Rhodes Profile: Citizens, Spin and Truth in the Hybrid Information Era

Rhodes Profile: Citizens, Spin and Truth in the Hybrid Information Era
Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes at the White House, Washington, April 7, 2015 (AP photo by Pablo Martinez Monsivais).

One of the latest mini-dramas in Washington’s overheated political scene is centered on whether the Obama administration manipulated the truth about the Iran nuclear negotiations in order to sell the resulting deal to Congress and the American public. The larger story is about how the earnest citizen can navigate in a world where officials, experts and journalists are engaged in a complicated exchange of information, spin and advocacy. It’s not necessarily a new problem, nor a fixable one, but it only deepens the mistrust between government and the governed.

The controversy was kicked off by a recent New York Times Magazine profile of Ben Rhodes, a presidential speechwriter and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications who is considered one of President Barack Obama’s closest foreign policy advisers. In addition to profiling Rhodes, though, the piece raises serious questions about the interactions between senior government officials promoting a particular policy and the wider world of experts and advocates who take positions on the merits of that policy. The article portrays a White House that intentionally used the sympathetic nonproliferation community to promote the Iran nuclear agreement, by carefully feeding information that may not have reflected an accurate picture of the talks that culminated in the July 2015 agreement.

Rhodes generally enjoys a good reputation as an earnest staffer who can speak authoritatively on or off the record on the president’s thinking. It’s not clear if he completely understood how the journalist, David Samuels, was planning to interpret the information Rhodes provided. Rhodes most likely was dismayed at the insinuation that his nongovernment contacts who genuinely supported the agreement were somehow his puppets. Samuels, who was on the record as being a critic of the agreement, captured a smug and triumphant tone in Rhodes, who was, after all, happily bragging about one of the major achievements of the administration:

“We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.