[More: Some of the comments were negative but GS calmly noted things like "I said I wanted him to say, right?" Actually, he says at one point that he thinks DW thought he could not do his job effectively any more, and if so, he was "right" to resign. Apparently, as long as the guy out of some misguided sense of honor or something -- in no way pressured by the paper, of course! -- submits his resignation, things change. Others noted other conservative writers etc. did what he was accused of doing, but hey he resigned, so it's different! The paper had to accept his selective resignation, right?
Again, doesn't this simply encourage assholes? GS simply avoids the point and I continue (even with Glenn Greenwald praising him on today [6/27] -- see my comments there) to find his response lame. Weak tea (followed by 'I don't see why you are upset' feigned or actual cluelessness) is part of the problem these days. It is hard to see how he "opposed" much when he writes that DW is probably "right" to offer his resignation. In effect, he thinks everything is unfortunate, while the reporter ("dumb") gets more criticism than the paper, whose hands are not as clean as he implies. Yeah, I'm annoyed at this b.s.]
I don't keep track of the debates over the nature of the Washington Post,*, but this sort of thing is what its detractors are talking about:
Conservative movement journalist and blogger David Weigel just resigned from the Washington Post, following an apparently coordinated campaign to humiliate and discredit him by forwarding and posting his private messages to a listserv to unfriendly media outlets. I'm reasonably sure Weigel quit -- as far as I know, he wasn't fired or forced out -- but it's still an embarrassment for journalism as a whole.
Weigel was hired to report on the conservative movement, his libertarian background seen as a qualification there, though apparently some confused** him with some conservative hack. The nature of that group, who were behind the pressure that led to his resignation, is suggested by this account by Weigel. I note that his approach to that incident was more temperate to the kneejerk ARREST HIM!!!!! approach by Glenn Greenwald, who appears to put not arresting some older guy for grabbing the arm of someone pointing a camera in his face akin to not investigating torture claims seriously or something.
I have not read the guy but have seen him on C-SPAN panel discussions talking about the tea party movement (the article cited above says he voted for Rand Paul) and on Maddow talking about some issues. Seems a smart and temperate person, a -- as he noted in the column link -- "journalist." One respected by voices on the right as well. That person reminds that part of his "sins" are remarks (instigated by b.s., see here) made on what he thought was a private message board. Things like calling those who oppose gay marriage "bigots" also factors in somehow.
Thin skinned assholes, really, especially given some of the remarks made on the right. The pressure on good journalists in part a result of them freely speaking in allegedly private avenues, journalists that are equal opportunity critics (thus, in effect defending Palin against a charge on Olbermann [see penultimate link] of all places) has to be firmly opposed. I find Greg Sargent's response -- he works for Washington Post fwiw -- a bit weak in that respect. Weakly responding to b.s. like this aids and abets it. First:
Yes, The Post accepted his resignation, so in this sense he was let go. I would have preferred that he stayed. But my sense is that this decision was initiated by him and him alone. If I thought or knew otherwise, I'd say so. You may not believe me because I work here; if so, well, so be it. And if it's proven otherwise, I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
He underlines the point: "I have no reason to believe" he was pressured in any way. Others disagree. The Post has already fairly recently let go a valuable political blogger, which was the subject of much well deserved criticism. The paper is not really acting with totally clean hands when it simply "accepts" his resignation, a resignation that came as a result of unfair criticisms. It seems rather weak to imply that the paper was simply acting in a totally neutral way here as if "well, what do you expect them to do"? In effect, they didn't have to agree (as GS sort of implies) that the actions of some in the conservative movement (not all in the least, see above) make his ability to report successfully untenable. And, the PTB at the paper has shown its conservative side in the past, so who's to say no pressure came from within? How does GS know that?
Also:
To be clear, I think it was dumb on his part to pop off in those e-mails, if only because it risked giving the right ammo against him. But I don't believe what he did justifies the right's calls for his firing. And those of you who know me should know that I believe that it's possible to have opinions and to care about what happens in politics -- to prefer one outcome to another -- while still doing journalism with integrity.
It might be helpful if GS actually explained the nature of this "pop off" stuff. Isn't context important? What does "caught disparaging prominent members of the movement" mean? Does criticizing them for crossing some line count? Isn't that what fair journalists, including those there to voice opinions, do? The comments printed here really don't amount to much given what others say:
"This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire."
•"Follow-up to one hell of a day: Apparently, the Washington Examiner thought it would be fun to write up an item about my dancing at the wedding of Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman. Said item included the name and job of my girlfriend, who was not even there -- nor in DC at all."
•"I'd politely encourage everyone to think twice about rewarding the Examiner with any traffic or links for a while. I know the temptation is high to follow up hot hot Byron York scoops, but please resist it."
•"It's all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn't get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV."
Really? Does anyone really take Drudge seriously any more? The comment about his dancing (at a wedding of someone some on the left don't like, btw) doesn't seem to "disparage" anyone in particular. He has defended Paul in other contexts and one article cited here says he voted for him! The York bit is a pretty lame thing to cite and it would be helpful to know what led him -- again on a private list -- to say it. "Watch what you say" is the new watchword for journalists for that?
Likewise, the emails were supposed to be private. Reporter or not, is it possible to have some degree of privacy or rather be a serious reporter without sometimes making some sharp comments not meant for public viewing? How "dumb" is it to have some forum where you can be blunt (including against those who make remarks about you dancing at a wedding) that again is supposed to be private? Is that impossible?
GS says there is no firing offense here and defends DW's integrity but if so, he should also be against the resignation. Giving in to thin skinned assholes who hypocritically criticized him will only make it harder for real journalists to cover them. We are talking about a libertarian here who has some bona fide support of conservatives on various issues. And, we are losing his voice for some remarks he made in a private discussion group and for an opinion regarding the bigotry of not supporting equal rights for gay people? Come on. That's bogus, and GS should say so.
I might be reading too much into it, but GS' opening also isn't too promising either. In response to various criticism of the treatment on liberal blogs -- part of his beat -- he felt: "I thought I should say something." He doesn't appear to say that generally when he discusses issues of the day that pop up in that forum. It seems like he felt somewhat pressured to do so, as if he doesn't have much enthusiasm. The same thing that led DW to apologize (like here, totally on his own, I bet!) for something he said that really didn't so require.
I'm sick of people being such big babies and the wrong people suffering for it.
---
* I'm upset enough to see how far gone the editorial pages of my local NY Daily News has gone with conservative editors and people like Charles Krauthammer having dominate space each week. The sane stuff is usually off the center pages (like Juan Gonzalez) and various guest contributors, you know, the sorts that provide solace for NYT readers tired of reading the resident gossip columnist in the op-ed pages or the like.
** This underlines that I don't really buy GS' comments below that he sees no reason to believe that the resignation was purely DW's choice and not a subject in some fashion of internal pressure.
Olbermann commented on the "resignation" (a major general "resigned" recently too -- totally on his own?) in his Worst Person segment today and referenced just this -- the belief on the paper's part that DW was really just a conservative, like Charles Krauthammer, not an independently minded libertarian voice. Criticism from thin skinned sorts from the conservative side would very possibly trouble them, influencing their decision here.