|
Paul Ibbetson
A Fiery View from the Washington Post
June 30, 2010
The forced resignation of David Weigel by the Washington Post will
probably be forgotten by tomorrow, nothing more than a little blip on the radar
of those submersed in the world of the Washington Post. Weigel’s online
communications were nabbed and made public to expose the writer as a liberal who
thinks Matt Drudge should set himself on fire and that conservatives are
inherently doing evil. If you are a conservative you might shake your head, grit
your teeth, or even laugh at some of Weigel’s private meanderings about the
opposition. What you would not be is surprised.
The Washington Post wants you to think that
they are awe-struck and amazed, as if their writer were suddenly part of an
E! True Hollywood Story in which never-before-seen hidden details are
suddenly being illuminated. Please.
Howard Klutz reported in The Washington Post that their Executive
Editor, Marcus Brauchli, said,
"We can't have any tolerance for the perception that people are conflicted or
bring a bias to their work...There's abundant room on our website for a wide
range of viewpoints, and we should be transparent about everybody's viewpoint."
This is a vague statement at best, more than a little silly at worst.
The fact of the matter is that all writers, even the freest of thinkers, bring
at least some bias to the table and editors know this. In fact, beyond their
ability to creatively communicate with the public, writers, bloggers, you name
it, are sought for their general political leanings. This is where things may
have gone south for Weigel. It appears The Washington Post got caught
with a "political lefty” writing as a "political righty.” Who placed David
Weigel writing the column titled "Right Now – Inside the Conservative Movement &
Republican Party”? That’s right, The Washington Post.
So who is at fault here? If you say it’s the Rush-Limbaugh-hating,
Tea-Party-hating, Matt-Drudge-wanna-see-ya-burn liberal Weigel, you’re wrong.
The fault lies directly with The Washington Post for failing to screen
the people they hire, or worse, for purposely deceiving the public. If you want
to critique a liberal for his or her wacky statements, that’s fine, we can make
a day of it, but don’t think its transparency of viewpoint that The
Washington Post is protecting; it’s their gluteus maximus. Bloggers
are not insidious double agents, or at least never effective ones, and Weigel is
no exception. To think so gives The Washington Post political cover they
have not earned. In fact, I think they have earned the need for some additional
scrutiny.
So, in the aftermath of the private e-mails made public, David Weigel’s career
at The Washington Post will be burned away, and for what, being a closet
liberal? Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post reports that in 2006 Weigel
referred to those opposing gay marriage as "anti-gay marriage bigots” on his
Twitter page. Think we might be dealing with a liberal here? This was obviously
not a red flag to The Washington Post. Brauchli blamed it on the budget
and said,
"We don't have the resources or ability to do Supreme Court Justice-type
investigations into people's backgrounds. We will have to be more careful in the
future."
Does that explanation fly
with you? I think it is not a far cry to assume that The Washington Post
was more than comfortable with their writing arrangement with Weigel until their
employee’s point of view became overtly known to the public. Then it was
transparency time. A time for purity and as the witch hunters say, nothing
purifies like fire, or a good firing. Hopefully when the smoke clears there will
be some interest left in finding accountability for The Washington Post. |
