H/T to Emerson, for pointing out the article. Notice how media follow and repeat the original assertions.
Character Assassinations by New Jersey’s Star-Ledger
by Noah Beck – This article originally appeared in The Algemeiner.
September 13, 2018
The Star-Ledger’s smear of terrorism expert Steve Emerson and Arab-American Emilio Karim Dabul is a textbook case of journalistic malpractice, providing the quintessential example of what honest journalism should avoid.
On August 5, the Star-Ledger called for the removal of Dabul, a New Jersey US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office spokesperson, in part by attacking Emerson with a variety of false or misleading claims. At least three other NJ papers then published similar stories about Emerson and Dabul: WNYC (which incredibly sought comment from the Council on American-Islamic Relations — CAIR — but neither Emerson nor Dabul), NorthJersey.com, and MSN.com. Adding to the damage, La Opinion ran a similar piece in Spanish. The Hill also ran an article inspired by Star-Ledger’s August 5 article, but promptly removed it after hearing Emerson’s objections.
The Star-Ledger’s attack was severe enough for Emerson to involve his attorney, Richard Horowitz, who, on August 9, demanded that Emerson be afforded “an opportunity to respond” and submitted a letter to the editor by Emerson. The Star-Ledger published Emerson’s response on August 24.
In the interim, six New Jersey members of Congress, all Democrats, wrote a letter to ICE, demanding that Dabul be fired, claiming that he “edited and wrote for anti-Muslim hate groups,” as alleged in the Star-Ledger’s op-ed trashing Emerson.
Furthermore, the paper’s editors refused to publish Emerson’s response unless he agreed to the removal of key details.
Emerson asserted that the Star-Ledger’s editors made no attempt to contact him or verify any of the facts assumed by the paper’s allegations, but those important points were deleted from Emerson’s response by the Star-Ledger’s editors, presumably to avoid exposing their unprofessionalism.
Similarly, Emerson’s response tried to set the record straight about the Star-Ledger’s materially false suggestion that Emerson blamed Muslims for the 1993 Oklahoma City bombing — an allegation that he says has been “manufactured and peddled by radical Islamic groups” — but the editors deleted that as well.
Thus, the edited version of Emerson’s defense produced by the Star-Ledger’s editors effectively extended Emerson’s character assassination, while whitewashing the paper’s journalistic malfeasance.
For the sake of setting the record straight and exposing the extent of Star-Ledger’s journalistic negligence, it’s worth reviewing the many problems with the paper’s August 5 op-ed. [Please see the rest at the IPT]
Sure there are reasons for this hit and there is an agenda behind it. More on that later. Or as Alinsky said, personalize the attacks. In this case, smear one expert that says things they don’t like. But what a concerted effort. They don’t smear, they do character assassination hits. Then they put it into their media echo chamber to drive it home.
Who are these hatchet men. You all know the Muslims have many working at all levels in media and within government (something Obama excelled at placing) Then they have their allies of SPLC as the designated smear merchants. By the time it’s back washed in a few days in media, it is hard to know exactly where it came from, which is the point.
Do you think anyone out there is saying, “let me read today’s corrections and clarifications in today’s paper”? No, they do the drive by and screw even cleaning up the mess. The mess just makes their message that much harder to ignore.