The faux outrage around this story is, as usual, overblown and based more on speculation than on substance. Is it wrong for the White House (or any public organization or official) to try to
coerce the news media? Absolutely, but it's not clear that's what happened here. The real world isn't black and white, and we only have this reporter's second-hand understanding of how the White House was involved. Were his bosses
coerced into supporting the administration's approach to Afghanistan, or was it a business or personal decision? Understanding that distinction seems pretty important before grabbing torches and pitchforks.
In the interim, I wonder how many of the righties who've jumped on this bandwagon have stopped to consider the position they've accepted. Many of them frequently cry about the purportedly "liberal" media in America. Their favorite objective "proof" of this is the study showing the majority of American reporters consider themselves liberal. Yet the foundation of this story is that this liberal reporter was not allowed to report his own views, but instead had to follow the direction set by his bosses and corporate interest. From his blog:
[ ... ]
I left CAP not too long after that, partly for reasons of other censorship dealing with both corporate sponsors and that institution’s fealty to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). I wanted to work at a more independent outlet, but every place I’ve worked for since has had its own editorial constraints and conflicts of interest.
Which brings me to why we’re all a little like RT America. The people who work at ThinkProgress today continue to do awesome, independent reporting. But they have a lot of constraints on them, and I’m sure they wish they didn’t. But it’s an unfortunate reality in many of the journalistic environments we exist today. We can’t criticize certain people, or dig into certain stories, or follow our noses on the trail of corruption if it means upsetting our publishers, sponsors, and donors. ...
This is exactly what I've said again and again, but it's been ignored because it undermines their "liberal media" dogma. Reporters are the bottom of the journalism food chain. They write what their bosses -- editors, publishers, corporate owners, advertisers -- let them write. The OP is but one example of a liberal reporter who had to toe the line imposed from above. It will be interesting to see if those same "liberal media" bashers now have the intellectual honesty to recognize their inconsistency.