NY Times stands behind controversial White House aide story

The editor of The New York Times Magazine on Thursday defended its controversial profile of White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes amid criticism.

{mosads}”1st off, every story published in the NYT Magazine is thoroughly fact-checked. Rhodes piece was no different,” Jake Silverstein wrote in a series of tweets on the article.

“Since publication, it has been re-reviewed. To date, there have been no corrections made,” he added.

One reporter the article called a seller of the White House’s messaging of its Iran nuclear deal has asked for a correction, but the magazine has so far declined to do so. 

“In short, we stand behind the piece 100%,” Silverstein tweeted.

1st off, every story published in the NYT Magazine is thoroughly fact-checked. Rhodes piece was no different.

— Jake Silverstein (@jakesilverstein) May 12, 2016

Since publication, it has been re-reviewed. To date, there have been no corrections made.

— Jake Silverstein (@jakesilverstein) May 12, 2016

In short, we stand behind the piece 100%.

— Jake Silverstein (@jakesilverstein) May 12, 2016

In the profile, Rhodes discussed creating an “echo chamber” of experts and journalists supportive of the Iran deal.

Republicans have seized on the piece to criticize the Obama administration’s tactics in selling the deal. 

Silverstein also defended the piece’s reporter, David Samuels, who has come under criticism by other outlets who say he was always opposed to the Iran deal.

“It is not accurate to say, as some are, that David is an ardent neocon who assiduously opposed the Iran Deal,” he said.

“So yes, David has views on Iran, some of them strong, but the position being attributed to him by some is a caricature,” he added. 

Silverstein said Samuels would “post something” clarifying his views on Iran. 

He also addressed criticism that Samuels was putting forth his own views in the piece through Rhodes.  

“Because Rhodes trusted Samuels and gave his time, Samuels was able to inhabit his subject’s world view, which is what a good profile does,” he added.

It is not accurate to say, as some are, that David is an ardent neocon who assiduously opposed the Iran Deal.

— Jake Silverstein (@jakesilverstein) May 12, 2016

So yes, David has views on Iran, some of them strong, but the position being attributed to him by some is a caricature.

— Jake Silverstein (@jakesilverstein) May 12, 2016

Most important of all, David's views, whatever they are, didn't distort his portrayal of how Rhodes & co operated

— Jake Silverstein (@jakesilverstein) May 12, 2016

That portrayal is based on extensive reporting and it has not been materially challenged by Rhodes himself.

— Jake Silverstein (@jakesilverstein) May 12, 2016