Silence is too strong a word, but near-silence is accurate. Here's one interpretation:

Like Europe (and Israel), the United States' mainstream media - where the big bucks are - is very heavily tilted to the Left. The Left was hoping that the debate about Freeman would go away. But like the Dan Rather's fake evidence against President Bush and the fauxtography scandal during the Second Lebanon War, the blogosphere stepped in and did the job of being critical when the mainstream media was hoping an issue would go away.

Another is that this was a tiny affair in the grand scheme of things, and also involved very tricky areas where MSM journalists fear to tread - questions such as the relative importance of Freeman's former financial ties, the Israel lobby (are we allowed to use those words without being anti-Semitic?), the Schumer-Emmanuel connection, the China question, the realist-neocon debate, proper vetting, etc. A third is that the MSM often misses stories that are burning up the blogosphere. A fourth is that there was a conflict within the MSM between defending an Obama pick and offending AIPAC. Under those circumstances, just leave well alone. To be honest, I'm not sure. But I'd love to read a tick-tock story that showed how this evolved.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.