Follow me
Pundits at the Gate: June 2010 Version
So readers, here’s the media tempest du jour.
A coda to the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal this week, in an incident with resonant similarities, was the abrupt resignation of blogger Dave Weigel from the Washington Post. In the business world today, as has long been the situation in the military, resignation is a euphemism, arising out of what used to be an act of courtesy. In reality, McChrystal was fired. Almost surely Weigel was, also. No young man in today’s jobs market voluntarily leaves such a post: well-paying, high-profile, prestigious, with social status and (most important of all to a writer) with a large built-in audience. In today’s litigious environment executives try very hard not to fire subordinates. Instead the options henceforward are laid out before the subordinate in such a way that resignation is the most palatable choice. Accomplished bosses are very good at executing the preferred exit strategy. Sometimes, as seems to have been Weigel’s experience, the execution is accomplished through “message delivered” via a distinct lack of support at a crucial juncture.
Who is Dave Weigel, you ask, that I go on a bit about his Very Bad Day? Since April, the twenty-eight year-old Weigel has blogged about conservative politics for the Washington Post. He has also written for the Washington Independent and for Reason magazine. He is a part of the circle of whip-smart, in-the-know, increasingly influential young people in D.C. Another of those twentysomethings is Ezra Klein, the Post blogger who established his reputation chronicling the health care debate. Ezra Klein set up an email listserv for liberal journalists like himself. With members like Marc Ambinder and Paul Krugman, Journolist quickly became the Internet equivalent of an exclusive club—or so I gather. On this web platform, with emails flying back and forth among members to the group-at-large, Dave Weigel wrote comments such as this one:
“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.”
The Drudge post and others made their way to two D.C. online blogs: Fishbowl DC and The Daily Caller. Within a day, Weigel was no longer an employee of the Washington Post.
Let me get out of the way a few tangential observations—things I wouldn’t even bother with in a formal article. Begging the question of what a blogger on the world of conservatism was doing on a liberal listserv, which Klein has said he explicitly limited to center, left-of-center and progressive journalists—putting that aside—Journolist ended (Klein took it down yesterday) as a sad reminder to me of just how out-of-it American journalism is now.
I belong to a “women in media” listserv, where it is inconceivable that any of us would do what one of Weigel’s fellow emailers did to him: destroy his career at the Post. Why am I confident of that? Because what holds our listserv together is our struggle to get ahead in one of the last bastions of male prerogative: media. This sense of solidarity protects us against our lesser human instincts. Even when we do not agree on a subject, we are supportive of one another and happy when one of us achieves a measure of success.
Journolist, on the other hand, seems to have been a largely male conclave, studded with guys a little too confident in their powers—just like the McChrystal staffers, by the way. What has happened to this part of the journalism world, and also to the political world, especially where the two overlap, is that people have turned on one another in a vicious and self-defeating way. We see this thirst for blood mostly among Republicans; recently, however, I witnessed the same lust for revenge at a panel discussion on Democratic campaigning at Personal Democracy Forum in New York, where organizers for MoveOn and BoldProgressives discussed their efforts to defeat Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic senatorial primary in Arkansas. When I asked one leader afterwards if his group wasn’t biting off its nose to spite its face (after all, Obama may well need a centrist Democratic senator in Arkansas come 2012), he said, “This is about retribution.” In other words, MoveOn and BoldProgressives were taking down a fellow Democrat (and giving her no credit for having been elected and keeping her seat in an increasingly conservative state) because a couple of her votes didn’t please them. And they were so sure of their success! (That’s another thing about devouring one’s own: it destroys judgment and perspective). A smug Ari Melber of The Nation was only too happy to take my bet that Blanche Lincoln would prevail. (He now owes me the Greek dinner I have picked out in Queens.)
On the other hand, the effort to take down Weigel succeeded—although in a smaller, weaslier act of meanness. One of Weigel’s peers, from jealousy perhaps, ratted him out on what he thought were private comments. Or perhaps the motive was, as has been suggested, a distaste for Weigel’s defense of Rand Paul—and if that is true, how pathetic—aren’t these men supposed to be journalists, after all? There is no inherent reason an exclusive men’s club cannot abide by its rules, what in the end is a code of honor—and I will believe otherwise when the extended, confessional, no-holds-barred autobiography of twentysomething Skull and Bones initiate George Bush, penned many years ago and stored in the Crypt, appears online.
Now where was I? Well, in a circuitous way my aside brings me around to my point, which is the low state of journalism today—and not for any of the reasons some people I otherwise admire have put forward. Indeed their blindness to the reason Dave Weigel had to go at the Post shows how skewed the vision of this country’s elites (in politics, in media, in academia, in the military) has become. That two brilliant people whom I particularly admire, and know in that vague way of professional friendship, should not see the main point saddens me. And really that’s why I’m taking an entire Saturday night to expound.
This is the thing. Dave Weigel made a mistake—and worse than that, in an area where a professional, especially a journalist, should know better. He never should have assumed that his comments on the listserv would remain private. In the adult world, the consequences of our actions are sometimes brutal. And totally unfair. (Weigel may be asking himself why Dana Milbank was not fired at WaPo for suggesting Hillary Clinton’s beverage of choice should be “mad-bitch beer.” If every woman I know had had her way, Milbank would have been long gone.) I dare say Dave Weigel now knows about consequences. His Journolist one-offs (if you want to read them all, clink the links above) reveal him to be remarkably jejune (even for a twenty-eight year-old), mean-spirited, vengeful, callow, and laughably self-regarding. Now in real life these qualities may be only a tiny part of Weigel, his lesser self that comes out only in late-night emails after a drink or two. (You might think that Gizmodo’s current legal troubles would have been a warning to young men about this.)
But now Weigel’s persona at the Washington Post is blown. Who he appears to be (even if that is not who he really is) is completely at odds with the Post brand. There is a lot of talk these days about whether or not it’s okay, or preferable, or ethically necessary, for a journalist to be upfront with readers about his or her personal politics and other opinions. Jay Rosen has got a lot of us thinking about this. Jay argues for transparency, for saying straight-out where we are coming from, because after all the idea that reporters have no views or opinions is ridiculous, if not false. And the opposite, what Jay calls the View from Nowhere, is an outmoded construct that nobody really believes in anymore. Philosophically, I appreciate what Jay has to say, although in the end I’m not sure that in all reportage it is practical. But even if Jay is correct—and believe me as a writer I celebrate the freedom that blogging provides to incorporate viewpoint into reportorial work—a writer’s upfrontery with his opinions is not at all the same thing as revealing his true self.
When a reader picks up an article or clicks on a blog, he or she is not embarking on an encounter with the real person who shaped those words—no matter how confessional, intimate, disarming, inviting, profane, revelatory, beautiful, moving, persuasive the prose. The reader meets the journalist’s persona, a second self. Writers have a gift, an instinct, for this creation and don’t even think about it, except at the highest levels where the practitioners are artists. One hallmark of a successful blogger is that he or she has an easy knack for “the pretend dissolve”—the illusion that a barrier between reader and writer does not exist, when in reality this wall is the necessary and eternal link, the prime mover, if you will. Paradoxically, distance is the heart of written communication.
Although I have just suggested that instinctively writers create personas, at the level of journalism where Weigel was working this is not quite accurate. Serious journalists are very conscious of and careful about their personas. I know I am. There is not a character I tweet that I have not filtered through that lens. Everything that I have ever put “out there” anywhere (and this will surprise some people) I have done purposefully. This is not to say that there are not a lot of mis-characterizations and misinformation about me in the public domain; and it has been hard for me to accept the fact that I cannot control that. A huge advantage I have had over Dave Weigel is that of age over youth. Since I was sixty when I became a journalist, from the beginning I was always thinking about the endgame, how I would be remembered, by my family and later in the larger context of what I hoped younger people coming along behind me might learn from my experience.
Probably, Weigel’s easy success (most twentysomethings I know are struggling to find meaningful employment) went to his head. “Too much, too soon,” as my mother used to say. I venture this because his lack of aforethought and judgment is astonishing. The cowboy days for bloggers have long since come and gone. Two years ago, I heard Noah Shachtman of Danger Room at Wired talk about how he was tightening up the rules and behavior standards at the mil blog. It seemed to me then that Noah’s way would be the path taken by the online news sites that survive the shake-out that is still to come. Recently, Reuters added a similar set of social media guidelines to its journalism handbook.
The new Reuters rules could as well be those at the Washington Post:
“Accuracy, freedom from bias and integrity are fundamental to the reputation of Reuters and your ability to do your job effectively. The advent of social media changes none of this and you should do nothing that would damage our reputation for impartiality and independence. We reserve the right to change your beat or responsibilities if there are problems in this area. In the case of serious breaches, we may use our established disciplinary procedures.
“The advent of social media does not change your relationship with the company that employs you—do not use social media to embarrass or disparage Thomson Reuters. Our company’s brands are important; so, too, is your personal brand. Think carefully about how what you do reflects upon you as a professional and upon us as an employer of professionals.
“The distinction between the private and the professional has largely broken down online and you should assume that your professional and personal social media activity will be treated as one no matter how hard you try to keep them separate. You should also be aware that even if you make use of privacy settings, anything you post on a social media site may be made public.
“While it is not practical to always [sic] apply ‘the second set of eyes rule’ for journalists using social media, especially Twitter, in a professional capacity, you should consider that a ‘virtual second pair of eyes rule’ applies under which your manager and/or senior editors will retrospectively review your professional output.”
Ignoring these rules cost Dave Weigel his job. He damaged the reputation of the Washington Post and cheapened its brand. There was no way he could have stayed. On Twitter, Jay Rosen says that there is a generational divide in journalists’ thinking about what is permissible for a journalist to say in public. My coming down, in this specific instance, on the Weigel controversy “old school” would seem to support Jay’s contention. Neither Jay nor Greg Sargent, the fine reporter who is Jay’s pick of the younger generation, seems to find anything wrong with Weigel’s listserv vents other than that writing them was “dumb.” But here’s the thing, Jay and Greg. We old folks aren’t dead yet, and more to the point we are the demographic that still reads the Washington Post. And we oldsters live in a world where wishing someone to set himself on fire crosses a line. A very bright line. Let me be clear: I find Dave Weigel’s comment appalling and disturbing. I would never say something like that about my worst enemy, even as a joke. Nor would any other adult American, except for a few people in Hollywood, whom I know. And the Washington Post is not Hollywood. Very different brand. Even in its current ailing, diminished, lost-its-luster declining years, the Post, like all the great American newspapers, embodies humanist values for its readership. No matter what the reality may be behind-the-scenes, that is its persona.
What bothers me is not the Weigel imbroglio per se. Young men do really stupid things. The lucky ones don’t get themselves killed. Hopefully, he will learn from his mistake. My advice to him would be to study the social media personas of a few of the older generation of journalists who are masters of the art, such as Howie Kurtz and David Carr.
No, what bothers me is the obliviousness of some great journalists and media personalities whom I admire to the real issue here. These folks have wandered off into thickets of the tangential here: politics and personal opinion.
Let me return again to Greg Sargent, whom I mentioned previously. Greg, another of this promising young generation of journalists, is “The Plum Line” blogger at the Washington Post. (In homage to Rosenian transparency, I add that Greg Sargent once wrote a piece about me, when he was working for Talking Points Memo.) Anyway, this is what Greg writes at Plum Line, after wondering whether the paper pressured Dave Weigel to resign: “If so, it would mean the paper was caving to conservative pressure to remove him. . . . Weigel was caught disparaging prominent members of the movement he covers in private e-mails.”
The ouster of Weigel was about politics. Not only Greg Sargent, but also Andrew Sullivan, as well as Liz Mair (transparency: a friendly acquaintance), subscribe to this view. Particularly among the younger set in D.C, this has been the chatter. So what if Weigel was not a conservative himself? (Indeed they are absolutely right. Being a conservative should not be an a priori for writing fairly about the conservative movement.) Conspiracy theories abound. Conservatives pressured (Sargent’s verb) the brass to remove Weigel.
The ouster of Weigel was about the proper role of personal opinion in covering stories. Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic: ”I’m really not sure whose credibility the Post was worried about. Respect for their reader’s [sic] sensibilities? Some fidelity to a ‘non ideological standard that just doesn’t exist in this form of journalism?” Foster Kamer at the Village Voice blog: “All journalists have political biases, because they’re human.” Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic: “But his departure also raises questions about whether the Post has adequately defined the role of bloggers like Weigel. Are they neutral reporters or ideologues?” And here is Jay Rosen on Twitter: “One thing the last 24 hours have shown: what I’d call ‘political thinking about journalism’ is in a brute, almost wholly undeveloped state.”
[Correction: Jay Rosen has pointed out to me that Conor Friedersdorf is quoting the Post Ombudsman. In my defense, I point out that CF does not use quotation marks. Here are Friedersdorf's own words: "Actually, being a careful reporter and an opinion writer aren't mutually exclusive."]
Now these are all very good observations. They are also beside-the-point. When Weigel’s emails surfaced, his online persona was shattered; and in its place has arisen an inchoate (because so recent) replacement shaped by an easy recourse to verbal violence, as well as nastiness and immaturity, which, no matter that the real Weigel may be different, are at odds with the persona of his employer.
Eventually, Dave Weigel will recover. He will grow up. He will calibrate a new relationship with readers; slowly, he will craft a new second self (assuming that he does not leave journalism for law school first).
I am not worried about Dave Weigel. But I am worried about the journalism profession. How can some of its best practitioners be tone-deaf here? It’s as if the fourth estate, particularly its elites, are exempt from the moral consequences that shape ordinary Americans’ lives. In most of the articles linked above, there is a casual dismissal of the awfulness of Weigel’s behavior that is even more disturbing than Weigel’s crack that Matt Drudge should set himself on fire. Furthermore, the vituperativeness of Weigel’s emails (not to mention his ratting out), just like the Jacobean plot of Democratic progressives against Blanche Lincoln, is symptomatic of the larger political/media culture right now, in which people who should be working together are devouring one another instead. As for vituperation, a writer can wield it to good effect. Like satire or snark, however, it must be used with care, on a tight rein, so that this inherently dangerous device does not eat the writer. (This is what happened to Dana Milbank.) Overall, history is a comfort here, because American politics has often been brutish, although there do seem to be cycles of greater and lesser amity.
What worries me is that a generation of good minds, and the voices of these journalists, may quickly become irrelevant because they are so inward-focussed and lacking in understanding of how a significant portion of their fellow citizens sees the world. Whatever happened to the spirit of inquiry?
To end on a more upbeat note, here is a comment from a fellow journalist that gave me a good laugh. John McQaid of True/Slant opines on the Weigel affair: “Sadly, it appears that an unholy alliance between culture warriors and journalism traditionalists has won the day here, and Washington journalism is weaker for it. At least until Weigel turns up at the Huffington Post.”
Ipse dixit.
What a wonderfully lucid response to a seemingly complicated issue. I have always been told never to include anything in my emails that I would not want to be seen on the front page of the NYT. Your writing is terrific, and you have a newfound fan.
Thanks for the thought-provoking piece, and the link. Weirdly, the page you accessed doesn’t display my blockquotes, for reasons I can’t figure out, but a properly formatted version of the post is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/special-report/ideas/archive/2010/06/the-binary-world-of-the-washington-post/58774/
Fantastic, challenging. Easily the best take on the other side of the coin out there right now. I’ll be going back to the drawing board with some of this stuff.
Thank you very much, guys. And here’s another thing to ponder. Why do some of us give Dave Weigel a pass because he does such terrific work, when we are not willing to do the same for politicians and executives? In those realms, personal behavior, irrespective of professional accomplishment, always seems to be germane now.
“begging the question”? not you, too!
sigh.
“begging the question” does not mean “raising the question.”
begging the question is a form of logical fallacy in which the only support for an argument is the assumption that the argument is true.
for example: we must use the phrase “begging the question” properly, because it’s important to speak and write correctly.
google “begging the question” for more examples.
and now that you know how to use the phrase properly, i expect that you will never make this mistake again. deal?
Well done. I was trained in Rosen’s View from Nowhere school years ago, thens left the field ten years ago because of peers and editors who wanted “urgent” not “important.” Now, publishing a startup web/print hybrid in my small town of 3,500, it is not essential to put my POV out there. Anyone in town who cares knows my politics. And while I try to keep bias out of my copy, it certainly shows up in my story selection each week. That being said, I also appreciate your point about being careful with one’s ‘persona’ in print and in social media. My old rule is ‘never say or write anything Mother would disapprove of.’
I also got a laugh from the Reuters policy on social media: “Accuracy, freedom from bias and integrity are fundamental to the reputation of Reuters and your ability to do your job effectively.” Methinks ‘integrity’ and ‘freedom from bias’ should have been reversed to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. While I do not know what you heard apropos of Lincoln in person, I feel your summary:
“MoveOn and BoldProgressives were taking down a fellow Democrat (and giving her no credit for having been elected and keeping her seat in an increasingly conservative state) because a couple of her votes didn’t please them.”
does not do those organizations or the complexity of the issues justice. Lincoln regularly pushes against the mainstream of Democratic position, even more often against the Dem. left wing, and quite often against her own constituents from the right. That isn’t “a couple of votes [that don't] please” someone, it’s a dilemma for people who spend their working lives fighting for their view of a better country. Whether they are better off to challenge Lincoln is a complicated strategic question, but it is exactly the sort of strategic option that they should consider, and should reject not based on the values you elucidate here, but only on their best guess about what the consequences will be.
The same logic applies to right-wing organizations eyeing Charlie Crist, Alan Specter a few years ago, etc. They should strive for their vision of a better country and a better world by fighting hard to get the representatives who … represent that vision. We owe our Senators nothing. They owe us their best. I would find your eloquent words regarding Wiegel’s harsh language, which did make me rethink the matter, more persuasive if you had not included the latter implications.
As for your concluding “the moral consequences that shape ordinary Americans’ lives”, I have reread your piece twice trying to find the back reference and can’t. Do you mean that young people lucky enough to have jobs should realize that to be seen as “mean-spirited, vengeful, callow, and laughably self-regarding” might land them on the unemployment line, and that such realization is “growing up?” Or did you mean something else? Apologies in advance if my reading comprehension has stumbled.
Cheers,
Sam Penrose
Sam, thanks for the thoughtful comments. Here’s where I’m coming from re Blanche Lincoln. First of all, as I think my piece suggests, I kind of knew she was going to prevail. I grew up in Memphis, and I spend a lot of time in the South, including Arkansas. I know how that state has changed. I’ve seen Bill Clinton on the stump for people many, many times, and I have seen his charisma up close and personal. Beyond that, here’s where I’m coming from re conservative Democrats. My compass there is Rep. (Dem) Al Green of Houston, TX, and a favorite cautionary remark of his. Paraphrase: I have to give my colleague in Sugarland [fill in any BlueDog you want] a pass on those votes, because he represents a conservative district. His importance is that he’s there for us on the big votes. I think about the practical wisdom of Al Green a lot.
Another thing I think about: the myriad ways in which politics truly is the Great Game. And the successful players are always thinking two moves ahead. That is the weakness of MoveOn. Where are they now, for example, having put out that ad “Petraeus Betray Us?” Outside the liberal echo chamber, counter-productive. Now let’s think about Arkansas for a minute. And my frame of reference here is that if Al Gore had won his home state of TN and Clinton’s Arkansas, he would have been president. I kind of think the next presidential election (unlike the last) may be a bit of a squeaker, likely with Romney as the Rep. nominee. Obama could be mighty grateful to have Arkansas in his camp. It’s a swing state, so it’s not impossible. And having a centrist Democratic senator there would be hugely helpful. Putting presidential fantasy camp aside, there is the matter of the US Senate. Blanche Lincoln has a chance to prevail over her Republican opponent. Halter never could have. He brought the lottery to Arkansas, for heaven’s sake–something that is hugely destructive of poorer communities. My take on the 2010 midterms is that people in places like Arkansas are going to vote for the devil they know rather than the devil they don’t. I do not expect there to be a massive turn-about for the Republicans. Because, you know, in the end most people vote for the best candidate.
And the fact of the matter is that right now (and in my opinion this has little to do with ideology) the Democratic Party is able to field better candidates, in terms of intelligence, integrity, appreciation for the pragmatic, sense of balance, etc.
As for what I mean about “moral consequences.” Maybe I should have gone into this a bit more. My point was that Dave Weigel, via his emails, engaged in behavior a lot of people find reprehensible. Sending an email is behavior. There are consequences for behavior, for all choices we make, better and worse, good and bad. Likely this is a shock to a lot of TV personalities, but we do not live in a relativistic universe. Now maybe I am wrong here–certainly many people would find my view old-fashioned–but most Americans are on the same page with me. At this moment in time, our country is undergoing a period of profound change; part of that is that our society is going through the tumult of adjusting to the reality of more government support for our neighbors (because those jobs are never coming back); but at the same time the definition of social good is changing (less support for abortion, but acceptance of homosexuality and eventually gay marriage; frugality as the new virtue; the nuclear family re-shaped; the abiding presence of religious faith as a valuable part of the American experience).
Let’s put Dave Weigel’s experience into the context of change. Where is our country going demographically? I don’t know if I will live to see it, but the next great political shift is coming when Hispanics finally step forward en masse to claim their rightful place at the political table. This is going to change the status quo upside-down and topsy turvy. I was privileged in 2008 to see the beginnings of this awakening. And I know a super-bright, savvy young Hispanic politico who would make a great replacement for Dave Weigel. He is really a better fit for where the country is going. And that is what the Dave Weigels are going to have to contend with. They have to get outside the Beltway mentality and see what’s really going on. Like Weigel, I covered the tea party convention in Nashville; therefore, I know that he failed the get the deeper story there in several ways. He was too intent on the “big names’ like Andrew Breitbart and Joseph Farah, who meant very little to the people who had come there to organize. That’s what I mean about getting outside the Beltway mentality: pushing your way around the names.
I don’t think Dave Weigel will ever be on the unemployment line, do you? However, you correctly divine one thing. I have spent time lately with mil bloggers and military–enough said, right? Meeting these young people (both men and women) makes me have little patience with men like Weigel who at least on the surface have so much more going for them.
What a finely written and thoughtful contribution to this debate. Ecstatic to have discovered it, and you..
Best,
CD
[...] best piece I have read about the Weigel/Klein mess is this blog post by Mayhill Fowler. You may recall that she is the person who first revealed Obama’s “bitter” comments at a rich folks fundraiser in San [...]