First Eric Alterman. Now Jim Naureckas: The Silly Left-wing Effort to Prove that I.F. Stone was Never a Soviet Agent.
The other day, I wrote about Eric Alterman’s ridiculous assertion that I.F. Stone could not have been a Soviet agent because Stone never told him he was. It turns out that Alterman’s explanation is now the second most stupid apologia for Stone.
The first comes from Jim Naureckas, editor of the left-wing media website, FAIR, which stands for “Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting.” FAIR is dedicated to sifting out what its editors feel is right-wing bias in the media.
Naureckas quotes from a KGB document cited in John Haynes and Harvey Klehr’s Commentary article providing the evidence that I.F. Stone was working for Soviet intelligence. The KGB file quotes an agent report that ”Relations with Pancake [Stone's KGB codename] have entered the channel of normal operational work. He went to Washington on assignment for his newspaper. Connections in the State Dept. and Congress.”
To any sensible reader, when an intelligence agency notes that one of its subjects has entered “normal operational work,” they are indicating to their control that the subject is now fully an agent, performing tasks as assigned. As he notes, this is indeed what Klehr and Haynes concludes: “The Commentary writers gloss the phrase ‘channel of normal operational work’ as meaning that ‘Stone had become a fully active agent.’” And so they do.
What is supposedly wrong about this sensible conclusion? Naureckas writes: “If you enter ‘normal operational work’ into Google with “KGB,” you get two hits, one to the Commentary article and one to Stone’s Wikipedia article quoting Commentary.” If you put those key words into Nexis, you get no hits at all.” (my emphasis)
That certainly settles the issue as far as Jim Naureckas is concerned. To print his explanation is sufficient. No further comment is necessary.
“That certainly settles the issue as far as Jim Naureckas is concerned.”
Jim Naureckas is a destructive human being. He, minimally on a gut level, doesn’t care if his comments make any sense. Naureckas merely needs to make noise to be diabolically effective! Many Americans don’t bother to seriously study the issues. Deceitful propagandists therefore easily sucker them. Regretfully, these individuals too quickly conclude that all complaints of media bias cancel each other out. The fact that conservative complaints are usually well documented while leftist complaints normally border on the absurd is ignored.
Ron: Many years ago (late 1980s, early 1990s?) I guiltily watched Alterman on CNN’s Crossfire (I think) after services one Kol Nidre. Strange to say, the subject was I.F. Stone and his communist connections. When Alterman was asked about them, he melted down the likes of which I had never witnessed (up until then) on television. I don’t mean impassioned, or emphatic, or slightly over the top. I do mean that he became emotionally upset, disturbed, actually, began to sputter, red faced, before walking off the set. The whole thing was simply bizarre and my genius as a prognosticator was proven for all to hear. “Well, that’s the last we’ll hear of that sicko,” declared. (I’ve since answered for my loshan hara.)
My larger point is that there’s something very odd about Alterman on this particular subject. I disagree with most of what he does, but have seen him behave rationally since then in many a forum. But not on the subject of Izzy Stone.
You are doing a disservice to your argument. Try to actually represent what Naureckas said, all of what he said. Whether you agree or not, it is absurd to say that his article made one argument and used on method of evaluating the claims made by Commentary. Please reconsider your journalist ethics. If you disagree with Naureckas style of investigation, perhaps take the high road and do honest criticism by showing the complexity of both sides of the argument.
It’s not essential to agree on things like this, but it is crucial to represent what the other person is saying accurately. Otherwise you cheapen your own argument.