Hand-Wringing at WaPo
Nov 18th, 2005 by Mark
Seems the media is starting to understand the ‘little shop of horrors’ they have created. WaPo staffers are having an internal debate that is leaking out to nearly every outlet imaginable.
“I hardly see any point in having critiques and comments if they are to be publicized outside the paper. How can we write candidly when candor merely invites violations of confidentiality? Many readers say they distrust us. Well, now I find myself wondering if we can trust each other,” the Post’s Jonathan Yardley writes.
Hmmm, let’s see. A bunch of greedy, ladder-climbing, back-stabbing, vultures surrounded by the same. I say: “No”.
Charles Babington: I feel like we’re ignoring the 800-pound elephant on our front page: Bob Woodward. Every day, scores of Post reporters press, cajole, badger, demand, implore people to tell us things they might not want to. When they demur, we try to convince them they should talk to the Washington Post even if they talk to no one else. Today we report that our assistant managing editor, and surely our most famous staffer, “declined to elaborate on the statement he released to The Post late yesterday afternoon and publicly last night. He would not answer any questions, including those not governed by his confidentiality agreement with sources.” I admire the hell out of Bob, but this looks awful.
Duh! However looks are not the issue. The fact that your most visible, and well-known staffer is now seen as nothing more that the scum he covers. That is the problem. Well, that and it took you guys 30 years to figure out you have a problem.
Charles Lane: Babington, I second that emotion. If I could interview Bob, my question would be: I teach an ethics in journalism course at Georgetown U. every Thursday. How should I explain all of this to the class when, inevitably, they ask about it tomorrow night?
Give your standard reply. “You have to do it. Protect your sources!”. Oh you mean when they ask why a journalist hid the truth and only reluctantly came forward? Do you mean, why did a “truth seeking” not go to his source and ask to tell the special prosecutor that he had the wrong man? Or is is “why is a journalist, not being impartial”?
Robert E. Pierre: Chuck is right. It does look awful and it impacts on the credibility that each of us individually, and collectively, have as we make our case to people about why they should trust us. I certainly understand that national security and the presidency and the Supreme Court are murky topics that sometimes will require us to make deals with people to get information. But I think this whole affair of journalists and politicians using anonymity to trade information and then cast themselves as protectors of the common good stinks.
Bingo! Guess what, you just blew any chance of every getting an editor spot. Don’t get fired, you may never work in this town again. How dare you point out the arrogance of the media and politicians.
Jonathan Yardley: To the matter rightly raised by Chuck Babington: This is the logical and perhaps inevitable outcome when an institution permits an individual to become larger than the institution itself. However able and accomplished the individual — and I agree that Woodward is both — the institution pays the cost when he or she is permitted to operate within its purview yet under a different set of rules. There are a few others on the paper about whom the same could be said. Perhaps the current embarrassment (for embarrassment it most certainly is) will provide the occasion for re-examining the star system and its attendant risks. This is a big, influential newspaper, one of perhaps the half-dozen best in the world, but it will never be fully mature until it understands that the institution’s interests take priority over any employee’s, and until it puts that understanding into practice. Judy Miller was granted star status, and look what happened to her — and to the Times.
Oh boy, you must want a career change as well. Let’s remember that Woodward was defended by another star, Ben Bradlee. Bradlee maintains an office at the Post, yet has no function at WaPo.
The post goes on. About here, they find that the posting have made it to the NYT. Ouch. No doubt they are loving this. WaPo was not very understanding of the Judith Miller issue.
*** Also See ***
They Eat Their Own
WaPo Corrupt
Woodward Hiding Something
Leave a Reply
Comment failing to appear is due to: shortness (one line), dot INFO URLs, 2 or more URLs, banned words, or the cache has turned on due to high traffic. If your comment fails to appear within an hour, contact me here: about me page.