Yesterday afternoon, The Washington Post‘s conservative blogger, Dave Weigel, resigned.
This was following the leak of some emails detailing his personal
political views to a DC hack-gossip named Betsy Rothstein and bowtied
blowhard Tucker Carlson’s website, The Daily Caller. The emails were
pulled from a private listserv run by fellow Washington Post blogger wunderkind Ezra Klein, the notorious Journolist. Now it’s time to ask:
Who smeared Dave Weigel?
Journolist, which was started by Klein in February 2007, was an
elite email (mostly liberal) list of political reporting’s best and
brightest. He once characterized it to Michael Calderone at Politico
as “just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues
freely.” And yesterday, in a column noting Weigel’s resignation and the
shutting-down of Journolist, further explained it:
…The theory behind Journolist: An insulated space where the
lure of a smart, ongoing conversation would encourage journalists,
policy experts and assorted other observers to share their insights
with one another. The eventual irony of the list was that it came to be
viewed as a secretive conspiracy, when in fact it was always a
fractious and freewheeling conversation meant to open the closed
relationship between a reporter and his source to a wider audience.
I’m of the idea that Journolist was a bad idea in practice — because
there is always a rat, always — but think that writers should be
allowed to be sentient human beings with, you know, opinions about
things. Otherwise, hold them in for seven presidential administrations,
and the next thing you know, you’re Helen Thomas and your incredible
legacy is now marred because you expressed an opinion about your job
for the first time in your life that you’ve held in for way too long,
that ends up being a “shocker” to people, and costs you your rep.
Some of the members, following posts last year by Slate’s Mikey Kaus and Salon’s Glen Greenwald, were known. Some of them have started outing themselves. Among their ranks:
Big names, right? If you’re not in that elite club, and you’re not
allowed in — as Tucker Carlson wasn’t when he requested to join three
weeks ago — it’s a tough break for you. The problem is that someone who
was actually on that list, which has been reported to be at over 300
members, had it out for Dave Weigel. And they broke the trust of their
fellow reporting elite when they published his emails. Of those 300
names, there are a lot of seasoned reporting vets. Dave Weigel’s a
pretty plucky young upstart by comparison, and his star — much like
Ezra Klein’s — rose fast at the Washington Post. So…
Who smeared Dave Weigel?
We’re not the first to ask. Alyssa Rosenberg perfectly articulated why it’s worth asking:
If the leaker is a member of JournoList, they’re someone
who either came to despise Weigel enough to break a promise of
confidentiality they initially intended to keep, or they’re an
impostor, a person who deceived one or many people about their
intentions, perhaps for quite some time. That level of
deception is not simply intriguing, it’s genuinely revealing of a
person’s character and the evolution of their beliefs. And if the
emails weren’t given to news outlets by a member of the list, and they
were obtained either through a deliberate hack or exploitation of an
error–a lost password, an email account left open on an unattended
computer–the level of coordinated work that went into getting the
emails was substantial and considerable. Learning the identity
of a person or persons who would spend that time and attention
searching for the emails and designing a coordinated campaign to
release them would say a lot about who feels threatened by Weigel’s
So, who was it?
A jealous colleague?
What kind of agenda did this person have?
And what more do they have prepared for us, if anything?
There’s always the possibility that Weigel was only the first in a
series of “outings” (read: bullshit smear campaigns) that the members
of Journolist are about to experience. The problem is that,
unfortunately, it would appear this campaign was successful in exposing
the vulnerability and unpreparedness of the backwards-thinking
editorial leadership out there at places like The Washington Post, who for the most part, has sided against Weigel.
The cowardly toadie-cum-ombudsman for the Washington Post, Andrew Alexander, did so in an hastily-written press release for the Post groveling over an issue he clearly has no grasp on (this is, of course, the same sentient human being who thought Dana Milbank should be “applauded” for calling Hillary Clinton a “mad bitch”).
This was followed by Washington Post chief Marcus Brauchli telling Post “media” “columnist” Howard Kurtz:
“Dave did excellent work for us…[but] we can’t have any tolerance for the perception that people are conflicted or bring a bias to their work…”
And then, literally, in the next sentence:
“There’s abundant room on our Web site for a wide range of viewpoints, and we should be transparent about everybody’s viewpoint.”
I couldn’t explain this line of logic no matter how hard I try, suffice to say that Brauchli’s implication that every writer under him needs to disclose his or her viewpoints on every article they write about is beyond absurd, it’s simply impractical. Bias is inherent, but that bias wasn’t brought to the table with Dave Weigel’s work for the Post. Kurtz goes on to quote Tucker Carlson:
“The people who write there, are they reporters? Are they op-ed writers? I don’t get it, and I don’t think readers get it.”
This essentially crystallizes an Old Media issue with bloggers perfectly. They don’t understand that all bloggers are also — the moment they pick up the phone, go to the scene of a story, use a source on a story, get quotes, etc — reporters. But not all reporters are bloggers, because they file stories every day. It’s like the old booze distinguishment: All bourbons are whiskey, but not all whiskeys are bourbon. And Old Media grouches think the bloggers are coming for their jobs — which we are — and that their abhorrence of technology will cause them to fall behind — which it will — and so they use the accusation that our work is worth less than theirs because they can’t compartmentalize it easily. It’s a sad logical fallacy that persists. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg demonstrated this best when he heard from his colleagues at the Post (anonymously, of course) discuss Weigel’s resignation to him:
“It makes me crazy when I see these guys referred to as reporters. They’re anything but. And they hurt the newspaper when they claim to be reporters.”
“The lack of toilet-training is right. Everyone makes mistakes, but you can mitigate the number of mistakes through seasoning. Some people here are still put through seasoning, but others aren’t. It shows, and it’s embarrassing.”
Three notes on this:
1. You fucking pussies. You have less spine than your average jellyfish. Come out and show your faces. Because…
2. You just made everyone at the Washington Post who isn’t Klein who were on Journolist the first suspects. And
3. What’s embarrassing is your obliviousness to how transparent your contempt truly is.
Whoever did this knew that Betsy Rothstein and Tucker Carlson were
(respectively) desperate/deluded and shameless enough to make great
places to drop these: Both outlets would give them the due diligence of
sensationalism, weren’t risking credibility (having none to begin
with), and also, wouldn’t rat on their sources. Yet. Because someone’s eventually going to open their mouth, and that kind of thing gets around. And we want to catch it. Again:
Who smeared Dave Weigel?
There is, of course, an inherent hypocrisy in this that doesn’t
escape me: The outrage over a leak shouldn’t beget another one, should
it? In this case, all rules are off. There was no Higher Truth here,
there was an angry careerist trying to off Weigel, one who knew the
motions they were putting into play.
We’ll take whatever we can get. We’re going to find out who did
this, and then we’re going to ask them why, and we’re all going to
learn a sad, evergreen lesson about reporting and journalism and life
in general that’s started to rear it’s ugly head again: You really
can’t trust anyone, ever. But you can certainly trust some people more
than others. Let’s find out who they are.
I’m perfectly fine with paying for a story. I’m not sure what the
policy here is on it (I imagine they’re against such a thing). But if I
somehow magically get money for this, oh, you’ll know. But I do know
this: I’d pay to see this story, whether I’m reading it or reporting
it. I doubt I’m the only one. Hopefully, if I can’t get it for free,
someone — like my old bosses, who have exhibited their willingness to engage in checkbook journalism — will, one way or another.
So, if you know, or have the first clues: You know where to reach us.