paper’s coverage was unfair in publishing unsubstantiated accusations that Moran uttered an unknown anti-Semitic remark, The Post continues today its coverage with an article in the weekly Fairfax Extra of the paper.

The chance to regurgitate the accusations is enabled by a story headlined “Moran’s Use of Editorial Stokes Ire of Jewish Leaders.”

Bending over backwards to cut The Post some slack, I can argue that the paper not only is covering a legitimate story but that in doing so it substantiates an argument I made last week about self-censorship.

The story is that “some Jewish leaders” were upset that in the final hours of the campaign Moran circulated a local newspaper’s editorial endorsing him. The editorial read, in part,

This election is not about Moran's ability to lead, or about news headlines accusing him of questionable public statements or personal finances. It's about a cabal of powerful Washington, D.C., based interests backing the Bush administration's support for rightwing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's handling of the Middle East conflict trying to upend an outspoken and powerful Democratic opponent.

It's been no offhand comments of Moran, unscrupulously taken out of context and touted in front page headlines by the Washington Post more than once in the recent period. It's been Moran's ability to weigh in with his considerable seniority and powers of persuasion on behalf of a more balanced approach to the Middle East crisis that has made him a target of reprehensible smears and innuendos by a combination of pro-Republican and pro-Sharon interests, including The Post.

The same sordid mentality that is behind the Bush re-election campaign's current effort to win by focusing on out-of-context sound-bite attacks against his opponent, to the point that no less than 80% of Bush's TV ads are negative attacks, is driving the effort against Moran.

Maybe this is more about a mud fight between The Post and the weekly Falls Church News-Press. The Post’s Lisa Rein writes,

While not mentioning Jews, the editorial pushed an uncomfortable edge with what some Jewish leaders considered to be coded language that blamed Jews for steering U.S. foreign policy.
"It smacks of anti-Semitism," said David Bernstein, Washington director of the American Jewish Committee. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when you speak of a pro-Sharon cabal, that means Jews."

Again, we’re seeing support for a more even-handed policy in the Middle East cast as anti-Semitism. And with Moran’s use of the editorial, he is somehow also guilty of anti-Semitism.

Jerome Chapman, a Jewish activist from Alexandria, said the editorial "demonizes and scapegoats supporters of Israel for Moran's problems. An editorialist can, of course, express his opinion, but when the campaign reprints it and passes it out . . . it's outrageous."

Why can’t we say that Sharon’s policies are not only vicious and a form of terror in their own ways, but that they are counter-productive in establishing a secure, peaceful Israel? If The Post would have its way, we can’t. And that is self-censorship. Rein concludes,

The Israel-Palestinian conflict was in many ways an unspoken subtext in the primary contest. Moran has criticized Sharon's declaration that Israel would continue "targeted killings" of Palestinian militants and strengthen West Bank settlements and called his a more "balanced" approach to the conflict, while [his opponent Andy] Rosenberg said he supported Sharon's policy "when justified." Rosenberg cultivated financial and political support from many Jewish voters.

Benton, whose newspaper weighs issues from downtown redevelopment in Falls Church to the war in Iraq, said he is frustrated that "you can't oppose Sharon's policies in the Middle East without being accused of anti-Semitism."

"To me, there's nothing anti-Semitic about my editorial," he said. "I take umbrage at the idea that 'cabal' is a loaded word. . . . It doesn't have prejudicial connotations."

Amen.