A Few Final Thoughts on Matters "Post Weigel"
Jim Henley writes:
I want to push back just a little on the idea… that some kind of blog-reporter ethos is dumbfounding institutions like the Post because it’s such an unpredecedented challenge to traditional newspaper ideals of objectivity, while at the same time confuting the stereotype of blogging as mere pontificating about other people’s work. Blog-reporter ethos appears to consist of
* original reporting on first-hand sources
* a frankly stated point-of-view
* tempered by a scrupulous concern for fact
* an effort to include a fair account of differing perspectives
* ending in a willingness to plainly state conclusions about the subject
I submit that this is just magazine-journalism ethos with the addition of cat pictures. If you think about what good long and short-form journalism looks like at a decent magazine, it looks like the bullet-points above. I’m not just talking about ideological organs. The writer who sells to Harper’s or The National Geographic or even Runner’s World is going to tend to show a personality and take a definite perspective, while at the same time doing fresh reporting from primary sources, whether human, documentary or physical. The writer will make sure to include a substantial account of challenges to her perspective, if only to knock it down later.
If you were a magazine editor and knew Paul Theroux hated the English because he wrote an entire book about how much the English suck, you might still send him to write a big piece on England for your monthly because you expected it to be interesting, and because the ethos of magazine journalism would make it “fair.” If you knew that William Greider hated economic conservatives, or Tom Wolfe hated social liberals, you would still buy factual pieces touching economics from the one and cultural folkways from the other: their very names constitute warning labels; their strong viewpoints sharpen their writing; and because they’re professionals, they’ll put in the work.
That’s exactly right.
- * *
This is as good a time as any to respond to Karl from Hot Air, and all the folks who sent his post to me via e-mail upon seeing that it called me out by name. You can read the whole thing here — its thesis is that Dave Weigel “was explicitly urging his fellow J-Listers to engage in what Weigel’s buddies and fellow travelers like to call ‘epistemic closure,’ to operate as a closed media ecosystem that excludes competing political narratives.” (Mr. Weigel sort of addresses the subject here.)
Karl writes:
…the people whining the loudest about “epistemic closure” on the Right find themselves utterly blinded when Weigel advocated it for the Left, and had to resign due to the “epistemic closure” that was inherent in JournoList itself.
This gets a lot wrong.
Back on March 20, 2009, I defended Journolist from the idea that there’s something inherently wrong with writers talking to one another via e-mail, but I also criticized it for being ideologically closed, and encouraged its members to admit thoughtful conservatives.
In the same post, I argued that journalism should be evaluated by “the single factor that is always relevant when rendering such judgments: the substance of the work itself.” That is the exact same standard I’ve been applying to Mr. Weigel’s case. The high quality of his work over many years is why I am defending him, and that defense suggests nothing about whether I approve or disapprove of what he wrote on Journolist. Initially I did criticize one thing he wrote — the suggestion that The Washington Examiner should be denied links for a gossip item they published.
But on the whole, the fact that these were private e-mails, that I haven’t seen anything close to the context in which they were offered (nor have any of his critics), and that their content has no bearing on the larger issues that interest me have caused me to avoid commenting on them. For what it’s worth, I do disapprove of anyone, Dave Weigel included, encouraging journalists “to operate as a closed media ecosystem that excludes competing political narratives,” though I can’t help but feel that my friends at Hot Air are making that accusation with insufficient evidence in this case, and are perfectly fine with that kind of behavior when it is practiced by Roger Ailes and his employees.
Perhaps I am wrong, and we can all work at fighting all closed media ecosystems together. But as you can see, Karl, I registered my complaint about the ideological insularity of Journolist way back in Spring 2009. Since you called me out by name in your post, how about updating with that context?
- * *
One last thing.
There is sometimes a double-standard in political discourse whereby the only people who are ever hurt by intemperate remarks are the ones who generally hold themselves to higher standards, whereas their inferiors get away with saying basically whatever they want because we expect no better of them.
A recent example familiar to American Scene readers concerns Jim Manzi, whose restraint and patience, even in comments sections, is generally far better than what 99.9 percent of people on the Internet manage. Only Eugene Volokh is in the same league. On The Corner, however, he posted criticism of Mark Levin that he called “scathing,” and that was certainly less scathing than plenty of other posts on that group blog that go totally unremarked upon. As a result, several folks on The Corner chided Mr. Manzi for his tone — this despite the fact that these same people either laud Mark Levin (I’m looking at you, Andy McCarthy), one of the most intemperate men on the radio, or else are totally silent about his particularly abrasive style of rhetoric (that’s you Kathryn Jean Lopez). To his credit, Jonah Goldberg did point out Mr. Levin’s tendency toward ugly insults.
I bring this up because in the days since Dave Weigel resigned, I’ve seen some of his critics on the right suggest in comments sections that The Washington Post would never hire a “real conservative” like Erick Erickson to replace him covering the right. If Dave Weigel says in a private e-mail disparaging things about Matt Drudge and Ron Paul supporters, he is obviously unfit to fairly cover the right. But Erick Erickson, who publicly suggested that anti-Palin conservatives should be sent to a leper colony, among many other statements that not even he defends, is by their lights perfectly capable of doing so. This is because by their twisted logic, if you criticize center-right figures within the movement like David Brooks, or heterodox conservatives like Ross Douthat, or folks on the right who criticize the conservative movement like me, or people like David Frum with strategic disagreements about the political future of the GOP, all taboos and qualms about criticizing “fellow travelers” on the right disappear.
One complaint about Mr. Weigel’s work at The Washington Post was that it focused too heavily on the conservative and libertarian fringe. Perhaps that is accurate, or perhaps not. I don’t really have a strong or informed opinion on the matter (though my personal preference would be for coverage of Tea Partiers proportionate to their actual numbers on the right). I do know that movement conservatives themselves are making the fringe more relevant and exacerbating the anthropological treatment they receive by insisting to all who will listen that anyone to their left cannot be a “real conservative,” whereas if you publicly argue that President Obama is only fighting Al Qaeda due to electoral pressure and the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is cool with it, then you’re praised by Rush Limbaugh, and no one at your high-profile movement conservative magazine rebuts you.
I’d just like whoever does the hiring at The Washington Post to remember that, pressure from the conservative movement notwithstanding, you need to have someone covering the right who treats Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, David Brooks, Alabama tea partiers, John McCain, Eisenhower Republicans, Bary Goldwater acolytes, Bruce Bartlett, Michelle Malkin, and Cato Institute style libertarians fairly (though I doubt you’ll find anyone better than the guy you just let go). The American right is a big tent — far bigger than some of Mr. Weigel’s critics on the right would have you believe. Good luck finding someone who is both acceptable to the Red State crowd and has never disparaged folks on the right, but to their left.
The problem that Weigel had at the Post is the same problem that, to different degrees, Brooks at the NY Times, Parker at CNN, and Friedersdorf himself have — false advertising. They allow themselves to be marketed as conservatives, when they spend all or most of their time and energy attacking conservatives and conservative ideas, and reserve the title “reasonable” or “rational” conservatives for those who think the proper role of a conservative is to have moderate, minor caveats about the liberal agenda. This may make them acceptable conservatives to the Post, the Times, and CNN, but then they shouldn’t whine when conservatives object to them. (Parker doesn’t whine, by the way. She admits she doesn’t think of herself as a conservative, but many newspapers who run her column label her their conservative columnist. Rule of thumb: if the Pulitzer committee gives you a prize, you know you’re not conservative.)
— Gary Imhoff · Jun 27, 01:51 PM · #
It would be same thing as National Review hiring a “liberal” who continuously excoriates Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, and suggests stategies to combat a liberal win in a senate race in Alabama. The National Review would be criticized for hiring a false liberal.
— Mike Farmer · Jun 27, 02:44 PM · #
Journolist was private without any particular known public impact, whereas the right’s epistemic closure is openly enforced by all its institutions, like AEI and Heritage. (This post you link at the Corner, along with Manzi’s survival there despite his apostasy, suggest some signs of glasnost at NR). A discussion group just isn’t the same thing as, say, firing and shunning people who make tactical or policy-based arguments that contradict the current GOP party line, as happened to Frum & Bartlett.
It’s also worth nothing that the objective fact that the Tea Partiers’ views make no sense at all is politically incorrect, and therefore cannot be reported in newspapers. Thus newspapers serve to disinform their readers.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Jun 27, 05:29 PM · #
Gary,
I’d be curious to hear where I allow myself to be marketed as a conservative. Here and on True/Slant, I assert my belief in conservatism and libertarianism as political philosophies, but I make it very clear that I am neither a member of the conservative movement nor the Republican Party, and I very much doubt anyone mistakes me for one.
I write at The Atlantic, Newsweek, The Daily Beast, Politics Daily, and soon, Forbes. Do any of those sites even assert my ideology? I am certain none of them claim that I am inside the conservative movement.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 27, 07:41 PM · #
Elvis, the right didn’t fire Weigel, WaPo fired Weigel, so what’s your point?
— Mike Farmer · Jun 27, 09:22 PM · #
Conor,
I know you are addressing Gary regarding the comment mentioning you and your political position, but WaPo gave the impression that Weigel was a conservative covering conservatives — that’s my understanding. I might be wrong. So, it’s understandable that they were in a bind when the emails came out. If it’s about closemindedness, then WaPo is guilty, but with the content of the emails, who could really think of Weigel as anything close to conservativism without destroying the definition of conservative? This argument is all over the place, but it’s clear WaPo made a mistake and then was forced to fix it — they could have disclosed Weigel was writing as an outsider on conservativism, I suppose, but then I’m sure a lot of the writers do that — this, I thought, was supposed to be a niche job — a conservative commenting on conservatism. The funny part about this article is that some people are trying to blame the right, or including smears in their commentary, when the right had no involvement in the hiring, the firing, Journolist, leaking the email, or anything. Amazing.
— Mike Farmer · Jun 27, 09:32 PM · #
Friedersdorf asks and answers his own question: “I’d be curious to hear where I allow myself to be marketed as a conservative. Here and on True/Slant, I assert my belief in conservatism and libertarianism as political philosophies. . . .” So the answer is, “Here and on True/Slant.” Admittedly, he doesn’t argue in favor of any conservative ideas, or praise any conservatives except when they support liberal ideas, so we have to take his word for it. But there is no firewall between The American Scene and the other outlets for which he writes (just as there was no firewall between Journolist and The Washington Post for Weigel), so he’s mistaken to think he can play a conservative libertarian here and not be one there.
— Gary Imhoff · Jun 27, 10:09 PM · #
Mickey Kaus, you mean.
— Chet · Jun 27, 11:32 PM · #
Gary,
If you require a use of ellipses that egregious to win an argument, chances are what you’re eliding explains why you’re wrong.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 28, 06:55 AM · #
Conor,
Thanks for the post. Thinking about it, my main gripe with Weigel isn’t that he was intemperate, but that he was intemperate in private and maintained an illusion of objectivity in his blog. If he wanted to write a blog for the WaPo that was openly approaching conservatives from a “Media Matters” standpoint, it would have mildly irritated me, but I would have gotten over it. Instead, his blog purported to judge conservatives dispassionately and quasi-objectively. (Yes, true objectivity is unattainable, but you can be more or less objective, or, at the very least, can disclose your perspective publicly). If I had known that Weigel thought that conservatives were ratfuckers defending their white privilege, and that he had a sideline advising other outlets how to position their coverage for maximum benefit to the democrats, I would have sighed but been fine with it. Since I didn’t know — well, I’m not particularly mad, but I’m glad he’s moved on. Kaus is a good example, except I’d argue that his biases are much more obvious. Kaus is affirmatively proud of the things he personally believes, and owns up to them in plenty of posts, as far as I can tell.— J Mann · Jun 28, 01:30 PM · #
Speaking as an unreconstructed reactionary shamelessly defending his white privilege, I don’t know what Wiegel did that was really that egregious. He was obviously just venting. I doubt he really wants Matt Drudge immolated. I tire of the informal police state where you always have to be looking over your shoulder or wondering who you’re talking to or what they’ll do about it tomorrow.
— Matt Weber · Jun 28, 02:22 PM · #
The problem is you’re just whining about offensive jokes made by conservatives like Levin and Rush. What the hell is wrong with making intemperate jokes? Is your style of comedy limited to knock knock jokes??? Stop dwelling on this. Youre not taking the high road by speaking high and mighty and never making an insult or using a curse word. You’re backhanded snobbishness is infinitely more offputting. And if conservatives of the Levin camp believe something strongly and with their hearts what the hell is wrong with rejecting those who don’t? You make the assumption that their beliefs are wrong and you mock them, which is a straw man argument because then it seems ridiculous that anyone should believe those things or worse, reject those that don’t believe them. You’re a whiny baby who uses big words and fancy rhetoric to try and make you sound smart but it seems you have nothing to say and don’t know anything about any issue – you just talk about what other people think.
— gunzupswagout · Jun 28, 02:46 PM · #
Weigel’s sin was in vocally smearing a person the Post feels they need to court in order to drive their new web-based portion of their business model (a la Politico) and having that vocalization become known to the general public. They (mistakenly) believe they need Drudge’s links to drive more traffic and generate revenue and that it’s a zero-sum game: without him they are nothing. Most businesses would consider “harming our ability to do business with PERSON X” to be grounds for firing. I almost got fired for the same thing. I sympathize with Weigel and believe he is correct to wish that Drudge immolate himself. But I can see why the Post let him go.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Jun 30, 09:04 PM · #