Weigel/JournoList: A belated reply to Conor Friedersdorf
[Posted by Karl]
While searching for something else, I stumbled upon Conor Friedersdorf’s response to my post on Dave Weigel’s departure from the WaPo over his writings on the now-defunct JournoList. Although folks have moved on from the story, Friedersdorf’s piece is worth a reply as an entry point to a broader discussion of ethics in journalism.
Friedersdorf first quotes from my original post:
…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.
He then writes:
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?
The funny part of that request is that I responded to the major points Friedersdorf raises when he contacted me on Twitter, almost immediately after my post was published — but he chose not to share those responses with his blog readership. Perhaps that’s his way of goading me to respond at length on-blog, in which case, mission accomplished.
Let’s review what I wrote in that original post that applies to Friedersdorf. First, I wrote that he is on TeamWeigel, which is a fact. Second, I suggested that Friedersdorf did not acknowledge that Weigel encouraged epistemic closure on the JournoList and that Weigel’s messages were likely leaked by someone marinating the JournoList’s closed system who felt that Weigel was not enough of a team player. Anyone reading Friedersdorf’s defense of Weigel at The Atlantic (linked above) can verify that the part of one sentence where Friedersdorf objects to Weigel’s attempt to deny links to The Washington Examiner does not take the further step of noting that such behavior promotes epistemic closure. That Friedersdorf breezes by the objection — and mildly criticized JournoList in 2009 — only underscores how badly he missed (and continues to miss) the larger issue when an ideological ally is implicated.
Indeed, Friedersdorf told me “I join you in objecting to those Weigel quotes,” but now claims that neither he nor Weigel’s critics have seen the context in which Weigel made his comments. However, Friedersdorf in the same post links to Weigel’s own attempted contextualization of the Coakley e-mail, which is that “If you think that political reporters don’t occasionally play armchair generals for the people they write about, you have never met a political reporter.” The problem with that rationalization is that any fair reading of Weigel’s e-mail is that he was not merely playing “airmchair general” of the people he writes about. Rather, he was trying to play “armchair general” of his fellow journalists, in an attempt to frame a narrative for the benefit of the political opponents of the people he writes about.
None of this matters to Friedersdorf, because he believes that Weigel’s journalism should be evaluated solely by the substance of the work itself. Friedersdorf does not explain the basis for this thesis, either in his defense of Weigel or his post about JournoList. In contrast, anyone who wants to consult organizations like the Society of Projessional Journalists or institutions like the New York Times can readily discover that questions of journalistic ethics extend beyond what appears on the page or screen.
In practice, questions of journalistic ethics often involve issues of what does not appear on the page or screen. When former CNN honcho Eason Jordan revealed that his network suppressed stories about atrocities in Iraq, it raised questions. When Reuters spiked a story about hedge fund trader Steven Cohen, it raised questions (for a variation on this theme, check the WaPo). When the L.A. Times told its bloggers not to write about the National Enquirer story on the John Edwards – Rielle Hunter affair, it raised questions (as did the fact that Mark Halperin and John Heilemann kept quiet about it while writing their book on the 2008 campaign). When the NYT slow-walked the ACORN and Van Jones stories, public editor Clark Hoyt opined that the paper risked “looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.” Thus, when a journalist uses a professional forum to encourage his colleagues to boycott The Washington Examiner, curtail coverage of Sarah Palin’s “death panels” comment (including criticism thereof), and to spin the Massachusetts Senate election as a function of Martha Coakley’s awfulness — because doing so would help the Democratic Party — ethical questions are definitely on the table, even if Friedersdorf wants to continue to blind himself to them.
Friedersdorf is so blind to this point that he did not even notice that his complaints about my post are that I failed to report certain of his opinions. Although I believe his complaint against me falls short, it demonstrates that he accepts the notion that selective reporting is a problem.
Unfortunately, Friedersdorf’s recognition of the ills of selective reporting is itself selective, because he does not recognize it in Weigel’s work. Weigel may be a talented and hard-working writer, but selective reporting is his stock-in-trade. The signature of his body of work at the WaPo was his disproportionate focus on what he deemed to be the fringe of the Right. Thus, during a period where the biggest story in America was the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Weigel wrote a number of pieces about birther Orly Taitz and virtually nothing about Gulf state Governors Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour, either of whom could seek the GOP presidential nod in 2012. Taken as a whole, Weigel’s portrait of the GOP and the conservative movement for the WaPo (and the Washington Independent before that) was about as fair and accurate as “A New Yorker’s Idea of the United States of America” is as a map of the nation.
Conversely, Weigel’s current story of interest is the Justice Department’s controversial decision to waive a civil judgment against members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation. So far, Weigel has had to back away from his uncritical regurgitation of an inaccurate piece at The American Prospect. He also mustered the chutzpah to complain that FNC’s Megyn Kelly is “obsessed” with covering this story of the Leftist fringe, and to casually imply that racism was involved. Friedersdorf implies (with no evidence, I might add) that I apply a different standard to Weigel and Fox News Channel, when in fact Weigel is the culprit on that score.
Friedersdorf wants to gloss over the questions raised by Weigel’s behavior on JournoList. However, Weigel’s disporportionate focus on the fringe of the Right, and his apparent double standard when it comes to coverage of the Leftist fringe, demonstrate that Weigel’s work on blogs was (and is) wholly consistent with his unofficial activism and anti-conservative invective on JournoList. It is not surprising that Friedersdorf cannot see that, given the degree to which Weigel’s selective reporting confirms Friedersdorf’s pre-existing attitudes about the Right.
–Karl
indeed
quasimodo (4af144) — 7/16/2010 @ 11:38 amThey both work for Sullivan now, right, doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know
ian cormac (d28167) — 7/16/2010 @ 11:41 am[emphasis added]
Wow, Feinsdorf pre-emptively answered your Weigel criticism a few paragraphs later! You must be becoming predictable
timb (449046) — 7/16/2010 @ 1:33 pmFriedersdorf is “on the right” in the same sense that Weigel is .. none.
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”
Translation – “I object to people noticing that I’m as much a conservative as is David Wiegel”.
Subotai (f7a16d) — 7/16/2010 @ 1:49 pmBack 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.
By “thoughtful conservatives”, Friedersdorf means “me”.
Subotai (f7a16d) — 7/16/2010 @ 1:51 pm“You must be becoming predictable”
Stalker timb is very predictable.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 7/16/2010 @ 2:55 pm“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””
Weigel, Friersdorf and Sullivan welcome the much, much maligned David Frum to the Daily Dish.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 7/16/2010 @ 2:58 pmtimb,
Um, no. I responded to CF by linking to Weigel’s WaPo archive, which shows the guy couldn’t go more than a day or two without writing about the fringe, thereby supplying the data CF lacked. It’s interesting that CF can call Weigel’s reporting superb at The Atlantic, yet profess that he just doesn’t know whether the overall picture Weigel painted was warped. But maybe I’ll get into that further when CF responds — as he has informed me he will.
As for the rest of your comment, I’ll second Subotai for now.
Karl (f82126) — 7/16/2010 @ 2:59 pmtimmah has a serious man cruch on Karl, obviously. It’s all there – heavy breathing, projection, the works. Sorry, Karl.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 7/16/2010 @ 2:59 pm“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””
Funny thing that, progressives seem to love those “real conservatives” who are willing so sh*t all over the rest of the right. The right, not so much.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 7/16/2010 @ 3:01 pmdaleyrocks,
To be scrupulously fair, CF objected to being labeled a conservative by the Glenns, when the Glenns applied it for that sort of effect.
But as an observation about progressives, you’re absolutely correct.
Karl (f82126) — 7/16/2010 @ 3:24 pmKarl – I didn’t mean to label CF as a conservative. Sorry if it came across that way. Didn’t Frim guest post at Sullivan’s place this week, or was I incorrect? That’s what I was referencing.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 7/16/2010 @ 5:09 pmThe “anthropological” approach to conservatives is the mirror image of the left’s obsession with its own brilliance. They are foolish in this misapprehension of the right. The Angelo Codevilla essay in the American Spectator explains much of this inappropriate elation at their own intelligence by the left, or the “ruling class” as he puts it.
Universities are now ruled by Humanities and Social Science faculty who have almost no interaction with hard science faculty. The Ivy League schools have abandoned grading, as witnessed by Vann Jones’ statement about Yale Law School. Getting admitted is the last achievement. The left’s certainties about its own brilliance are based on illusions. Obama is a prominent example of this with his gaffes about “speaking Austrian” and 57 states.
Codevilla’s essay is long but worthwhile.
Mike K (0ef8c3) — 7/16/2010 @ 7:09 pmThe problem, as I see it, is that anyone besides Friedersdorf and his mother takes him seriously.
Sure, you can effectively rebuke him, but unlike a cockroach you stomp, he seems always to come back in some form, no more knowledgeable and no less obnoxious than before.
If I might suggest, with all humility, perhaps the best approach is to ignore him completely, in the hope he may grow bored and go away.
Adjoran (ec6a4b) — 7/17/2010 @ 4:16 amActually, CF did identify himself as a conservative:
In other words, it is perfectly accurate to call me an American conservative, or at least as accurate as any single ideological label can be.
He just objected to be identified as one of those icky torture-loving Limbaughesque conservatives.
Mr. Theissen and I share neither an ideological nor a political coalition, even those we both call ourselves conservative — as far as I can tell, that’s because he is using the word to refer to the political coalition called the conservative movement, whereas I am using the word to refer to a body of thought contained in old books.
Having redefined “conservative” to his liking, CF has reassured the left he’s one of those thoughtful “conservatives” they wistfully wish there were more of.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 7/17/2010 @ 8:16 amMike K., a comment of mine about Codevilla’s article seems to have gone into the ether. I said I mostly admired the article, but objected to his characterization of evolution as a ” ‘scientific’ notion” that Darwin popularized.
I also said someone like you needs to talk with Codevilla to explain the flaws in evolution-bashing, factually; in view of building a coalition that extends beyond Christian conservatives; and as something the left will seize upon to discredit the article.
And, I saw Tom Daschle yesterday speak to a venture capital group. He discussed health care, describing health care insurance as a “moral right,” that brings with it obligations. Thus, the foundations for enlarging the nanny-state are laid.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 7/17/2010 @ 8:50 amWe’ve seen plenty of examples in recent years of liberal journalists unwilling – or unable – to stop their biases from bleeding into their coverage.
If that wasn’t an issue, this whole situation would mean much less.
I wasn’t very familiar with Weigel’s work, but I saw his description of the Etheridge “hug” video and a couple of other snippets and that seemed more than enough to suspect he can’t hide his own views.
It’s still staggering that he was hired to cover the Right – while a true Lefty was given the same task for the Left.
Christian Toto (4f860b) — 7/17/2010 @ 8:46 pm