NYT article on Kerry's efforts to get an Iranian deal -most of commentary is that he is too obsessed

[karynnj]

My problem with the article is that it is laced with editorializing. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/world/middleeast/kerry-is-pushing-for-agreement-in-iran-nuclear-talks.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

They also put it in context of legacy -- and completely ignore that the China and India claimate deals, Cuba and Afghanistan are pretty big deals. They also have unsupported by any facts statements - like saying that Tehran did not take seriously a Kerry comment that the US could walk out of the talks. It seems pertinent that within a few days there were new Iranian concessions on centrifuges.

This is really passive/aggressive coverage - with sharp barbs including ignoring Kerry's comment on Netanyahu being wrong on the interim agreement and focusing on Iraq and Kerry's vote. All the anonymous sources are twisted to diminish Kerry - even though most say nothing really negative about him personally. As to the observation that an agreement is more likely than at any time in the past -- that is written as if it is simply the state that exists -- giving neither Kerry or Obama (or Rouhani for that matter) credit.


The genuinely weird first paragraph reminds me a lot of their 2004 coverage - which called Kerry a "social loner" later defending the observation by noting that the reporter spoke to 20 plus friends the 60 year old still had that dated back to college. (Note also their huffiness that Kerry dares work with Zarif on the very day Netanyahu comes to the US to blow the deal up.)

Speaking of Netanyahu, I have NEVER seen the NYT, in the news section, note that Netanyahu is too focused on with Iran - even as he demonizes an agreement daily if not hourly.

To add to the dishonesty of the Times, given that the article is on Kerry's trip -- there is no mention of what he did today. Likely because it does not fit their agenda. Kerry spoke in Geneva and argued that Israel has been unfairly singled out. Here from the Israeli, Haaretz - http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.644960

Nor does the NYT seem to cover as fairly, Kerry's request that no one speak of the provisions while they are negotiating ( http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.644968 ) just as Netanyahu's aides are claiming they know more than Congress and arguing that they need to tell Congress (in public - of course) http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.644888

The 2 Haaretz articles, read together, show why Netanyahu has no business giving that speech now in an open forum. To paraphrase 2004 rhetoric - this is the wrong speech, in the wrong place at the wrong time! What is disgusting is that Netanyahu, not Obama/Kerry are given the benefit of doubt in this situation concocted by Netanyahu.

[karynnj]

1. Haaretz on Netanyahu wanting to tell Congress what they don't know

The senior official travelling on the prime minister's plane noted that Netanyahu had received the impression that members of Congress are not fully aware of the details of the deal being worked out. Netanyahu, the official said, is interested in using his speech to inform members of Congress of the information Israel holds in regards the deal, and seeks to help lawmakers there stop it from going ahead.

"We are knowledgable of many details from the agreement being put together, details that we feel Congress members are unaware of," he said. "According to the information we hold, the deal that is currently taking shape will leave Iran with the abilities to produce a nuclear weapon, if Khamenei were to make such a decision."

Netanyahu held a phone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday night, before he boarded his flight to Washington. Kerry is scheduled to meet on Monday with Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Jawad Zarif in an attempt to bring about a breakthrough in the nuclear talks.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.644888

[Fred Sanders]

3. So b releasing sensitive details of the ongoing negotiations - he wants to end them..sabotage on purpose?

No wonder Obama stopped giving Bibi details....his plan is...malice.

What is Bibi's alternate plan other than war, no one ever asks the obvious?
Crickets.

[karynnj]

8. That is just what it sounds like to me - sabotage

Yet the US media has covered Israeli complaints that they are not being kept informed -- and actually seemed to imply that the US was being unfair to Israel. The Israeli press (not so much Haaretz which is left leaning) has argued that "as the most affected country" Israel should have been actually involved in the negotiations.

As to what Netanyahu prefers to an agreement, that was the question asked by the Obama administration this weekend. It is beyond strange that neo cons are acting as if they are really concerned because the agreement would be "just for 10 years". Ignoring that the agreement does not preclude any further agreement in 10 years, this ignores that being able to monitro this and prevent it for 10 years is a pretty big deal.

There is really no possibility of tougher INTERNATIONAL sanctions. The Congress might be in danger of being led by Netanyahu, but he simply does not have that power elsewhere. So, Netanyahu may leave just two possibilities - military or Iran not being constrained and possibly working towards a nuclear bomb. (Much as the NYT diminishes any Kerry legacy (which is really also Obama's on foreign policy) - they ignore that Netanyahu's legacy might be the end of Israel as a democratic state, the end of the possibility of a two state solution, and a war with Iran. Personally, I would far prefer the legacy that Kerry/Obama end up with - and I assume that both are working to make the world better - not to get a good grade on their permanent records!

[Fred Sanders]

2. NYT loves Bibi, Israel can do little wrong....how much more obvious do they need to be?

Not even a mention of Obama's huge foreign policy triumphs, big deals, with China and India...amazing.

[karynnj]

6. It is weird that all those accomplishments are ignored -- and only things related to Israel in

some way count. Even then, I would assume that the elimination of those Syrian chemical weapons actually is a pretty big deal - especially for a neighboring country. Without that deal, it is not clear how much of that stockpile would have fallen to ISIS. ( Not that Assad having it wasn't bad enough.) His comment shows that the authors bought the neo con goal of regime change - where Obama spoke ONLY of raising the cost of using CW to make use less likely.

It also ignores the interim agreement. At the minimum, it has bought Israel a year plus when the Iranian program not only didn't move forward, but actually moved backwards.

I forgot to list the US led fight on ebola - which stands in stark contrast to the complete lack of interest when AIDS started and went on to be a worldwide epidemic.

[Fred Sanders]

7. The American mass media and punditry thinks it has the country by the balls yet again. Not this time. Not again.

[karynnj]

4. Kerry defends Israel before human rights panel

Even as a bitter U.S.-Israel dispute over a possible Iran deal was expected to heat up in Washington later Monday, Kerry affirmed America's steadfast commitment to its top Mideast ally and called on the council to take a more balanced approach toward Israel. The council frequently targets Israel for criticism in resolutions and investigations, notably over military action it has taken against Palestinian militants in Gaza. A new report commissioned by the council about last year's Gaza war is expected to be released later this month.

In a speech denouncing rights abuses in places like Syria, North Korea and Ukraine, Kerry spent several minutes on what he called the council's "deeply concerning record on Israel."

"No one in this room can deny that there is an unbalanced focus on one democratic country," he said, decrying the fact that no country other than Israel has a permanent agenda item on the council's schedule. "The (council's) obsession with Israel actually risks undermining the credibility of the entire organization."

Kerry and other U.S, officials have said the Obama administration's commitment to Israel's defense is unbreakable. On Sunday, and again at the council on Monday, Kerry noted the administration has intervened to protect Israel from condemnation at the United Nations and other international forums several hundred times in the last two years. And he reiterated that pledge, saying the U.S. would continue to oppose any attempt to "delegitimize" or otherwise unfairly target Israel in any part of the UN system.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.644960


I know that this would be blasted here on DU, but that it was not covered in an article that at least implicitly dealt with the relationship with Israel -- and noted that Kerry went there on the very day that Netanyahu came her -- shows a willingness to be used by Netanyahu.

[karynnj]

5. Haaretz on Kerry asking that people not speak of the provisions while negotiating

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is warning that public discussion of select details of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran will make it more difficult to reach a deal that prevents the country from developing atomic weapons.

In comments to reporters in Geneva on Monday, Kerry said he was concerned by reports that details of the talks would be revealed in coming days. He did not elaborate, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will speak in opposition to a potential Iran deal in an address to Congress on Tuesday.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.644968

[Mass]

9. This article is another sign that the media landscape is really getting worse and worse,

including in the Times.

a/ I had to google Michael Gordon, and here is what Wiki returns

Michael R. Gordon is the chief military correspondent for The New York Times.[1] During the first phase of the Iraq war, he was the only newspaper reporter embedded with the allied land command under General Tommy Franks, a position that "granted him unique access to cover the invasion strategy and its enactment".[2] He and General Bernard E. Trainor have written two books together, including the best-selling Cobra II. As a journalist for the New York Times he was the first to report Saddam Hussein's alleged nuclear weapons program in August 2002 with the article "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts.".[3]

This should tell us a lot on the guy, between the two claims I put in bold.

The claim that Kerry is obsessive is an old one, that came out during the climate change debate, for example, but the fact that the reporter has clearly an agenda is very problematic.

Sentences like that pose problem too

" said the official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the talks.

Anyway, let's be clear. If Kerry was not involved, they would claim he is too detached. Frankly, I think the reporter has an ax to grind with the policy.

[Fred Sanders]

10. " Unconfirmed sources" are the fertile ground of the skilled propagandist.

[karynnj]

13. Thanks for the information on the reporter

Your quotes bring back memories of how bad the NYT was in the lead up to Iraq -- and not just through employing Judith Miller.

It is strange that having the focus to work years on things that are really important should be considered suspect. On climate change, I was surprised that few papers spoke of his meeting in Boston with the Chinese -- and none bothered to mention the many contacts with the Chinese going back at least to 2006/2007 - in the lead up to the Bali conference.

They would bash Kerry if he was detached - but it is good to know that, at this point, it is really only Obama who he needs to impress.

[mylye2222]

11. Too obsessed..... as always trying to undermine him...

[karynnj]

12. In fairness , that was my word to summarize what they said in the article

They would also point to the "fairness" - ie they did quote 2 people who were positive -- ignoring that this was in a sea of words that would lead someone to question his effectiveness.

It is funny though that the negatives are that he works very hard and has developed relationships with people on the other side. What is funny to me is that the complaints are all things that are normally considered positives - hard working, focused, diligent. Add that he has a good relationship with Zarif, and it is hard to understand what more anyone would want.

[YvonneCa]

15. I love what you said here...

...about the negatives really being positives. SO true! Imagine that...

[YvonneCa]

14. Thanks for all the information and..

...links, karynnj. I just reread the NYT article. I think your word 'diminished' is about right. It is a very narrowly focussed article about Kerry's efforts on Iran and the way it is laid out does diminish his (and the Obama Administrations) efforts and successes.
This whole thing is now entering the stage of a 'trial in the press' which, IMO, is as bad for the process as having Congress have a vote on it. Congress is too polarized. Media is too polarized. Everything becomes 'black or white' 'good or evil' etc. when nuance is what is needed here to get a good agreement.
I am all for debate and getting the truth out to the public in a democracy..transparancy...in everything. But TIMING matters sometimes. For example, in battle one doesn't broadcast battle plans ahead of time. Timing matters as well in diplomacy and negotiations, especially when building trust...which I think Kerry is valiantly working to do. It would be nice if our allies could see that.