Politico scribe cites 9-11 in critique of Robert Fisk's "dollar" piece

Politico writer takes a swipe at Robert Fisk's "dollar" piece

By Peter Duveen

PETER'S NEW YORK, Friday, October 9, 2009--Eamon Javers of Politico (www.politico.com) has taken some hefty swings at veteran journalist Robert Fisk, begging the question of why Javers is so intent on attacking the messenger, so to speak.

On Tuesday, Fisk penned a now famous piece, "The Demise of the Dollar," (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html) reporting that China, Russia, and an assortment of Middle Eastern countries are plotting to rob the Americans of the preeminent status they enjoy by having their national currency serve as the world's reserve currency. This sensational article, which moved markets worldwide and pushed gold to record highs against the dollar earlier this week, was obviously an embarrassment to the financial establishment. Was Javers appointed by the Americans to discredit Fisk, and thus, his message? In an otherwise lackluster analysis published Thursday entitled "Whodunit? Sneak attack on U.S. dollar" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28091.html), Javers attempts to trash Fisk's article, in a manner reminiscent of a light-footed boxer browbeating his opponent.

In a jab to the face, Javers first tries to unhinge the article from the news it reports by implying that it is a cheap attempt to manipulate the dollar, and not a news story at all. "So who wanted dollars diving and gold rising?" Javers asks. "In other words, who is Fisk's source, and why did he or she want to tank the dollar?"

Then Javers manages to score a belly punch with the claim that Fisk's sourcing is fuzzy. "Fisk's story...is sourced vaguely to 'Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong,'" Javers tells us, "and it included one blind quote, attributed to 'a prominent Hong Kong broker.'"

Then in a surprise left hook, Javers opens a cut over Fisk's right eye by citing a Wikipedia bio telling us that Fisk is an acclaimed British journalist, one of only a few "to have interviewed Osama bin Laden (three times)," but noting that Fisk "has expressed doubts that the United States has told the full story about the Sept. 11 attacks." Ah, questioning 9-11, the perceived "third rail" for anyone trying to keep their head above water as a public persona.

Now of course Fisk's notoriety should lend immediate credibility to the growing movement that questions the official story regarding the events of September 11, 2001. We are talking about people like former Reagan Treasury official Paul Craig Roberts, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, a host of celebrities such as Rosie O'Donnell, Daniel Sunjata and Charlie Sheen, etc. But no. In a typical perversion of reality that is the hallmark of the establishment media, Javers tries to cast Fisk as a fringe voice in journalism.

"An analyst's report from the Royal Bank of Scotland concluded," says Javers, that Fisk is "'increasingly associated with more radical theories thus weakening the credibility of the story.'"

Groping for the ropes, Fisk stumbles, one eye blackened and another swollen shut.

In a final blow that should be the knockout punch, Javers sums up Fisk's status, referring to his story--which has now attracted world notoriety and which was undoubtedly responsible for the movement of trillions of dollars in the various financial markets--as a "vaguely sourced, thinly detailed story."


But wait...it looks like Fisk is a "Rocky Balboa" after all, still standing after an incredible beating! Could what appears to be a mere critique of the work of a fellow journalist be somewhat more than that, just as Javers has read unstated intent into Fisk's work?

Page up a bit in Javers's story and you may find what the trashing of Fisk is really about.

"For American officials," says Javers, "the possibility of the dollar losing its long-term dominance in global commerce is a nightmare scenario because it would likely mean sharply higher interest rates at home and a declining ability to finance the U.S. debt." Javers's critique would appear to be uncannily aligned with the intention of these U.S. officials, who would undoubtedly hope to mitigate the damage caused by the information in Fisk's story.

Javers implies that Fisk is partnering with currency speculators who have bet against the dollar. But what are his sources? Certainly they do not even meet Fisk's standards. And who is Javers partnering with? The bell rings and Javers is ....disqualified!


(The above story, with any additions and corrections, may be found at http://www.petersnewyork.com/fisk.html.)

Robert Fisk discusses his article on Russia Today

Thanks stewball

I'll check that out.