How to lie and libel for the CPJ

Why did the Cooper Point Journal knowingly publish a fake quote by Martin Luther King? Why will it not publish a correction to its reference to a nonexistent anti-Semitic Jordanian law? Why does it allow personal attacks against individuals and not allow the attacked to respond? These questions must be posed in light of the CPJ’s mishandling of a “controversial” subject.

In the April 9 issue of the CPJ, Editor-In-Chief Jason Slotkin stated that the CPJ would “not be accepting opinion articles about the Israel/Palestine conflict for the remaindering [sic] of the quarter.” Slotkin provided a vague and peculiar rationale: “[T]his decision is in the interest of productive and inclusive discourse in the CPJ.” Thus the CPJ was claiming to promote inclusive discourse by excluding articles on a particular subject. Moreover, Slotkin was not rejecting the subject because of its irrelevance to the campus community. Slotkin noted that “[t]he Israel/Palestinian conflict is something many students feel passionately about. Many students have strong personal and cultural ties to this region and its citizens.” The CPJ was banning opinion pieces on Palestine–Israel precisely because the editorial staff believed “students feel passionately about” it.

To understand how the CPJ reached this decision requires an accounting of events that transpired in the last weeks of the Winter 2009 quarter. From this, we can see how the CPJ staff exercised poor judgment, made contradictory interpretations of their policies, and attempted to deal with their errors not by correcting the errors but by sweeping them under the rug.

The background

On Feb. 26, the CPJ published an article written by me entitled “Introducing Evergreen’s Own Little ‘Israel Lobby.’” In the article, I reported that a new campus student group, SIIA Shalom, had received outside funding to disseminate pro-Israel propaganda as part of a multi-million dollar campaign to dominate discourse on the Palestine-Israel conflict on college campuses.

The following week, two members of SIIA Shalom, Noah Milstein and Russel Katz, responded in the CPJ with their own articles. Milstein compared my article to anti-Semitic “blood libel” and “The Protocols of Zion.” Milstein falsely claimed that I was referring to a “Jewish cabal” and a “Zionist conspiracy.” Although his article was headlined a “response” to my article, it made no direct references to my article other than claiming that a Hebrew/English dictionary would not equate the word “hasbara” with “propaganda” (I have identified at least four dictionaries that do).

I prepared a response for the CPJ, pointing out a number of deliberate falsehoods in the Milstein and Katz articles. Besides noting that I had never mentioned a “Jewish cabal” or a “Zionist conspiracy,” I pointed out that Milstein was wrong in claiming that “in Jordan it is illegal for a Jew to hold citizenship.” There has never been any such law in Jordan. I also pointed out that SIIA Shalom’s website was full of such falsehoods, even reciting fake quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr.

Editor-In-Chief Jason Slotkin asked me to revise my article, stating that it was “a very direct rebuttal to Noah [Milstein]’s article,” which would supposedly violate the CPJ’s policy of not publishing letters that “do not advance a discussion or argument but serve to generate or feed a squabble.”

I revised my article to indicate that Katz and Milstein’s arguments were representative of common pro-Israel arguments. Slotkin replied by email stating that the article would need further revision, claiming that it “seems to point more at the validity of Katz and Milistein [sic] for having their beliefs and their motives as opposed to facts the behind their beliefs.” Slotkin stated that he was not asking for a “change of content or argument, but who the argument is directed at.”

I responded by email, asking Slotkin how I could adhere to CPJ policies and still “make the following points:

- The idea that “in Jordan it is illegal for a Jew to hold citizenship” is absolutely false.

- The idea that Israel invented leaflet drops to warn people to flee or die is absolutely false.

- Martin Luther King never made the statements that he is quoted as saying on the SIIA Shalom website.

- You can’t justify Israeli military actions in the name of feminism or queer solidarity.

Slotkin never replied. The CPJ didn’t publish my article for its March 12 issue but instead published a second letter by Russel Katz that employed one of the fake quotes by Martin Luther King. That is, rather than printing an article that revealed that SIIA Shalom was propagating fake quotes from Martin Luther King, the CPJ instead printed one of the fake quotes from Martin Luther King as truth.

Moreover, Katz’s article made a personal attack against Anna-Marie Murano, coordinator of the Mideast Solidarity Project (MSP, formerly sesame). In the CPJ, Katz claimed that Murano’s proposal for a Hate-Free Campus (which Katz incorrectly called a “hate free zone”) meant that:
material judged to be offensive would be officially censored. These are strong statements from an individual who refuses to meet with SIIA Shalom and won’t engage in any kind of conversation on the matter.

Katz made two serious misrepresentations: 1) The text of the Hate-Free Campus makes no references to censorship and in fact expresses a commitment to honoring free speech. 2) Even though no member of SIIA Shalom has ever approached Murano, she had previously informed a friend of SIIA Shalom coordinator Noah Milstein that she wanted to meet with Milstein.

Additionally, Katz suggested that Murano spoke of a “Jewish conspiracy” (placing the term in quotes) at the March 4 Geoduck Student Union meeting, which was blatantly false. There was never anything remotely referencing a “Jewish conspiracy” at the March 4 GSU meeting.
Feelings trump facts

On March 13, Murano and I met with Editor-in-Chief Jason Slotkin and detailed the factual errors and personal attacks in the three articles written by Milstein and Katz. Slotkin acknowledged that he should have verified some of the claims in the articles. However, when asked if he would allow a response to be published, he answered no. When asked if he would at least print corrections to the errors and falsehoods, he answered no. His explanation made no sense: If the CPJ were to publish a correction, then the other side, meaning Milstein and Katz, would demand a response of their own. That is, a commitment to factual accuracy would merit complaints, which would somehow obligate the CPJ to allow a response from Milstein and Katz.

Inconsistencies in CPJ policies

Fit to print
Fake quotes from Martin Luther King (3/12/09)
Reference to a fake anti-Semitic Jordanian law (3/5/09)
Responding to a prior article by utilizing straw man arguments, misattributions, name-calling, and false claims of anti-Semitism (3/5/09, (3/12/09)
Personal attacks based on false claims (3/5/09, 3/12/09)
Opinion articles such as “Stop Bitching, Bitches” (1/29/09), “Fuck You, Chicken McNuggets” (3/12/09), and “Why Can’t I Blow My Dog?” (6/5/08)

Not fit to print
Correction to fake quotes from Martin Luther King
Correction to the fake anti-Semitic Jordanian law
Responding to a prior article by quoting directly from the article and proving that the claims are wrong.
Correction to the personal attacks by the person who was attacked
Opinion articles on Palestine–Israel

The above information lays out what the CPJ judged as acceptable to print and what was unacceptable. It clearly illustrates that with the CPJ, it is easier to print lies than it is to correct lies. It is easier to make straw arguments than it is to make reasoned arguments, it is easier to make personal attacks than it is to respond to personal attacks, and it is easier to write about fellating a Chicken McNugget than it is to write about an Evergreen student, Rachel Corrie, who was killed by Israel.

Let’s apply these findings to the incident just mentioned: Noah Milstein’s Mar. 5 article was headlined a “response” to my Feb. 26 article. Yet it consisted of straw man arguments, while falsely suggesting that I had written about a “Jewish cabal” and a “Zionist conspiracy,” and that my arguments were comparable to anti-Semitic “blood libel” and “The Protocols of Zion.” This was permissible by CPJ standards because these accusations did not respond to anything I actually wrote. The claim that “in Jordan it is illegal for a Jew to hold citizenship,” was also permissible, despite being a blatant lie.

Meanwhile, when I attempted to reply that I did not believe in a “Jewish cabal” or a “Zionist conspiracy,” and that it is not illegal for Jews to be Jordanian citizens, Slotkin stated that my article could not be printed because it was “a very direct rebuttal” and thus would not “advance a discussion or argument.” Slotkin claimed that I was inappropriately addressing the “validity of Katz and Milstein for having their beliefs and their motives as opposed to facts the [sic] behind their beliefs.”

The argument is peculiar. When I wrote that it is not “illegal for a Jew to hold citizenship,” I was stating a fact, which refuted a falsehood published in the CPJ. Whether Milstein was honest in his beliefs and whether his motives were pure do not change the fact that it is not “illegal for a Jew to hold citizenship.”

By this interpretation, Milstein was “advanc[ing] discussion or argument” by inventing new falsehoods, while my arguments were too mired in age-old facts. What would cause Slotkin to advance such illogical interpretations of policy? His only response, which was similar to his Apr 9 CPJ announcement, was that the Palestine-Israel conflict was an issue that many people felt strongly about and to which many people had personal connections. That is, what mattered more than the facts were people’s feelings. If I were allowed to report the facts, then Slotkin would have to endure the complaints of Milstein and Katz.

Thus, Slotkin, as the CPJ’s editor-in-chief, had discovered a truth that editors in the greater mainstream media have already discovered: the intensity of complaints takes precedence over the veracity of complaints. When it comes to reporting on Palestine/Israel, how people feel about the message matters more than the truth of the message.

And just like the greater mainstream, Slotkin’s response was to damn journalistic integrity and cop out. For the CPJ, copping out meant publishing no more opinion pieces on Palestine–Israel. Compared to broaching the subject of Palestine–Israel, publishing a trivial piece such as “Fuck You, Chicken McNuggets” constituted a feel-good human interest story that required no active engagement by the editors, and that was what the editors wanted.

Slotkin disingenuously claimed that the CPJ editors “spent hours working with contributors on both sides of the issue.” If so, the “hours” would have been with Milstein and Katz, as they did not spend hours with myself, Murano, or Lamise Shawahin, who had written a personal reflection about Palestine. A public records request for correspondence between the CPJ and SIIA Shalom was hampered when the CPJ employed legal assistance, making it difficult to uncover exactly how and why the CPJ catered to SIIA Shalom.

We only know the outcome. The CPJ left behind a trail of printed falsehoods and personal attacks, and now prefers to stay silent on Palestine-Israel than live up to basic journalistic standards by printing corrections and apologies and honoring a commitment to report the truth.

Such is the impetus for an alternative paper like this, the Counter Point Journal (or CxPJ). However, the CxPJ’s existence does not abrogate the responsibility of the CPJ. Hopefully this paper’s existence will serve to prod and remind the CPJ of its purported duties. We remain in wait for corrections and apologies from the Cooper Point Journal.