|
|
March 24, 2006
Red America, RIP... and the Great Blogger Bake Off"Now that Ben Domenech has resigned from washingtonpost.com I hope Jim Brady will do the right thing, the creative thing, the thing that would turn this sorry episode around and allow the post.com to come out with a win for its readers and in the blogosphere..."Now that Ben Domenech has resigned from the washingtonpost.com I hope Jim Brady will do the right thing, the creative thing, the thing that would turn this sorry episode around and allow the post.com to come out with a win for its readers and in the blogosphere. An open competition on the Web to be the next political blogger at post.com, but instead of hiring one “red state” person and leaving it at that (a strategic error in my opinion) Brady should say that three slots will be filled over the coming year. One from column right, one from column left, and a third voice that is definitely neither of those, which could mean libertarian— or not. When I say open I mean open: anyone can apply. But experience as a political blogger counts. You have to be an original linker and be able to think for yourself. Finalists and semi-finalists get named. There’s a week’s try-out period for the final few and a big bake off at the end— all with comments enabled. The competition would generate high interest online, and give the winning bloggers a great introduction. It’s their site, so the editors of washingtonpost.com would pick the winners and run the contest. This would be more in keeping with the reputation the post.com should have for being the most innovative newspaper site around— and the most open to emerging voices who are challenging the press. Without something like this to announce in the wake of the Ben Domenech meltdown, Brady and his crew will take a bigger hit. Bad karma will result. But I believe Brady, executive editor of the post.com, could turn that around. Thinking ahead, blogger Bill Hobbs has already applied. (In the comments to the Domenech resignation post.) Mr. Brady, I’m not likely to just repeat GOP talking points. Exactly. The open competition (which would include the online vetting that Domenech went through) would weed out the hacks, operatives, predictables and cheerleaders and allow for a truer picture of what you are going to get from the blogger. Since there would be three competitions going on, no one could complain about imbalance, or excessive dualism. (Has to be three.) And the event would show that the intensity of exchange in the blogosphere can produce good outcomes. “We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations,” Brady wrote in announcing the end of Red America. “Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.” If you’re a phony, it will be found out. Now let the Internet find your next great blogger, Jim. I wasn’t—in principle—against the Post.com hiring a Republican activist as an opinion writer. It didn’t bother me that Domenech lacks mainstream newsroom credentials, and doesn’t call himself a journalist. I found it more interesting than scandalous that he was home schooled. And to me it was an inspired thought to give a 24 year-old a blog at washingtonpost.com. Today I might be defending Jim Brady and company for their decision— if…. If Ben Domenech were a writer with some grace, a conservative but an original, a voice, something new on the scene, a different breed of young Republican, with perspective enough on the culture war to realize that while he can’t avoid being in it, he can avoid being of it. I might even be sympathizing with Ben if he had been that kind of hire. He wasn’t. That he wasn’t was suggested by his first post, Pachyderms in the Mist: Red America and the MSM, a strange and backward-facing thing the apparent purpose of which was once more to ridicule what Peggy Noonan called “the famous MSM.” And it is famous, as a construct that allows anyone to say anything about the news media without fear of contradiction. This was Ben: Any red-blooded American conservative, even those who hold a dim view of Patrick Swayze’s acting “talent,” knows a Red Dawn reference. For all the talk of left wing cultural political correctness, the right has such things, too (DO shop at Wal-Mart, DON‘T buy gas from Citgo). But in the progressive halls of the mainstream media, such things prompt little or no recognition. For the MSM, Dan Rather is just another TV anchor, France is just another country and Red Dawn is just another cheesy throwaway Sunday afternoon movie. I suppose he meant that reporters, editors and producers in the nation’s newsrooms are so clueless they don’t know why Dan Rather is such a prized conservative scalp, or that the right really hates the French. Besides being untrue, this was also an extremely ungracious statement, since the washingtonpost.com was bringing Ben Domenech aboard to bring news and clues about social conservatives to more Americans. As Greg Sargent wrote at Tapped, “Domenech’s MSM-bashing, of course, is belied by his own apparent hiring.” But in fact there is no MSM. No one answers for it. It has no address. And no real existence independent of the dreary statements in which it is bashed. Therefore it is not a term of accountability, which is one reason it’s grown so popular. No one’s accountable; therefore all rants can be right. If you’re a blogger, and you write things like, “The MSM swallowed it hook, line and sinker,” you should know that you have written gibberish. But you probably don’t, for to keep this knowledge from you is the leaden genius of MSM. And having made it to the big time, that was the genius Ben Domenech thought to tap in his very first post. Tells me he wouldn’t have survived an online bake-off. That’s the whole point of having one. You raise the bar. His resignation today is a good outcome. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Julian Sanchez at Reason’s Hit and Run blog builds on my bake-off idea and adds some shrewd observations. See Distributing Due Diligence. (March 29) Farhad Manjoo of Salon speaks to Brady, who says Domenech was thoroughly vetted. “We looked at a lot of people,” Brady said of the selection process. “We didn’t have anybody on the site who is on a consistent basis discussing issues of conservatives, someone who’s loyal to the cause of conservatism and not the administration. We were looking for people whose opinions are not necessarily in line with the majority of people who read the site. We wanted to create a little bit of buzz and controversy as well.” And Domenech, Brady said, fit the bill. “He was provocative.” See also Howard Kurz’s report(March 25). John Reinan, a Star-Tribue staffer, writes at his blog: It just happens that former Pioneer Press editor Deborah Howell, now the Post’s ombudsman, was in our newsroom today for a Q&A session on journalism topics. I asked her about the Domenech affair. Ed Morrisey, Will Blogs Eat Themselves? If anyone wanted to make an argument that the blogosphere is too immature to be considered partners in information dissemination with traditional media outlets, we’ve provided it in spades this week. We finally had an opportunity to garner a high-profile setting for bloggers at the nation’s premiere newspaper, and what did we do? We tore each other to shreds because we didn’t like the ideological perspective of the first person chosen for the experiment. We engaged in crude character assassination that greatly overshadowed the actual value of the blogosphere to find and correct real transgressions and deficiencies, as demonstrated by the discovery of Domenech’s plagiarism. Mick Stockinger has a reply to Morrisey that is worth reading in full. I see absolutely no problem with how the Domenech affair unwound—character assassination and everything. Its completely in character with the blogosphere and I don’t think most of us are here to impress the fellas at the Washington Post or at Rockefeller center. The blogospheric “market” should reward or punish behavior and let us develop consistent with the expectations and preferences of our readers. More…UNCoRRELATED: Domenech concedes. Joel Achenbach, the Post’s top blogger, says good riddance. “His blog, Red America, didn’t contain anything that would make someone think he was the second coming of William F. Buckley. Indeed, this whole affair seems like a spoof, a prank, to make all the real, authentic, rock-ribbed, hard-headed if perhaps slightly lizard-hearted conservatives look bad.” He also points out that Ben was just a contractor, a freelancer. He didn’t have a “job at the Post.” The Blogometer has a very thorough round-up of what led up to the resignation, including all the plagiarism charges. If you want the links, they’re in there. Ben Domenech pens a resignation note (RedState.com) I have a great many friends who are willing to stand and defend me on this. I appreciate their support. I have enormous respect for Jim Brady and the vision he has at WPNI. But while the folks at washingtonpost.com understand my position and are convinced by my arguments on many of these issues, they also feel that the firestorm here will only serve to damage us all, and that there is no way this blog can continue without being permanently tagged to this firestorm. Therefore, I have resigned this position with washingtonpost.com. But Ben’s not a blogger. Not a real blogger. If he were a real blogger, then in this part… But in the course of accusing me of racism, homophobia, bigotry, and even (on one extensive Atrios thread) of having a sexual relationship with my mother, the leftists shifted their accusations to ones of plagiarism. … there would be links to these charges. Dana Milbank in a Q and A with Post.com readers: What I don’t understand (although I haven’t inquired) is why the website couldn’t recruit somebody with more stature to do the job. This city is crawling with good conservative journalists with lots of heft. Domenech may be a smart fellow, but he’s 24 years old and tells Kurtz “I’m not a journalist.” I think that makes him the only “blogger” on the site who’s not a journalist. On March 21, Sean-Paul Kelley at The Agonist wrote that hiring Domench was dubious because “the whole Red State/Blue State meme is on the way out.” I agree. His first post was phoned in from ‘04. Matt Stoller says the lesson for Brady and the Post is: “Stop appeasing the right-wing. It’s bad for you.” Joe Gandelman has a broad assortment of reactions from across the spectrum. Jane Hamsher asks: “How exactly did Ben wind up on the pages of the WPNI?” She thinks Hugh Hewitt suggested it, and Brady listened. Via America blog, the email the Post ombsudman sent out to those who inquired: From: Deborah C Howell HowellDC@washpost.com Which was her way of getting out of addressing the Domenech matter. Of course, it’s inconsistent with her column, The Two Washington Posts.
Posted by Jay Rosen at March 24, 2006 3:12 PM
Comments
What I don't understand about this whole thing is why the Post gave him a blog in the first place. It was obvious from his first update that Domenech considered himself an enemy of the Washington Post. Why would they give a platform to someone who was--as I see it--opposed to their entire institutional mission? Posted by: Dan Miller at March 24, 2006 3:41 PM | Permalink An interesting question to ask is how would you feel if you were working in the Washington Post newsroom, and your website, which you probably already feel threatened by, a site you have little influence over, decides to hire someone that is openly hostile to you. Another interesting question to ask is did WashingtonPost.com actually believe RedAmerica provided some form of 'balance'? Because then they've equated a pundit with a journalist (most likely Froomkin). Another interesting question to ask is the moral issue of naming a column/blog after a selection of states in this country and declaring and generalizing their populace as belonging to one political point of view. The name of the blog - to me - said it all. American Idol for bloggers! Posted by: David Boyd at March 24, 2006 4:37 PM | Permalink Frankly, I think the WaPo should just encourage its editors and reporters to READ blogs instead of trying to compete by putting up its own blogs, of whatever point of view. Posted by: Meteor Blades at March 24, 2006 4:40 PM | Permalink What a brilliant suggestion, Jay! You should get a finder's fee, eh? Regarding Bill Hobbs, I know him and his work, and he would be a good one for the Post to consider, contest or otherwise. Posted by: Terry Heaton at March 24, 2006 5:02 PM | Permalink Well here's a group of eighty candidates for such a position-- and they don't even need to be shown around the Washington Post newsroom. Posted by: A.J. Liebling at March 24, 2006 5:02 PM | Permalink Hey, A.J. Think the Posties in the newsroom who have it in for Brady and think he should be dumped, while the post.com is folded into Downie's domain are high-fivin each other on this one? Or would it be limited to: "We're cutting reporters and adding know-nothing bloggers who can't last a week, for what? why? will someone explain to me the logic of that?" I think Ben Domenech's parting shot -- though, because he's likely to have much more to say, perhaps that term is inapt -- on his RedState post nicely captures why, among many other reasons, this was such a terrible pick. Domenech wrote that he took "solace" in the fact that the people who were criticizing him this week were doing that instead of bashing America. That is exactly the kind of discourse that belongs nowhere near the Washington Post. Posted by: Ankush Khardori at March 24, 2006 5:30 PM | Permalink I think your bake-off idea is brilliant, Jay. But I'd take it one step further: how about a reality TV show on Fox in which nine ambitious, conservative bloggers are locked into an underground bunker and not allowed to leave until they unanimously agree on which one of them will become the next WaPo blogger? James Wolcott could do the color commentary, and Atrios could hand out popcorn. At the moment of victory, Dick Cheney would emerge from a previously undisclosed bunker-within-the-bunker to coronate the winner. 1. I don't get this fondness that some people, apparently including Mr. Rosen, have for ideological affirmative action. Are conservatives a class against which there has been historical discrimination of the kind that African Americans suffered? Have they been systematically denied educational opportunities? Is there data, as is regularly compiled by the Urban League about African Americans, to the effect that equally qualified conservatives are 20% less likely to receive the job that the American majority? The Post *should* have been hiring talented people, some of whom might well be conservative or liberal. The hire of the son of Republican hack looks like political nepotism of the sleaziest sort. 2. Look closely at what Brady wrote in Ben Domenech's exit letter. These numerous documented instances of plagiarism are "allegations" "under investigation." This is awfully weak tea for such a strong leaf! Brady does not mention Domenech's extremism, notably the Coretta Scott King bit. Nor does he think it troubling that Domenech's comrades have been so staunch in defending Domenech's plagiarism and dishonesty. I for one feel that the battle in this country is not so much between liberal and conservative but between citizen and crook. It's unfortunate that the Republican Party seems to have aligned itself with crooks, but any reasonable citizen would be just as much opposed to a liberal plagiarist as to a conservative one. 3. And so, one inevitably returns to Jim Brady. Ben Domenech is just one more screwy kid, but Jim Brady is the man who hired him. Surely that wasn't a good decision. Neither was the decision to wait as long as Brady did. Nor was the decision to let Domenech leave without standing up tall and denouncing Domenech for what he is in uncertain terms. If this were the only episode, we'd call it an off week. But we also saw Jim Brady's bad judgment in Howell v. America, and how it cost The Post a lot of reader goodwill. If someone very senior in the newspaper isn't reconsidering the decision to hire Jim Brady, the paper really is rudderless. The rage from the left struck me as hypocritical, but then I didn't know Domenech or his writing. When I found out that he'd called Mrs. King a communist and written other inflammatory stuff, I thought where were his credentials. When I checked the claims of plagiarism, I realized he was another Jayson Blair. Bill Hobbs has been blogging for a long time. He a favorite Instapundit linkee, and he's smart and a good writer. I'm not a libertarian, but I usually agree with Hobbs' points. The thing about blogging is that it's a reaction to news. Occasionally bloggers report facts that the MSM miss or scoop them on breaking stories, like the Tsunami, but most of the time, they're just logging the interesting websites they've visited. That's where the term web log originated. It's how Yahoo! began, just a list of interesting websites where people could find links to other, more specialized sites. Ideally, a blogger wouldn't be a full-time journalist, although many of those are excellent bloggers. He should be mature, which Domenech isn't, smart and perspicuous. From his blog, I'd say Bill Hobbs is all of those. The point is whoever they get should be able to articulate views you don't get from the rest of the Washington Post's website or newspaper. How about a milblogger in Iraq? Or Michael Yon? Your suggestion is, of course, an excellent one, and the question is, why didn't Brady do it this way? At the risk of offense, it's not the most original idea in the world. A lot of us would have proposed something similar. Anyone who posts here could find numerous excellent blogger candidates for one of these positions within about an hour. Yet Brady not only sought only one blogger, but somehow managed to find the worst possible candidate that combined offensiveness, dishonesty and the appearance of special privilege. It reminded me of the long ago days when Marc Wilson quarterbacked the Raiders and seemed to magically seek out the free safety of the opposing team and throw the ball to him. But, why stop with three, when washingtonpost.com could easily get 5, 7 or 9? I emphasize this, because there is tendency to structure these things to exclude voices to the left of liberals in the Democratic Party. So, I think that the Post should go even farther, because the 3 blogger approach is, I think, too restrictive, and prone to resulting in hires that conform to the Post's blinkered vision of the political and social world beyond it. So, why did Brady do it this way? Possibly, because he wanted to get someone that would please the conservatives in ascendency at the paper. Possibly, to get settle old scores with Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher and the liberal "netroots" (to which I do not belong, by the way, even if I cruise through every now and then). Let's hope that it's not because he shares Domenech's excreble attitudes towards African Americans, gays and lesbians. After all, Brady said that he looked into Domenech's background, and hired him because the website needed the views of a "social conservative". God help us if social conservatism is now equated with Domenech. This is a man who considers the KKK to have moral qualities superior to those of the US Supreme Court. Brady is also displaying some peculiar judgment by equating Domenech with "red state" America. "Red states" are not foreign countries that require us to have passports to visit. I have friends and relatives there, as all of us do, and they don't necessarily see the world like Domenech, and would be offended at the suggestion. Accordingly, I would add, to the extent that it is not implicit in your proposal, that Brady try to avoid simplistic stereotypes in selecting bloggers, such as "red" and "blue" state America, "Bush Republicans" and "Clinton Democrats", etc. Seems to me, you just always end up in trouble that way. Brady might also seek some opinion outside the Post to expand the pool of applicants, as some here are already making recommendations. Finally, there must be a temptation for the Post to try to solve the problem by extending an olive branch to the Daily Kos and firedoglake, among others. It must be tempting, especially from an administrative politics approach, but, when you combine it with the 3 blogger proposal, it would result in a missed opportunity for the Post. Brady can be much more creative. If Brady keeps his job (and we have wonder if he will, because this is a major mistake, revealing horrible, horrible judgment on his part), then this is a good way for him to turn lemons into lemonade. Finally, let me throw a couple of hats into the ring: David Neiwert: Orcinus Tom Englehardt: TomDispatch and, if Brady is willing to be really, really daring, here's two that will push the envelope, and probably generate a lot of traffic as well: Chris Floyd: Empire Burlesque A'sad Abukhalil: Angry Arab News Service See us ranters aren't so bad. We will even provide free consulting services. Posted by: Richard Estes at March 24, 2006 6:32 PM | Permalink Salon.com bagged an interview with Brady. link And the site still wants someone on the right. "A conservative columnist, a conservative blogger, whatever it ends up being. Certainly we're looking, but I don't know the timeframe," Brady said. There is more about the alleged vetting process and how the young plagiarist was chosen. It seems that Brady liked the idea of putting the name-calling rants on the website "Brady said the site picked Domenech for two reasons: he's conservative and provocative." We obviously did plenty of background checks" on Domenech, Brady said. He explained that Post editors read "basically everything he'd written" during the past few years and had spoken to many people who had previously worked with Domenech -- "both people he referred us to and people we found on our own," Brady said. Plagiarism, though, is not an easy thing to spot, Brady suggested. "We did a lot of vetting but that's a difficult thing to catch someone on."
Posted by: Phredd at March 24, 2006 6:39 PM | Permalink Love Church Lady Brady's "Potentially. Potentially." So like Edward Everett Horton exclaiming "Tonsils --positively tonsils!" in Trouble in Paradise. Blogistan is not a dinner party -- though there are snacks. It's the new Max's Kansas City actually, and as such it's so nice to have Jane Hamsher doing Dorothy Dean duty -- manning the door and giving the bum's rush to the likes of Box Turtle Ben. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 24, 2006 6:41 PM | Permalink What is with Brady thanking media outlets for bringing attention to the allegations of plagiarism? It was the liberal bloggers, first cracked by a Daily Kos blogger named Oregon guy (a liberal blogger still in the army) and another kossack named silence. Media matters picked up OG's post and then it exploded from there. In many ways this is about sourcing where you get your information from. This is just another example for me of why the washingtonpost.com and Brady don't get it. P.S. Jay I love your idea and it is what should have happened in the first place. Personally I think Stoller would be a great guy for the liberal blogger role. Posted by: Julia Rosen at March 24, 2006 6:41 PM | Permalink Julia, Jim Brady is in the awkward position of having to do a double flip while skating backwards on parallel bars and talking out of both sides of his mouth. For those who have memories longer than a mayfly, when we last came across Jim Brady, he was denouncing "bloggers" as profane and abusive hooligans for noticing that Deborah Howell had grossly misstated the situation in the Abramoff bribery scandal. In the end this fizzled into the strange formulation that Jack Abramoff had "directed" suspect contributions to Democrats, resulting in them receiving a smaller share of the money than they had previously. Some of us would formulate that as Abramoff told the Indians to *cut* their contributions, but in Washington the meanings of words are often inversely related to the usage to which they are put. Oh, and last I heard, he had stiffed Jay Rosen on an interview to explain all this. Anyway, these profane and abusive blogger dimwits have managed to discover what The Post's hiring process did not: that their new blogger is bad for business. Now Brady *could* come out in favor of plagiarism, as RedState apparently has. But that contortion is so extreme that it could cause a hernia so extreme that Jim Brady would exist as a Moebius strip. So, he is trying the slightly less demanding Janus feat, in which he hides the side of his face that treats bloggers as the major threat to journalism in favor of the side of his face that appreciates bloggers for bringing to his attention "allegations" of plagiarism. I predict that the result of this double flip skating backwards on parallel bars, talking out of both sides of his mouth, will end in craniorectal impaction. For The Post, if not for Mr. Brady. On a lighter note, Paul McLeary's kicker on his Wednesday piece at CJR Daily on the hiring of Domenech by the Post looks positively prescient in retrospect: "So, welcome to the MSM, kid. Where the linemen are bigger, the running backs faster, the quarterbacks throw bullets and your own tactics can -- and will -- be used against you." Me, I'm sweet-talking and arm-twisting McLeary right now to give me tomorrow night's Lotto numbers. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at March 24, 2006 7:20 PM | Permalink "Oh, and last I heard, he had stiffed Jay Rosen on an interview to explain all this." Incorrect, Charles. It was John Harris, national politics editor. On a more serious note: Posted by: Steve Lovelady at March 24, 2006 7:28 PM | Permalink I like the idea of a bake-off, but why aim for ideological opposites? How about just the three best political blogwriters among the applicants? And for goodness sake, don't reserve one place for a "libertarian". Libertarians make up a tiny, tiny portion of the electorate. And anyway, they seem mostly conservatives who like to smoke dope. :) Their philosophy, such as it is, simply is not accepted by the vast majority of Americans. Pieces of it, certainly (liberals might like the legalization of drugs idea, while conservatives might support the idea of minimizing public education). But as a whole? Sure, there's something in there to annoy just about everyone. Not even most libertarians seem to support libertarianism in its "purity" (no public schools or hospitals...). Anyway, the notion that libertarians deserve a place at the table right up there with the big guys (liberals and conservatives) is a sign that they're a whole lot better at PR than they are at running for public office. You might just as well say, "Make the third blogger a socialist." But it would be interesting to have the third blogger be a non-American. How about a Canadian or Brit analyzing us from a distance? That at least would be more novel than the spouting of settled political opinions. Posted by: jerri at March 24, 2006 7:46 PM | Permalink "Libertarians" are the "But I'm really Bisexual"(s) of Politics. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 24, 2006 7:51 PM | Permalink The unanswered question is why Brady overlooked them in favor of hiring a political hack with a demonstrated affinity for little more than character assasination, invective and logical shortcuts. Because he wanted a political hack, a right wing political hack, one who would infuriate the so-called left blogsphere. The hire was a big f-u to all those mean bloggers who sought accountability when the Ombudsman was trashing Froomkin and parroting GOP lies on Abramoff. Either that, or he was leaned on real hard and basically told he had to hire the kid...in order to appease the WH/GOP and maintain access. What other believable explanations are there? The claim that they hired him based on his writing is a joke. Posted by: steve schwenk at March 24, 2006 7:57 PM | Permalink The trouble with brining in three new bloggers of various ideologies is that it does nothing to balance out the leftward tilt of Post.com's current bloggers. By the way, I see terms like "Mainstream Media (MSM) or, perhaps better, "Dominant Media", the same way others use "The Press", "citizens", "a public" or "Gang of 500": A short-hand for referents generally (though not always perfectly) sharing characteristics similar enough for purposes of discussion - - such abstractions are often necessary for discussion of matters outside the scope of a writer or reader's personal, physical experience. Simply because a subset of the dominant media differs from its brethren (e.g. Fox News) doesn't mean the rough generalization (liberal news media) is faulty, at least on the whole. Posted by: Trained Auditor at March 24, 2006 8:24 PM | Permalink Hello, everyone: I found my way here from Achenblog , Joel Achenbach's always entertaining blog on the WaPo web site. What a treat to find a place where all the participants can reason, write, and spell! I'll definitely be back. That said, I'd be cautious about recommending Bill Hobbs as a replacement for Ben Domenech. I speak on the basis of the slimmest evidence, but, when he nominated himself earlier today, I visited his now-defunct blog and saw that, when he signed off a couple of months ago, he recommended to his readers that they tune into Little Green Footballs to keep up with public affairs. That can't be good. Looking forward to spending more time here. Posted by: J.Rae at March 24, 2006 8:26 PM | Permalink I know a couple of WPNI employees (not writers) and the line about cutbacks vs hiring 24 year old know-nothings is pretty accurate. The two that I know (and I live about a block from WPNI's headquarters in Clarendon) were pissed about just how god-damned unprofessional, amaturish, and bloody-shirt waving hiring Domenech was going to look -- not to mention that the boy was just a bad hire all around. If even the designers were saying that, wonder what the writers were thinking? I'm curious how Jay, how you defend the hiring of Ben if he had just been a different type of writer? What about the doublespeak from Brady about a) we don't hire opinion writers to fit into a political classification and b) we needed social-conservative voices? So if Ben had been a more original "social-conservative" voice there would have been nothing wrong with his hiring? Despite the fact it was all about the Froomkin incident? About working the refs? About the fact one senses Jim Brady really hates the liberal Post critics (Kos, firedoglake, Media Matters) in a way he doesn't hate the conservative Post critics (Bush and most of the Republican apparatus except McCain). I hate the idea that Brady's only real mistake besides picking such a twit was that he didn't add a "Blue" state twit as well. What about the idea that the Post is simply redoing, badly, the same editorial page that's been out there for a 100 years in blog form? You have one Democrat and one Republican on the page and, blamo! Call it balance. What is Brady expected that either Domenech (or someone like him) is going to offer WPNI readers? I just can't get over the fact that Domenech was hired basically to cater to people that hate the Post. It's like "here, you got your one guy on the City Council. Now stop picketing city hall." Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at March 24, 2006 9:01 PM | Permalink There are lots and lots of others. I was concentrating more on those who seem to have escaped any negative consequences for their plagiarism. But it was surprising to me to see names like Erlanger, Applebaum, and Weinraub up there. Ivins, not so much. Oops, here's Maureen Dowd. And this seems to be a far worse journalistic sin than plagiarism to me. The double standards being applied here are breathtaking. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at March 24, 2006 9:10 PM | Permalink Cat: I think what Brady was going for, the guy he thought he hired, was a conservative who was not pro-Bush. That was his way of squaring the circle, if you will. He wasn't "catering" because this isn't a GOP loyalist. That was his reasoning. (Not my reasoning, but I am speculating that it might have been his.) Not at all, Jay. The Post hates its readership -- which is liberal. It's gone from being a vaguely centerist paper (in its glory days in the 70's) to being a wanna-be neo-fascist one. There a lot more where Box Turtle Ben came from. Don't think for a nanosecond that Brady's next hire won't be ideologically different. He'll just "Google" him a bit more carefully to check out that "paper trail." Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 24, 2006 9:24 PM | Permalink Jason if you want to put the hate on Maureen Dowd you get no argument from me. I've hated her work since the Clinton era. I don't care if what she writes is original or not. It's terribly shallow and not nearly half as amusing or insightful as Dowd thinks. Jay, if that was Brady's thinking...then could he have really digged all that hard into Domenech's resume? It almost seems like Brady didn't know anything about the guy before he hired him except that he founded Redstate.org. I'm not sure if Brady is really surprised at Domenech's resume or his Augustine's posts, but if Brady really thought that Domenech was pro-GOP not necessarily pro-Bush I'm not sure how he would have arrived at that conclusion based on this guy's resume and writings. So what's your point, Jason ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at March 24, 2006 9:37 PM | Permalink Kind and wise host, your line about the so-called MSM is precisely what I've been trying futilely to tell a few correspondents in the past few weeks. I guess I'll have to crib a paragraph or two. Posted by: trotsky at March 24, 2006 9:59 PM | Permalink The Post a neo-fascist newspaper? Sounds serious. That's several stops beyond Crooks & Liars calling it a mouthpiece for the GOP. The new fascists at washingtonpost.com... no, that doesn't sound good at all. David: are you alarmed that the biggest and most influential newspaper in the capital has gone fascist on us? You don't sound alarmed. But maybe you're made your peace with it already. after reading the Salon piece, I have to agree with Steve Schwenk's assessment --- this hire was Brady's "revenge" for the Howell/Abramoff kerfluffle. Brady wanted "provocative", not "thought-provoking" -- and the only people who would be "provoked" by the hiring of someone like Ben Domenech are the same people who were outraged by Deborah Howell's Abramoff lie. ******** btw, Jay, if Brady is still in the "provocation" business, perhaps you could put in a word for me as the Post's next blogger. I've written under a pseudonym, have said highly controversial and outrageous things that have pissed people off in the past, I'm just as inept a writer as Ben D. is, but at least in my case, I'm not a plagarist! ;) Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 24, 2006 10:34 PM | Permalink Jay, being both black and gay I've lived my life in a constant state of what you would call "alarm" -- though I'm perfectly calm. No reason not to be. I'm 59 years-old. I remember what this country went through with Vietnam -- though I of course was bypassed by the draft being too "immoral" to be trained to kill perfect strangers in foreign climes. However, as a member of the anti-war movement I know what police terror is like. Nothing surprises me. Plenty disgusts me, however -- especially the Reagan generation. Scum -- the lot of them. Just scum. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 24, 2006 11:57 PM | Permalink So is it all a matter of a balance sheet, Jason? Seriously, I'm not clear on what you're saying. In most of those cases (I didn't check all of Jason's complaints) the offending writer recognized the error, apologized and, in some cases, lost a job. But I'm with Steve Lovelady, what's the point. Ivins apologized to the writer she lifted from. So how is this comparable to Ben's word theft? Are just saying she lifted entire blocks of text verbatim for her column? For that matter, how is any of this comparable to the excreable way in which Ben has foisted responsibilty for his plagiarism on everyone except himself? As for Ben's replacement, I'm happy with the run-off idea, though I'd just as soon there be no ideological litmus test involved. Someone who can write well and with some thought would be nice for a change. But do we really need more bomb throwers? Posted by: Dave McLemore at March 25, 2006 12:24 AM | Permalink "We looked at a lot of people," Brady said of the selection process. "We didn't have anybody on the site who is on a consistent basis discussing issues of conservatives, someone who's loyal to the cause of conservatism and not the administration. We were looking for people whose opinions are not necessarily in line with the majority of people who read the site. We wanted to create a little bit of buzz and controversy as well." And Domenech, Brady said, fit the bill. "He was provocative." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/24/brady/ He wanted to create "buzz" and "controversy." And this is how he wanted it done: This is a blog for the majority of Americans. Since the election of 1992, the extreme political left has fought a losing battle. Their views on the economy, marriage, abortion, guns, the death penalty, health care, welfare, taxes, and a dozen other major domestic policy issues have been exposed as unpopular, unmarketable and unquestioned losers at the ballot box. Democrats who have won major elections since 1992 have, with very few exceptions, been the ones who distanced themselves from the shrieking denizens of their increasingly extreme base, soft-pedaled their positions on divisive issues and adopted the rhetoric and positions of the right -- pro-free market, pro-business, pro-faith, tough on crime and strongly in favor of family values. Yet even in a climate where Republicans hold command of every branch of government, and advocate views shared by a majority of voters, the mainstream media continues to treat red state Americans as pachyderms in the mist - an alien and off-kilter group of suburbanite churchgoers about which little is known, and whose natural habitat is a discomforting place for even the most hardened reporter from the New York Times. So who was Brady trying to provoke with words like these? What sort of "controversy" was he aiming for? Brady could have gotten a conservative who was not a Bush devotee without choosing someone so "provocative," someone who was certain to inflame and outrage the DKos and Atrios, et al. readership, unless of course that was his goal. And that's why it blew up in his face. It had become personal for Brady after the Deborah Howell show-down. That episode apparently deeply humiliated and angered him. (Recall the censoring and then re-posting of comments, etc. It was painful to watch. Brady had lost control of the situation.) This was his revenge. And perhaps he rationalized that it would drive up traffic and make the wingnuts happy to boot. But his primary goal was to even the score, that's why Ben was the obvious choice. He isn't under any other criteria. Hubris. It often produces results such as these. That's my hunch, at least. Posted by: steve schwenk at March 25, 2006 1:01 AM | Permalink Is it just me, or doesn't the very idea of a blogger being contracted by a "mainstream" news source somewhat discredit him or her from being n authentic "blogger"? Is what defines a blogger simply the technology? Or is it the approach -- the spirit of independent thinking, the freedom from newsroom pressures and/or constraints, the luxury of being able to comment without your individual opinions reflecting upon an entire publication, staff, etc.? Food for thought: If one of the Washington Post's bloggers would have the bravado to write something that ticks off a major advertiser (or, in the times we find ourselves, a certain administration) -- how long can we expect that post to remain online? Seriously, how much free reign do we expect any blogger to get at the Post? In essence, then, without free reign, isn't anyone the Washington Post props up actually going to be just another (edited and sanctioned) columnist -- not a true blogger? Isn't it the backs of our minds that blogging has taken off because a preponderance of people feel the mainstream media are failing us? Taking that into account, I, for one, would be much more in favor of the Post spending their cash to hire more reputable and diverse additions to their editorial staff -- rather than trying to break into a new field that has emerged because of the (self-created) deficiencies there. Heal what's broken -- don't invest in so many band-aids. To sum, isn't the Washington Post's foray into blogging essentially a Quixotic ruse? Posted by: gaymafioso at March 25, 2006 1:14 AM | Permalink "The unanswered question is why Brady overlooked them in favor of hiring a political hack with a demonstrated affinity for little more than character assasination, invective and logical shortcuts." Not only a political hack with a demonstrated affinity, etc. But a college dropout to boot. But it's not an unanswered question. The answer is: Daddy. That's what fries me about this whole thing. I never heard of the guy before he got the gig at the Post, and I barely looked up until the plagiarism melee. What caught my attention was his age. He was 24 years old. While he certainly had held some impressive job titles, the very fact that he'd held those positions despite his youth, incomplete education and stodgy prose (the stuff that he didn't copy) should have screamed "nepotism" to any savvy employer. (I suppose it's just a coincidence that William & Mary was the only time the kid had ever been exposed to an environment where his father's name or his mother's forgiveness couldn't protect him.) So why him? There's a thousand well-established hacks who have done their time--better yet, a hundred or more excellent conservative bloggers who would have made the most of this opportunity. Why give it to a kid with no untainted credentials, a kid who couldn't stay in college? Does his father buy a lot of advertising at the Post?
Domenech's plagiarism was committed in "traditional journalism" venues, with "traditional" editors vetting and blessing his plagiarism. And, were it not for the blogosphere, the "traditional" Brady would still be paying a plagiarist. Which brings up another point--what sort of quality control is going on in these mid-tier venues like NRO? Are they vetting their writers, or just publishing people who sing the song they want to hear? I read NRO often, and enjoy it. But I've often noticed egregious, unforgivable errors by their "contributing" writers. Posted by: Cal Lanier at March 25, 2006 1:19 AM | Permalink I think David Ehrenstein raises a very interesting point here--I have a strong sense that Deborah Howell and the reporters that hate Dan Froomkin pretty clearly DO hate their readership. They ARE pissed off. Jim Brady, sadly, needs to get along with the RNC moles on the print side of the operation. It comes off like an episode of Invasion of the RNC Bodysnatchers. The Washington Post for some years now appears to suffer from Stockholm syndrome where it's been held hostage by the right for so long that it resents the suggestion of any perspective that forces it to face its own captivity--that it's "been fixed" as Grover Norquist has so empathetically put it. Or are the warriors on the print side of the Wa Po an autonomous band of rightist culture warriors themselves? Jim Brady's ignorance of the blogosphere argues for the former, everything surrounding the Froomkin kerfluffle, particularly Howell's officially annointed hackery (Howell clearly taking as her charge to serve as RNC ombudsman, that is to serve the needs of readers actually on the RNC payroll), supports the latter. If the Washington Post online intentionally and voluntarily hires a conservative hack whose bread and butter is that he hates the Washington Post, doesn't that require us to conclude that the Washington Post online hates itself? Sadly, such logic doesn't apply to the hypocrisy of Ben Domenech--biting the MSM hand that feeds you is tried and true best practice for "provocation" from the right. If logic had any consequences for this schtick, Comedy Channel could just program O'Reilly and Hewitt straight and we'd all be laughing. Is there precedent for a major American newspaper so brazenly declaring that it holds the vast majority of ITS OWN READERSHIP in contempt? What constitutency is being served by the Republicanization of the Washington Post? Other than neutering journalism per se, is there really a market of Republican readers for the Washington Post? Hasn't the right wing echo chamber been hanging the Post in effigy for several years now even after the takeover? Is there really anything short of a total ban on deviating from the White House story of the day that would satisfy the Washington Post's critics?
Is there a business model behind sending the big F.U. to the majority of your readers? We've heard about the access model legitimating the big F. U. Does the perceived need to access McLellan stonewall sessions trump even the profit motive? I suppose if the editorial line-up for the Wa Po in print is already an RNC panderfest, why confine the psychosis to the old media platform? On Thursday's Countdown, Keith Olbermann said, "Of course Cheney requires his TV to be tuned to Fox. He has to check up to be sure they are saying what he told them to say." The emergence of Deborah Howell and the hiring of Ben Domenech at the Washington Post states quite emphatically that someone in the White House is reading the Washington Post for pretty much the same reasons. It's not a joke. Jay, This obviously has to be a hypothetical as no such person exists in real life. What does it say about Brady's haplessness that he can imagine he hired a unicorn with two horns? Posted by: Mark Anderson at March 25, 2006 1:22 AM | Permalink I'm amazed at how much some of you know of Brady's intentions. How do you learn such inside stuff? Cal: "Were it not for the blogosphere, the 'traditional' Brady would still be paying a plagiarist." True. What I was trying to suggest in my post is... just as the blogosphere did a better job of vetting Ben than post.com could, the blogosphere could do a better job of finding, sorting and crowning applicants for the next bloggers positions. Maybe the constituency that's being served by the Republicanization of the Washington Post has nothing to do with its readers. Perhaps it all has to do with improving the bottom line of the parent company that runs the newspaper, the website, the radio and television stations, and the educational arm (Kaplan). The Republican loosening of radio and tv regulations has benefited that part of the Post conglomerate. Plus the recent government decision that students who receive gov't grants and loans may do 100% of their studies as distance learners who never set foot on a college campus is a tremendous boon and will increase the profitability of the educational arm and Kaplan. Was this latest government decision a quid pro quo? Maybe it seems that way to me because I cannot think of any other reason why the editorial board of the WP continues to support the Bush Administration. Or perhaps the Washington Post in the 1970s was an aberration, influenced by the Grahams' close friendship with the Kennedys and distrust of the Nixons. Perhaps the top brass at the Post held Nixon in the same low esteem that Sally Quinn held the Clintons. Maybe that's why Clinton was impeached and Bush will never be. Maybe it was never about truth, justice and the American way but was simply the upper social class putting those "pretenders" in their place.
Posted by: OhioBlue at March 25, 2006 3:21 AM | Permalink I don't remember now how the subject came up or why it came up with Dana Milbank in particular, but sometime last year I suggested to him that the Post hire several bloggers to comment on the stories of the day, with the additional fillip that the bloggers be provided access to the stories before they're posted so they can start working on responses ahead of time. He said he'd pass the comments along to the online mavens, but I guess they skipped some parts of it. It isn't my fault. Achenbach is right: it was a left-wing plot. gaymafioso, there's no necessary conflict between blogging on one's own and doing it under the auspices of a newspaper or other institutional press outlet. One would only have to choose Spiderman as the cinematic backstop instead of Red Dawn, and remember Uncle Ben's admonishment that "with great power comes great responsibility." I for one would dearly love access to the Post's clout, archives and Lexis-Nexis account. Posted by: weldon berger at March 25, 2006 3:27 AM | Permalink Jay: "I'm amazed at how much some of you know of Brady's intentions." Brady's behavior (and not just recently) is bizarre, to put it mildly. Some people are trying to figure this out, which includes the use of educated guesses. This seems ordinary to me, so I'm puzzled that you would react with ridicule. Speaking of people who are not reluctant to make guesses, I'm "amazed at how much you know of Brady's intentions." You said "I think what Brady was going for, the guy he thought he hired, was a conservative who was not pro-Bush." Is this something "you know of Brady's intentions," or is it exactly the same kind of guess you're ridiculing? Aside from that, I didn't realize Domenech is "not pro-Bush." If you were "a real blogger ... there would be links" to support this assertion of yours. Anyway, as many have suggested, Brady's track record of bizarre behavior didn't start this week. Accordingly, it mystifies me that you're still inclined to prop him up, at the exact moment that we're handed another pile of clues that he shouldn't be trusted. Almost two months ago, I asked you "why you're inclined to look away from the gaping holes in the story Brady has told." You said this was a "good question[s] ... I'll have to get back to you on it." Maybe this would be a good time for you to do that. Posted by: jukeboxgrad at March 25, 2006 3:35 AM | Permalink [Is it just me, or doesn't the very idea of a blogger being contracted by a "mainstream" news source somewhat discredit him or her from being an authentic "blogger"? Is what defines a blogger simply the technology? Or is it the approach -- the spirit of independent thinking, the freedom from newsroom pressures and/or constraints, the luxury of being able to comment without your individual opinions reflecting upon an entire publication, staff, etc.?] No, it isn't just you. There has been something quixotic about this from the beginning as you say. There is a tension between the independence of bloggers and the economic constraints of corporate journalism. There is also a social limitation as well, you can say things on the net under your own name, or in a communal framework, say, RedState, that you can't say with a mainstream corporate entity. Don't assume, however, that it can never be overcome, just look at the music industry, which perpetually struggles with this dilemma, but doesn't always fail. Jazz, rock, punk, rap . . all were partially co-opted and a lot of money has been made. But let me politely say that t you are making a mistake here. Brady wasn't really looking for a blogger in the conventional sense of the term. There is a genre of so-called right wing blogging (so-called because it isn't really right wing, and, indeed, it's not even really blogging, unless you just define a blog as anything posted by someone on the net, it's something far more insidious), and it has taken its cue from talk radio, and pushed the envelope to the edge, providing forums for people to openly express hostility, and even outright bigotry towards women, immigrants, gays, lesbians, and African Americans in particular, as they can play upon a deep reservior of historic racism even as African Americans decline as a percentage of the population. After all, there's no FCC on the net (and that's still a good thing). Domenech, at least when he could write something without stealing it, is a classic product of this environment, and the scariest thing about this episode is the fact that Jim Brady is on record as inferentially saying that the vile writings of Domenech constitute "social conservatism". Because that's the reason he said he hired Domenech after investigating Domenech's background and writings. At the risk of being repetitive, it is essential for me to note that I personally know quite a number of people who consider themselves conservatives (at least 4 people immediately come to mind), and none of them would identify with Domenech. I'm guessing that a lot of people who post here can do likewise. So what this tell you about Brady when he comes to the opposite conclusion? Along these lines, the blunt comment of Steve Gilliard is apt: But what bothers me is that it is perfectly acceptable to be a conservative Republican and say the most vile things about blacks and their leaders and find an audience, even be defended by some. And that the Washington Post hired one of these people and didn't fire him outright. and then they wonder why people don't subscribe and why people turn to the Internet. Brady's euphemistically describes this behavior as "provocative", and seems to believe that this kind of provocation can be bottled and given a washingtonpost.com label without consequence. Looks like Brady wanted to exploit a big population of people that he thought would increase the visibility and traffic associated with the web site. A media company pandering to an angry, resentful, but affluent audience by treating what it perceives as marginalized, defenseless people as foils. We've never seen that before, have we? And the fact he could poke a proverbial stick in the eye of someone like Jane Hamsher just made it all that much better. So much for Brady, the guru known for his creative, novel uses of the Internet. Accordingly, the technology of communication was pretty irrelevant, except that the social dimensions associated with it are far more important than the technology itself, as it would have never been possible for the Post in print form to publish someone like Domenech on a permanent basis. This is the true significance, the true insight to be gleaned from Deborah Howell's haughty statement that Domenech will never write for the Post. Just because she can't get the Abramoff scandal right doesn't mean that we should right off everything she says as unfounded. The more freewheeling Internet was a different matter, and Brady has based his career on this concept. But, at least this week, not so freewheeling that Brady can associate washingtonpost.com with someone like Domenech. Hence, Brady's statement that he would be looking for someone with a more conventional, journalism background in the future. I suspect, however, that we may be revisiting the problem soon. The temptations, the perceived economic rewards, of pandering to people who are politely called "cultural conservatives" is probably too great to resist. It will be interesting to see if Brady seizes upon Jay's suggestion and recognizes the potential to insulate a Domenech substitute within the hiring of several bloggers. My idea of expanding the number of bloggers from 3 to 5, 7 or 9 has even greater potential in this regard. Posted by: Richard Estes at March 25, 2006 5:08 AM | Permalink "Looks like Brady wanted to exploit a big population of people that he thought would increase the visibility and traffic associated with the web site. A media company pandering to an angry, resentful, but affluent audience by treating what it perceives as marginalized, defenseless people as foils. We've never seen that before, have we?" I've made that point as well Richard. Well said. washingtonpost.com gets the web. They really do. Their service has plenty of examples of this, from the vital realization that they have a different audience then the paper, to their use of Technorati, they seem to get how the web works. I think they realize that a link, whether the link's author's intent is positive *or* negative - is something that boosts your influence on Google - and across the blogosphere. The link is the thing. The currency of attention. They didn't hire a plagerist on purpose - but that is the only quality of Domenech had that disturbed the washingtonpost.com team it would appear. I think RedAmerica was link bait. His "talents" were sought after and they were ready to defend them. The goal did not seem to be opening debate or discourse. The name said it all right there - 'RedAmerica'. After all, it wasn't like they were starting a blog to share views of minority or less prevalent populations. They were starting a blog whose author thought it was his job to represent the views of who he thought the 'majority' of America is. But then again, maybe I'm giving them too much credit for their insight into the web - and maybe they truly thought they were broadening discussion and point of view - and the web bit them on the ass. Don't know. The next few months will be telling. Well, I was rather surprised to find myself mentioned on Jay Rosen's site. I'm a huge fan of Rosen's blog and his ideas and concepts regarding the new media and journalism. Thanks to those commenters who said nice things. One commenter mentioned my link to Little Green Footballs. Yes, I endorse that site as a good source of information. Even if you don't like the rhetoric on that site, which is sometimes over the top, it is an excellent aggregator of news from the Islamic world. LGF also played a key role in proving those CBS Rathergate memos were forgeries. I have to take issue with whichever commenter above said blogs are reactive to journalism, not journalism. On my blog I did a lot of original journalism - digging up and linking to a variety of state budgetary documents that the news media ignored, for example. Another story where I did original journalism involved the monthly unemployment reports from Uncle Sam. I (and others) noticed a growing gap between the unemployment number, based on the employer survey, and the employment number, based on the household survey. Essentially, the number of people reported having jobs, as tracked by one government survey, was rising much faster than the number of people reported to be employed by large employers in the other government survey I wondered if maybe the employer survey was missing a surge in self-employment and small business so I began querying the appropriate departments in all 50 state governments to gather stats on the formation of LLCs in their states. I ended up gathering information from over half of the states, and found that there indeed was a surge in LLC formation. I wrote about it in a series of posts - the last one was here. That was original journalism, done on a blog by a blogger with journalistic training and experience. You can find the rest of those posts at this archive by searching the page for "LLC". Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 25, 2006 9:36 AM | Permalink Can't wait to see what Little Green Mothballs has to say about the Niger forgeries. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 25, 2006 9:55 AM | Permalink Sorry if you think speculation as to Brady's motive and intent in hiring a bomb-thrower (and racist, BTW) like Domenech is unwarranted, Jay, or demeaning to Brady. But really, if you assume he is a smart, competent guy who knows what he is doing, you have to look hard for any rational explanation for the choice that fits with what one would expect from an institution like the WaPo. It seems clear that Brady wanted someone to stoke the fires of the cultural war more than he wanted a gifted and talented writer or thinker or journalist. Why? Was it to increase traffic to the site? Or to poke a stick in the eyes of those "leftist" bloggers he loathes so much? Or was it to appease the wingnuts claiming liberal bias at the Post? Or pergaps it was because of complaints from the GOP/WH about Froomkin? Maybe it was a combination of these reasons. I can think of no others that make sense. The reason this is relevant and interesting is that Brady is not just some obscure blogger, he is the WaPo on the web. What the WaPo does matters, a lot. At least for now. If Domenech was the top choice, one must wonder who else made the short list? How about Scott Robinson, the Penn student journalist who repeatedly kicked a prone, restrained woman who was protesting at the GOP convention? Or Ben Shapiro, who recently advocated, in response to a speech by Al Gore, that dissenters be jailed: At some point, opposition must be considered disloyal. At some point, the American people must say "enough." At some point, Republicans in Congress must stop delicately tiptoeing with regard to sedition and must pass legislation to prosecute such sedition. http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2006/02/15/186543.html These peas all come from the same pod. If you don't believe that, go read Domenech's lengthy tribute to Jefferson Davis, or his comments endorsing the concept that the way to lower the crime rate is to lower the birth rate of Black Americans. Or his calling Mrs. King a communist. The decision to hire Domenech was just as bad and irresponsible as the decision to let Judy Miller run amok, IMO. These choices have consequences. It would be irresponsible not to speculate about why they were made. Posted by: steve schwenk at March 25, 2006 9:59 AM | Permalink The fact that the Washington Post approves of the notion that black infant mortality contributes to lowering the crime rate SHOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN!!! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 25, 2006 10:14 AM | Permalink Hi Jay. I'm doing a series on news media personalities so yesterday I wrote about this Post screw-up Today's target: Larry King Posted by: Scott Butki at March 25, 2006 10:32 AM | Permalink The post wants a Hard Core Colorful Euphemism Spewer, [aka 'Blame Game' or Opinionist Hypocrite], Right Winger to Push a 'Social' Conservative View? WTF??
Posted by: Hamster Brain at March 25, 2006 10:36 AM | Permalink Putting two and two together makes things painfully obvious, Jay. Go ahead -- keep sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La-la-la-la-la I can't hear you!" The jig's up. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 25, 2006 10:36 AM | Permalink An analogy: A local museum has been struggling financially. The board of directors has noticed that, instead of paying to see the museum's exhibits, people have been lured away and are spending their money at the new cinema down the street. Some of the curators, noting the museum had been popular and respected before the cineplex was built, suggest a broad-based solution based on what the museum has done best in the past. They propose the board increase funding within the museum so they can offer exciting and continually-changing features that cover a variety of topics appealing to a greater group of potential visitors. Instead, the board announces it is going to pare down exhibits overall, concentrating on one main topic the chairman is especially fond of. Additionally, they decide to convert part of the building into their own theater, but only plan to show stodgy, polemic films. To be sure, it's an illogical, unwise way to run an enterprise — doomed to fail and almost a textbook case on how to run something into the ground. Yet, isn't it completely analogous to today's Post — and especially its experiment with blogging? Posted by: gaymafioso at March 25, 2006 10:37 AM | Permalink Ben=Gannon Saper Aude Ben. Saper Aude. Posted by: Hamster Brain at March 25, 2006 10:38 AM | Permalink So what's your point, Jason ? That plagiarism is okay ? (blink blink) Man, Steve...that's some seriously nonlinear logic. No. Domenech had to resign. If he hadn't resigned, he should have been terminated, for the good of the paper and the readership alike. What's unseemly is the "scalp-hunting" attitude, and the over-the-top screeching around here. The Washington Post is a "wannabe fascist paper?" No. They hired the founder of RedState.org, a conservative, to write some opinion pieces. He's demonstrated the ability to produce on a daily basis, got a few odd scoops on the blogosphere, and is a competent writer. Yes, there are better writers. With more experience. But if that were the criteria by which newspapers hire columnists, 90% of them would be cast out tomorrow, with Maureen Dowd the first one through the window. Newspapers hire unqualified people all the time. Jayson Blair, anyone? Hell, 85% of the defense reporters out there - and 70% of the financial reporters - have no clue what they're reporting on. Those are just the two beats I know something about. Domenech is what, 24 or 26? 20-somethings do stupid things. Hopefully he'll grow from this (though he still seems to be in the 'blame everyone else but me') stage. He had to go through this first, though. But accusing the Post of being a proto-fascist publication - well, that just makes a laughingstock of the lefty argument. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at March 25, 2006 10:58 AM | Permalink Steve Gilliard details just exactly how demented Domenech and his cohort over at RedState really are, and in a larger sense, how pathological is the current "social conservative" dialogue. Most interesting to me in Gilliard's post was the history of the "Coretta King is a communist" statement by Domenech, which was treated so dismissively by Howie Kurtz and Brady (scroll down). was a billboard posted around the South. They even had postcards made. It's hard to believe that this young plagiarist didn't pick this up from some of his friends at the White Citizen's Council, or perhaps his father, a Bush Administration official. But I cannot accept that management-level people at the Washington Post (and no, I don't distinguish between the print and the dot-com, and I won't) would regard this kind of vicious, nasty, and deeply offensive race-baiting as some kind of desirable "provocative" statement. The statement "Coretta Scott King is a communist" is straight out of the annals of the Ku Klux Klan. Howard Kurtz and Jim Brady think that inflammatory statements straight out of the 1950's Ku Klux Klan terrorist race-baiting campaign is a desirable enhancement on the pages of the Washington Post. After all, he claimed to have read "everything" the young plagiarist wrote before he was hired. And he pronounced it all great stuff. Posted by: Phredd at March 25, 2006 11:07 AM | Permalink Domenech is what, 24 or 26? 20-somethings do stupid things. Hopefully he'll grow from this (though he still seems to be in the 'blame everyone else but |
Print