AEI scholar Michael Rubin has written an article defending himself from insinuations made in this NY Times article from Jan. 2, in which Times reporters David Cloud and Jeff Gerth wrote:

Lincoln has also turned to American scholars and political consultants for advice on the content of the propaganda campaign in Iraq, records indicate. Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research organization, said he had reviewed materials produced by the company during two trips to Iraq within the past two years.
“I visited Camp Victory and looked over some of their proposals or products and commented on their ideas,” Mr. Rubin said in an e-mailed response to questions about his links to Lincoln. “I am not nor have I been an employee of the Lincoln Group. I do not receive a salary from them.”
He added: “Normally, when I travel, I receive reimbursement of expenses including a per diem and/or honorarium.” But Mr. Rubin would not comment further on how much in such payments he may have received from Lincoln.

Today, Rubin writes: “This last statement is false. He ignored offers to show paperwork contradicting his thesis. A Lincoln Group administrator also told him it was false. Cloud rushed the story to print.”

He also comments on the lessons to be drawn from this episode:

The incident is instructive. It demonstrates the “gotcha” mentality with which reporters draw narratives first, omit facts which do not fit, and drive public opinion against personalities with whom they disagree. Several investigative reporters maintain a private Internet listserv in which they discuss targets with left-wing bloggers. Many U.S. newspapers reward headlines, not truth. Muck-racking journalists become tools of policy battles.

Rubin does not name any journalists taking part in these listservs, and in my opinion he should. His allegation would carry more weight if it were more specific. But his diagnosis of the problem is right on. Because the rules of objectivity prevent reporters from drawing conclusions and making arguments, they have to get their opinions across using omission and spin. This is dishonest, and the solution is to abandon the pretense that journalism can be objective.