AIPAC poured almost $15 million into elevating challenger George Latimer over Rep. Jamaal Bowman in a New York primary election.

REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN’S Tuesday upset defeat by Westchester County Executive George Latimer generated many perspectives on what exactly precipitated his downfall.

The New York Times published the headline “Bowman Falls in House Primary, Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money” — before swapping it out for “Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats.” Other coverage emphasized that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s spending wasn’t the only factor in the race and that Bowman’s flaws made him particularly vulnerable, as did changed district lines that made his reelection even tougher.

Progressive strategists, however, had a much more clear takeaway from the results.

“You don’t drop $15 million on an election if your positions are popular,” said Eva Borgwardt⁩, national spokesperson for the Jewish advocacy group IfNotNow, which endorsed Bowman. “This was an act of desperation from a pro-war lobby that is at odds with the majority of Americans, including American Jews.”

Borgwardt⁩ was referring to nearly $15 million spent on the race by AIPAC, the Israel lobby’s flagship in the U.S. Millions more poured in from AIPAC-aligned groups and donors, bringing the outside spending total to around $25 million.

  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
    5·
    6 months ago

    Disagreeing with one of the founders which doesn’t work there anymore means it’s untrustworthy? If you believe The Intercept is a “right wing propaganda outlet” you’d better to cite examples of that than what you think of an ex-employee.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      13·
      6 months ago

      What has The Intercept done since then to regain my trust? Because I certainly haven’t heard them disavow or criticize their founder.

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
        1·
        6 months ago

        Write factually accurate articles with amazing investigative reporting. Should they condemn Hamas Glenn Greenwald at the beginning of every article?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          1·
          6 months ago

          How about condemning him with any article? Just one.

          Because right now, he seems to be an untouchable subject when it comes to criticism from them, unlike virtually everything else.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              1·
              6 months ago

              Now you want me to go through every questionable thing Greenwald has said every time he does things like go on Fox News and agree with the presenter and pick a specific one?

              Okay, fine. How about when he called Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson socialists?

              https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/why-glenn-greenwald-says-tucker-carlson-is-a-true-socialist.html

              I’m sure The Intercept had a lot to say about that, right? No? Some other horrible stance he’s taken?

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                1·
                6 months ago

                I’ll agree with you that his comment is far fetched. His definition of a “socialist” appears to be more related to non-interventionism.

                As you had the courtesy to provide an example I did a little digging too and found that the Intercept did publish an article about Glenn which was not all that positive.

                His departure appears related to his belief that The Intercept was “censoring” his political views. https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/

                The articles I’ve read from Glenn from time to time have been accurate but it is good to know that his reporting is very selective.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  6 months ago

                  I’d read that article, but they apparently want to hoover up my data by making me make an account with my email address to sign in and read it.

                  Another reason not to trust The Intercept apparently.

                  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                    1·
                    6 months ago

                    Glenn Greenwald’s decision to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims.

                    The narrative Glenn presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies — all of them designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism.

                    We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept.

                    The defining feature of The Intercept’s work in recent years has been the investigative journalism that came out of painstaking work by our staffers in Washington, D.C., New York, and across the rest of the country. It is the staff of The Intercept that has been carrying out our investigative mission — a mission that has involved a collaborative editing process.

                    We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks. We get it. But facts are facts, and The Intercept’s record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself.