The WaPo's Schizophrenia

by emptywheel

What a stark comparison. We've been treated to a four-day series unveiling the secrets of Cheney's power. And in the same week, Eric Boehlert takes on the WaPo's consistent attempt to belittle the Plame investigation, along with its absolute capitulation to the Libby Lobby.

Meanwhile, searching through the Nexis news database going back more than 40 months, I cannot find a single outside contributor who was invited by the newspaper to write a piece that included sustained criticism of Libby during the scandal. Since the Plame story broke big in September 2003, the Post has likely published more than 1,000 guest columns on all sorts of topics. None, however, was built around criticizing Libby or cheering Fitzgerald's investigation. Not one.

By contrast, the newspaper has employed something of an open-door policy for outside contributors who want to use the paper's opinion pages to belittle the Fitzgerald investigation, wallow in pity for Libby, and purposefully misstate the facts of the case. (More on that later.)

Boehlert's got a stronger stomach than I, because he proceeds to examine the depths to which the WaPo was willing to go to help Libby's cause.

Here's the thing. Carol Leonnig is, IMO, the best mainstream reporter on this story. As the Cheney series proves, the WaPo can not only lead in reporting, but in its use of the Internet medium (this is the first blockbuster story that I remember, for example, that links to all the documents it discusses).

But it insists on brainless stupidity on its editorial page. At some point someone's going to have to cut off Fred Hiatt its head to save its honor.

Comments

[AZ Matt]

It is almost like there are two seperate papers. The reporters have been doing some good work, the Walter Reed story, the Cheney series, reporting on the Libby story after you kicked everybodies butt on that one, and Froomkin and few other are great. But, ya, the editorial board is a bunch wussies.

[Jodi]

Perhaps the Post didn't consider the Libby Prosecution valid. Some people consider it an Unfair Persecution where the culprit had confessed before Fitzgerald was even appointed.

Granted other people thought it was a Good Prosecution but the Post didn't take their side. I don't know if they are supposed to do that in their Guest Columns?

emptywheel are you saying that the Post went against its own Policy or some other newspaper policy?

[Sojourner]

It sounds to me like the WaPo editorial board is part of the cocktail weenies circuit. In other words, the board as a whole is more concerned with kissing up to Republican talking points than dealing with the reality that a key player in the VP's office got caught lying to a grand jury and was duly convicted.

I wonder if cocktail weenies have been shown to cause persons who eat them to bury their heads in the sand, or become delusional?

[AZ Matt]

Jodi - Oh, I didn't know that the WaPo editorial board had the Libby case all figured out before Fitzgerald was appointed. I guess we don't need the FBI because the WaPo is on the case. The culprit confessed?! Then why did Libby lie, lie and lie? He is a FELON now.

[AZ Matt]

EW, Since you are interested in Minerals Management(PS - The tribes hate Swimmer):

Ethics issue behind us, Swimmers tells OST
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The Office of Special Trustee has addressed concerns about preferential treatment, Special Trustee Ross Swimmer said in a memo to employees.

In July 2006, the Interior Department's Inspector General released a report that detailed numerous social contacts between top OST officials and an accounting firm. As the officials were showered with meals, drinks, golf rounds and out-of-state trips, the firm's contract grew to $6.6 million, the report said.

Swimmer ordered ethics training for the three officials -- Donna Erwin, the number two at OST, and two of her top aides, brothers Doug and Jeff Lords -- and additional training for all OST managers. OST contracting decisions are being made by DOI's National Business Center in Denver, he noted.

"Today, I firmly believe that in the year sine the report was released, we have put this issue behind us," Swimmer said in a June 22 memo [PDF].

http://indianz.com/News/2007/003640.asp

[Mimikatz]

When I look back on the three other major constitutional crises in my lifetime (1968-1972, 1973-1974, 1998 and now) what stands out as different now is the piss-poor performance of the press as a whole, with notable exceptions, and the seeming greater public apathy. I have hopes that the public is less apathetic than it seems, that it is just having a food coma from too much Paris Hilton and other cotton candy.

The WaPO is, of course, the big contrast. There must be something in the water in DC that causes institutional blindness. Or maybe it is the sweet smell of successful careers as media stars and execs in media conglomerates.

Or maybe it is that too many people who grew up hearing about the greatest generation but failed to heed their own generational call in 1964-1974 or were just born too late decided to have their own little war to prove that they were really just as good and could face down just as serious a challenge. Now they just can't face the shallowness and destructiveness of what they did.

[LabDancer]

Probably like most who post where Ms. e'wheel parks her little red wagon I also have posted some at the vast messy bazaar that is WaPo - mostly to columns occupying the extreme edges of analysis - the completely genuine [EG Pincus & Dana of course - Dionne & Robinson if & when they've had time to think things thru] versus the cravenly propagandish [EG Novak & wee Yorki of course - since both at least has show a little attempt at skill in their respective versions of the hardcon shell game - Kraut when he's off his meds & so at least a little vulnerable - but never those who a just as Ms ewheel puts it - standardless tools & raw shiny objects - Slate's Hitchens being the prototype].

I'm not sure that abbreviated survey makes my point so here it is plainly:

The owners & controllers of WaPo are clearly sympathizers with the BADministration & its several of its constituent elements [Rubs, the Rubs National Committee, Pioneers, most of those in the National Review line-up, power in general, muscular or "robust" foreign policy cleverly disguised as enabling foreign civil conflict & the thinning of the human gene pool & environmental devastation.

But the WaPo owner's agenda is clearly marked for the discerning reader - & easily distinguishable for the fairly impressive patches of organically sustainable parts which the WaPo crazies shelter.

I think that captures where the WaPo of Ms. Katherine & Bradley's day went: It's still there, but most certainly not on the editorial page.

And I don't think any complaining here - or there - as thousands routinely do - is going to change any of that. A sample survey shows that the number of the responses to any old recycled shot of Novakaine is huge [essentially "traitor" times several score] whereas the responses to even Pincus' best work tends to be very low & pretty much the usual suspects.

WaPo seems set on being "Something for everyone".

[Redshift]

Indeed. In its schizophrenia, the paper resembles the Wall Street Journal more every day.

[Jodi]

AZ Matt said:

"Jodi - Oh, I didn't know that the WaPo editorial board had the Libby case all figured out before Fitzgerald was appointed. I guess we don't need the FBI because the WaPo is on the case. The culprit confessed?! Then why did Libby lie, lie and lie? He is a FELON now." (my bold on Jodi)

First, the most honored of WaPo, Woodward has repeatedly said there wasn't much to the whole prosecution and the WaPo didnt' think much of it in general.
Second, Libby wasn't charged with the crime the Prosecutor was supposedly working on.
Third, Armitage with his tale of telling Novak about Plame, went to the Justice Dept before Fitzgerald was appointed.
Fourth, you have a good point though it misses the point in asking why Libby lied. I suspect after Bush said he would fire leakers, that Libby might be afraid for his job. And finally Libby knew that it would be politically embarassing,(as it was), if it became known he was chatting up the press all the time.

[Katie Jensen]

I get it, it's okay to lie if it's too embarrassing to tell the truth. I see.

Nope, no perjury in that. No obstruction of justice in that. He would have been embarrassed to admit that he was passing classified information on to reporters. So he lied about it. Hmmm, so no perjury.

My mom always taught me that it's okay to lie as long as you have a really good reason.

Thanks for the clarity on that one. I'll pass it on.

[P J Evans]

Troll, has it ever occurred to you that Libby was told to lie, to protect Darth and Shrub from the consequences of their own actions?
Also, as a lawyer, Libby should certainly have known what he was doing, what the risks were, so he isn't innocent in the matter.

[freepatriot]

shit stain logic:

you have a good point though it misses the point in asking why Libby lied. I suspect after Bush said he would fire leakers, that Libby might be afraid for his job. And finally Libby knew that it would be politically embarassing,(as it was), if it became known he was chatting up the press all the time.

hey shit stain, listen up

when you liew about a blowjob, you're lying to avoid embarrasment

when you are legally obligated to follow the proceedures specified under Standard Form-312, and you violate the terms of Standard Form-312, you don't lie to prevent embarrasment

you lie to prevent CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

what a waste

and to think that we waited over TWO MONTHS for the shit stain to think of a story to explain why scooter lied

and that's the best our shit stain can come up with ???

I'm beginning to think that our shit stain is comprised of at least three people who collectivly, couldn't reach triple digits on an IQ test

that or we just got a really LAZY version of shit stain today

[Pete]

Not only is the WaPo publishing all these pro-Libby articles, it is refusing to publish in its printed edition any meaningful responses to those articles. To read the meaningful responses one has to go to the WaPo web site where the response to these articles is overwhelmingly against.

[darclay]

After viewing Charlie Rose's interview last evening on the Rove piece in the wp, it seemed to me that the article was a plug for the VP. There was something about the wording that did not go down well. Does anyone else feel that the Rep. are saying "look at how strong and no nonsense the VP is ....". Just a thought.

[Jodi]

Katie,

are you saying:

"My mom always taught me that it's okay to lie as long as you have a really good reason."

I ask because I sure didn't say it.

[Neil]

Perhaps shit stain didn't read to the end of the post. EW is clear in praising WaPo's Carol Leoning NEWS coverage of the story and simultaneously blasting WaPo's EDITORIAL coverage. It's not too nuanced really. It's a simple basic distinction:

Carol Leonnig is, IMO, the best mainstream reporter on this story. As the Cheney series proves, the WaPo can not only lead in reporting, but in its use of the Internet medium...

But it insists on brainless stupidity on its editorial page. At some point someone's going to have to cut off Fred Hiatt its head to save its honor.

"Brainless stupidity." Now there's an apt phrase.

[Jodi]

P J Evans,

it did occur to me. All of what you said might have happened.

But it wasn't proven or even charged at trial.

I am not saying Libby was not guilty of lying. There was enough evidence to prove that.

But I don't think any reason was proven.

One reason for doing it that I have advanced before is that he wanted to do a "snow job" on the FBI, and then once he did that he knew that he was in violation of the legal code. He then may have just decided to bluff his way through on everything but didn't know the reporters would "roll over" for the prosecutor, or he could have been mixed up on a few things.

Libby might have just outsmarted himself.

As for the long breakfast with Judy. Well Libby looks to me to be a player, and maybe wanted to see what kind of relationship Judy would enter into for "the inside track."

But I don't know really. I could guess all night.

[NYT]

During Watergate the Nixon administration threatened to give the Washington Post company problems in renewing their broadcast licenses. The Republicans were prepared to use their leverage to slant the coverage of the newspaper.

Now the Washington Post is a relatively minor part of the Washington Post company. Their main business is Kaplan, the education materials business. It generates more than twice the operating income of the newspaper business and is growing about 20% a year (newspapers are in decline).

If any administration wanted to influence the Post, I think they would have far more leverage now that in 1974.

[freepatriot]

you REALLY ARE flailing, ain't you shit stain ???

he wanted to do a "snow job" on the FBI,

yeah, we fucking know that already

the question is WHY DID HE TRY TO DO A SNOW JOB

for the fun of it ???

cuz he didn't know the legal implications ??? (he's a lawyer ya know) ???

cuz he just felt like lying to somebody on that day ???

or maybe he was worried about being charged for leaking the name of a covert agent

which one is it, shit stain ???

we can ALL AGREE that scooter lied

the finders of fact under the Constitution have said UNEQUVICALLY, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, SCOOTER LIBBY LIED TO THE FBI

so you can stop trying to confuse the issue by restating a fact that everybody but a shitstain already knows is a fucking fact

the question is WHY DID SCOOTER LIE

and you've been "on the clock" for that question for about two months, you fucking shit stain

so instead of repeating bullshit answer the fucking question

and stop trying to be a sneaky shit stain, you just ain't capable to pull off that act