Jeffrey Kofman, a reporter for ABC's 'World News Tonight,' was hiding a dirty little secret: He is (gasp) Canadian!
'ABC REPORTER WHO FILED TROOP COMPLAINT STORY IS CANADIAN.'
So bleated a bizarre headline by Internet icky man Matt Drudge on his gossip site, The Drudge Report, the day after ABC aired a story by Kofman about the demise of American troop morale in Iraq. In the ABC news segment, soldiers on the ground in Iraq told Kofman they had lost faith in the American military plan in Iraq. One soldier said that if he could face Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld, the soldier would ask for his resignation.
All this unpatriotic reporting riled the White House so much, apparently, that an operative there (I mean a White House press room employee) 'alerted' Drudge to the 'news.'
But here's the twist: Not only is Kofman a foreigner (shocking!) he is also an out homo (unbelievable!)
Drudge's original headline yakked this fact, too, initially reading, 'ABC NEWS REPORTER WHO FILED TROOP COMPLAINST STORYOPENLY GAY CANADIAN.'
That title lasted only eight minutes before Drudge (himself rumored to be gay) thought better of outright gay baiting, even for the White House. He changed the headline, but kept in the body of his gossipy column the news that Kofman was an unabashed fairy.
A homosexual reporter from another country digging up dirt about the failures of the U.S. military and its leaders? Scandalous!
Or at least, that is what the White House apparently wants Americans to believe. The insinuation, of course, is that the reports from Kofman are unreliable and untrustworthy because Kofman is a foreigner and a fag.
The United States government and its right-wing media lackeys used to smear those who opposed them with such labels as 'Communist.' But that's over and passé. We beat the communists. Now we have to have some other whipping boy. Foreigner (thus 'un-American') and fag (thus un-manly) will do just fine, thank you.
For the record, the White House has since denied it planted the name-calling antic. But Drudge himself told the Washington Post that he was clueless about the ABC report until 'someone from the White House communications shop tipped me to it.' He continued: 'The White House press office is under new management and has become slightly more aggressive about contacting reporters. This story has certainly become talk radio fodder about the cultural wars-slash-liberal bias in the media.'
For my money, Drudge's account seems far more credible than the White House denial. What in the world would Drudge have to gain by lying about his source? In fact, he may well be catching hell from the White House itself for honesty that has put the White House on the spot. The White House, on the other hand, has everything to gain by disavowing it would stoop to something so low.
This act of retaliation is so petty, so childish, it's tempting to dismiss it. If all it amounted to was another thing for right-wing radio heads to flap their gums about, it would be easy to ignore or brush off. Indeed, it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
But this is about more than a little spate of name-calling.
This is clearly a smear campaign aimed at intimidating journalists of all kinds. The message is clear: File a story we don't likea story that is 'unpatriotic'and we'll go after you any way we can, including by the most despicable, low-brow means we have. That threat packs a powerful wallop when it comes from the press office of the most powerful man in the world.
Despite all the outwardly journalistic moral outrage from the media about the incident, the truth is that our media is already too cowed and self-censured about what might be 'unpatriotic' or 'un-American' reporting. Most of the self-censorship, it should be noted, comes from the pressure of 'selling' news to the public, and not wanting to offend the public sensibility post-Sept. 11, or during a time of war.
Add to that already frightening atmosphere a situation where the government seems to be exhorting, almost threatening journalists into adopting a pro-government stance, and you can kiss intelligent coverage about the war in Iraq goodbye.
By calling attention to irrelevant factoids about Kofman's life (his nationality, his sexual orientation), the White House obviously hopes to divert attention from the real issues at hand: Did President Bush and the U.S. government lie about the premises for invading Iraq? Is there a sensible plan for ruling Iraq by the military? How long will we be there? How many lives are we willing to lose there? How much money are we spending there? Whatever happened to Saddam Hussein? And, oh, what about that other 'war'the one on terrorismwhatever happened to that?
E-mail Mubarakdah@aol.com .