Dave Weigel Resigns (Updatedx2)
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Washington Post’s conservative watcher Dave Weigel has resigned following JournoList revelations that he disses conservatives:
“FishbowlDC has obtained e-mails written by WaPo’s conservative-beat blogger Dave Weigel, that the scribe sent to JournoList, a listserv for liberal journalists. ***
Seems Weigel doesn’t like (and that would be putting it mildly) at least some of the conservatives he covers. Poor Drudge – Weigel wants him to light himself on fire.
•”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.”
•”Follow-up to one hell of a day: Apparently, the Washington Examiner thought it would be fun to write up an item about my dancing at the wedding of Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman. Said item included the name and job of my girlfriend, who was not even there — nor in DC at all.”
•”I’d politely encourage everyone to think twice about rewarding the Examiner with any traffic or links for a while. I know the temptation is high to follow up hot hot Byron York scoops, but please resist it.”
•”It’s all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn’t get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV.” “
Who at JournoList squealed on Weigel?
UPDATE: JD has done all the work on this story. He points out The Daily Caller has a longer list of Weigel witticisms.
UPDATE 2: Was Weigel done in by an envious Journolist competitor?
“Various readers suggest that the email-leaker was after Dave’s job.”
How likely is it a liberal would crave the job of WaPo conservative overlord?
He lost his job cause of his dirty socialist ideology. Plus there’s tens of thousands of oil workers what lost their jobs because of the dirty socialist little president man’s dirty socialist ideology.
There must be something inherent in the ideology what is hostile to employment.happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:14 am
And Matt Drudge is the person with emotional problems? Seems to me that Mr. Pot is called Mr. Kettle a particular hue that could be self applied.Eric Blair (c8876d) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:15 am
DRJ – You left out some of his more incendiary comments …
This will go into filtration …
[yep, it did. released now. –Stashiu]JD (0f9c01) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:23 am
The journolist has been an ongoing source of amusement since many on it were “outed” last year. I wonder what it would take for one of those papers to hire an actual, like you know, conservative blogger as their “conservative watcher”. Hey, anybody know who has the “liberal watcher” gig?elissa (ababd7) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:23 am
The JournoList would likely be an interesting story, but the MFM will not cover itself in a critical manner.
I like how Ed called Weigel the “Conservatives in the Mist” project.
That ratf*cker Weigel’s words got me filtrated.JD (0f9c01) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:26 am
Who?Frank Drebbin (8096f2) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:35 am
This post is kind of an all-inclusive listing of his douchenozzlery.JD (0f9c01) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:35 am
It is particularly fitting that our little Ezra has gotten his nose bloodied a bit in the Weigel mess, too, since he was the one who “recommended” Weigel to the Post.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/06/an-unhappy-day-at-the-washington-post/58745/elissa (ababd7) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:49 am
Gee, so the WAPO set up a reporter to report on conservativism in roughly the same spirit that Jane Goodall reports on the behavior of chimps. And we are surprised this went badly?
i mean on one hand, i guess its a sort of progress that they are trying to get outside their liberal cocoon. and to be fair, they do have charles krouthammer as a field guide. but the whole approach seemed wrongheaded to me.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:58 am
Nice.Em (017d3c) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:04 pm
JD, I hope Weigel gets some therapy now during his copious free time to deal with his pecuuliar fascination with rats and f***ing.
Iowahawk had the most hysterically funny peek into One Afternoon in a Secret Corner of the Internet as he delightfully poked fun at those wacky JournoList kids. It’s worth a re-read.Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:14 pm
they all do: its called regular news coverage.redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:18 pm
Thanks, JD. I updated the post with the Daily Caller link.DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:25 pm
Theoretically, in one sense anyway, it should be possible for a left-wing journalist to understand a conservative point of view and explain it, even if he/she goes on to say why they disagree.
But, if being on the left inherently means being intellectually dishonest and defaulting to ad hominem attacks on reflex, then perhaps it theoretically isn’t possible for a leftist to understand conservative views, even though conservatives can often well understand a leftist view, but we just disagree.
Let’s see what we think of this:
In a nutshell, I think, the liberal or left view of the world is that you can make people and institutions be good and make things “fair” in that everyone has more or less an equal share, and that is a good thing.
The conservative point of view is that you cannot order or coerce people to be “good”, and that more trouble is made when you try to. You can reward good and punish evil and thereby encourage goodness and fairness to prevail, and that is in general the role of government. Fairness is seen as how people are treated and having opportunity, rather than a guaranteed outcome.
Generosity and mercy, gratefullness and grace, are virtues to a conservative; in some ways they don’t really exist for a liberal/leftist. You can’t be generous if the person is owed it, and you don’t need to be grateful when it’s given to you because you are owed it.MD in Philly (5a98ff) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:26 pm
I’ll hand this to Weigel – his apology was pretty good.
He picked out the most colorful piece – suggesting drudge should set himself on fire, then added two pretty innocous ones, and then the “Paultards”, which was just picking on a small, but loud (and annoying) political minority.
So, he made it looked like he was coming clean, and left many of us with a “that’s not so bad” feeling.
Then the full article comes out, and it’s pretty clear that Weigel hates the people he is covering.
It doesn’t quit arise to the level of Bill Clinton “coming clean on Lewinsky” with HRC by saying, “tomorrow, in the deposition, I am going to say ____________________.” Totally brilliant….confessed while still maintaining a small amount of deniability.headhunt23 (c35715) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:38 pm
I don’t think that the late Tim Russert was conservative. But I cannot imagine him writing that kind of crap.Eric Blair (c8876d) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:41 pm
Gee, so the WAPO set up a reporter to report on conservativism in roughly the same spirit that Jane Goodall reports on the behavior of chimps. And we are surprised this went badly?
Inapt comparison: Goodall admires chimps and wants to protect them from exploitation.
I get the feeling that WaPo editors somehow thought Weigel was conservative just because he wrote for Reason. After all, in WaPo thinking, libertarian is just another word for conservative.
Speaking of Reason, here is Matt Welch’s post on L’Affaire Weigel.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:52 pm
Hm, Ezra Klein has shut down Journo List.
It was ironic, in a way, that it would be the Daily Caller that published e-mails from Journolist. A few weeks ago, its editor, Tucker Carlson, asked if he could join the list. After asking other members, I said no, that the rules had worked so far to protect people, and the members weren’t comfortable changing them. He tried to change my mind, and I offered, instead, to partner with Carlson to start a bipartisan list serv. That didn’t interest him.
In any case, Journolist is done now. I’ll delete the group soon after this post goes live. That’s not because Journolist was a bad idea, or anyone on it did anything wrong. It was a wonderful, chaotic, educational discussion. I’m proud of having started it, grateful to have participated in it, and I have no doubt that someone else will reform it, with many of the same members, and keep it going. Hopefully, it will lose some of its mystique in the process, and be understood more for what it is: One of many e-mail lists where people talk about things they’re interested in. But insofar as the current version of Journolist has seen its archives become a weapon, and insofar as people’s careers are now at stake, it has to die.Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:54 pm
Oh, and Ezra Klein says he’s killed JournoList.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:55 pm
They are only sorry they were exposed. The idea that the public shouldn’t be aware of how these people agree to spread democrat talking points is the opposite of journalism.
Just a pack of liars pretending to be objective spreaders of honesty.NAACP (b54cdc) — 6/25/2010 @ 12:59 pm
Ezra Klein says his leftie journo’s can’t handle the truth …SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:00 pm
Dammit, I shouldn’t sockpuppet anyway.
I heard someone say the next Journolist will be called ‘Better than Ezra’s’Dustin (b54cdc) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:04 pm
That’s not because Journolist was a bad idea, or anyone on it did anything wrong.
This is confusing because apparently someone did something wrong, something very wrong…unless leaking emails is now an okay thing to do.Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:05 pm
Weigel’s real sin is not that he has contemptuous opinions of many conservatives, but that he constructed a public image greatly at variance with his private beliefs.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:06 pm
I heard someone say the next Journolist will be called ‘Better than Ezra’s’
Heh.Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:06 pm
They had to kill JournoList. They don’t know who the leaker is.DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:12 pm
But DRJ, that’s the point: Why is Ezra saying no one on JournoList did anything wrong if someone on the List obviously leaked the emails?
It seems likes he trying to defend his group, yet at the same time making it clear it’s no longer a trustworthy group. IOW, he’s contradicting himself as he digs in.Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:16 pm
Dana beat me by one minute with the news of JournoList’s demise, thanks to her faster synapses.
insofar as the current version of Journolist has seen its archivesBrother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:19 pm
become a weaponexpose views its members don’t want the public to know, and insofar as people’s careersability to dissemble are now at stake, it has to die.
Weigel’s real sin is not that he has contemptuous opinions of many conservatives, but that he constructed a public image greatly at variance with his private beliefs.
Hmm, commonly referred to as dishonest???Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:21 pm
I think Weigel’s real sin was that he’s OK with a secret campaign of helping promote liberal hack talking points across a swath of supposedly objective and competing news outlets.
Sometimes it seems like all these MSM outlets are simply democrat shills, but its strange that they all take precisely the same position. This bolsters, even in a conservative’s mind, the idea that this position must have some credibility to it. If Wapo and CNN and Huffpo had slightly different takes, their ability to be propaganda would be greatly diminished.
Weigel was happy to be a part of the great wide conspiracy to shill for democrats. He went a step farther than most be pretending to be a conservative, which I suspect is why some other Journolist member decided to get rid of him. You see, these liberal hacks like Ezra are scared to death of the public realizing just how much they are an echochamber for the Democrat party.
Some member was upset that some ‘conservative’ was even tolerated among their secret society.
The public has a right to know every letter of these archives. Ezra is no journalist for hiding the truth from the people.Dustin (b54cdc) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:39 pm
I had no idea who this Poncey Boy was until a few weeks ago, so good riddance to a completely ineffectual “journalist.” He was only talking to his own self – selected lefties, so his desired effect on persuading others was about nil.Dmac (cfe27e) — 6/25/2010 @ 1:49 pm
For quite some time now, I’ve been asking ..
“who are Jon and Kate and why should I care ?”
The same goes for Dave Weigel.Neo (7830e6) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:03 pm
Yes, Dana, dishonest is the most succinct way of describing Weigel’s behavior.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:23 pm
Just another nail in the coffin of the myth of the liberal media.
WAIT!daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:25 pm
I’m so lovin’ this. The WaPo/Weigel/Ezra embarrassment is just the type of situation for which the word schadenfreude was invented. Live by the Journolist–die by the Journolist. Too-clever-by-half Ezra and company are no doubt going crazy trying to ferret out the leaker.
Now, we all need to be super observant of news stories and blog posts over the next weeks to discern if there is any appreciable difference now that the Journolist approved memes, themes, narratives and talking points are (temporarily) muted.elissa (ababd7) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:33 pm
elissa – Don’t they still have the daily strategery call from the White House?daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:36 pm
As some have noted, elissa, journolist was started just after Townhall ended their version of it.
I would suspect the new version of this is already in place, perhaps taking the form of some White House involvement.
The White House is just plain creepy with how they deal with the press.Dustin (b54cdc) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:40 pm
The WaPo/Weigel/Ezra embarrassment is just the type of situation for which the word schadenfreude was invented. Live by the Journolist–die by the Journolist.
I wonder if the new JournoList version is gonna pass out top-secret decoder rings for members this time around…Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:45 pm
It depends. Apparently Weigel wasn’t dishonest with his employer and other journalists — this story proves they all knew what he thought. Of course, you could say he was dishonest with his readers but that’s a relative term. Don’t most journalists think they can keep their personal beliefs to themselves, as long as those beliefs don’t taint their reporting? It’s like serving on a jury — most of us believe we can be neutral and not disqualify ourselves for bias, even though we probably already have opinions on the subject matter. We feel like we can set aside any preconceptions and we generally do, and I suspect reporters look at it the same way.
Because I think he’s saying it’s the Journolist organizers, not the members, who are at fault here. The organizers did a bad job of picking who could belong because they obviously picked someone who blabbed. I assume they plan to start over with a smaller membership base of true believers to keep this from happening again.DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:47 pm
“I said no, that the rules had worked so far to protect people, and the members weren’t comfortable changing them.”
“That’s not because Journolist was a bad idea, or anyone on it did anything wrong.”
Hmmmmm. If nobody did anything wrong, then what are you protecting them from? Can’t the Heathers participating on the list handle the truth. Sorry, rhetorical question. We already know the correct answer is HELL NO.daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:48 pm
DRJ says honesty to readers is a relative thing because personal views can, at least in journalism standards, be separated from the actual work.
OK, that part I accept.
But Journolist is itself extremely newsworthy and it’s being covered up. Any journalist who is privy to it should document the entire thing for the masses. Politics in this country has major problems, and we need to know how we’re being manipulated and by whom.
Any Wapo reporter who helps hide this is betraying a tradition that probably is barely even recognizable at this point.Dustin (b54cdc) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:57 pm
Whatever the secret society replacement for the lefty Journolist turns out to be, I’m guessing the kiddy guest list will be a WHOLE lot smaller and will entail a tree house, a pinky swear, a blood oath and (as Dana suggests) a secret decoder ring.elissa (ababd7) — 6/25/2010 @ 2:59 pm
Of course, you could say he was dishonest with his readers but that’s a relative term. Don’t most journalists think they can keep their personal beliefs to themselves, as long as those beliefs don’t taint their reporting?
Yes, although I think most journalists are kidding themselves. Some can manage that distinction, many more can’t. And we now know that Weigel loathes many conservatives, something rather pertinent to someone who covers conservatives. If Weigel had disclosed his animus, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad, because readers would know where he is coming from.
It’s like serving on a jury — most of us believe we can be neutral and not disqualify ourselves for bias, even though we probably already have opinions on the subject matter. We feel like we can set aside any preconceptions and we generally do, and I suspect reporters look at it the same way.
That’s the way it’s supposed to be. Some reporters do act that way and are careful to separate their personal opinions from facts and don’t try to force readers to adopt their opinions. Others just use their status as a reporter to deflect specific bias criticisms. And Weigel had caused suspicion of conservatives from soon after WaPo hired him.
I agree that being a liberal doesn’t mean one can’t cover conservatives, or vice versa. However, concealing strongly held views that relate to one’s beat seems deceptive.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 3:01 pm
I found this statement from Raju Narisetti in the Politico article of particular interest:
“Dave’s apology to readers reflects he understands, in calmer hindsight, the need to exercise good judgment at all times and of not throwing stones, especially when operating from inside an echo-filled glass house that is modern-day digital journalism,” said Post Managing Editor Raju Narisetti, the architect of the Post’s latest moves into the blogging space. “Time to move on.”
Narisetti knows whereof he speaks, because he got into trouble for tweeting: “We can incur all sorts of federal deficits for wars and what not. But we have to promise not to increase it by $1 for healthcare reform? Sad.”
The news that a top WaPo editor supports health care “reform” is hardly earth-shaking. But it sheds light on a possible reason for the unwise hiring of Weigel, supported by Ezra Klein. These are all lefties, and may have lacked the perspective to see Weigel’s weaknesses. Some ideological diversity among the WaPo decision-makers might have caught this mistake.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 3:29 pm
Would it be correct to say that *some* journalists keep their personal beliefs to themselves in order to remain as objective as possible in their professional reporting and to serve the integrity of journalism, and there are those that keep their personal beliefs to themselves (or to the JournoList group) in order to convince people they are something other than they really are? IOW, they are intentionally deceptive rather than trying to uphold an ethic they believe to an integral part of their profession?
(I realize I’ve moved to motive behind…)Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 3:33 pm
I updated the post. It always seemed to me that the WaPo doesn’t care about actually being diverse as much as looking like they care about diversity. If they really wanted to be diverse, they would have hired a conservative to opine on conservative blogs.DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/25/2010 @ 3:41 pm
As regulars have discussed numerous times on this site as well as on others such as Ace’s, you can almost always immediately smell a concern troll pretending to be a conservative, because they just never can get it quite right. They write with the caricature phrases and half baked ideas that folks on Huffpo and Kos mock about conservatives, but in actuality bear no true resemblance to any real-life conservative you know. These trolls have different DNA and it shows no matter how hard they try. They just do not understand conservatives.elissa (ababd7) — 6/25/2010 @ 3:43 pm
For any semi-credible paper or network to assign a liberal reporter who dispises both conservatives and conservative tenets, to act as an analyst about “inside conservative politics” makes no sense to people either–for the same reasons. Think how many papers and networks with a straight face still introduce Andi Sullivan as a conservative commentator and hang on his pronouncements, while honest conservatives roll their eyes and pop rolaids at the very thought of Andrew Sullivan’s bizarre “explanations” of conservative ideas and the actions of certain politicians on the right.
ezra klein is doucheColonelHaiku (181d1a) — 6/25/2010 @ 3:45 pm
not associated with
hygiene or freshness
It strikes me that this whole JournoList betrayal undercuts journalists’ assurances of, Sure, it’s off the record. A rather delicious irony there.Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 3:52 pm
Headline # 1
ALLEGED REPORTER FOUND TO BE PROPAGANDIST FOR DEMOCRAT PARTY
Headline # 2
DOG BITES MANDave Surls (8c37a2) — 6/25/2010 @ 3:59 pm
Delicious irony and astonishing hypocrisy.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:03 pm
I’m unfamiliar with Dave Weigel’s work, but this seems to be a reasonable defense to me:Ben (671d78) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:03 pm
I guess the thing that I don’t understand is the faux macho juvenile nonsense. I mean, I look at Weigel, and it is clear to me that he was whirlied a lot in high school by the football team. Maybe I was wrong, and he was state champion in Greco-Roman Wrestling.
But I doubt it.
I went to a tough high school, and I stayed out of the way of the tough guys—because I didn’t want to fight. It didn’t make me a coward, because I did fight when I had to do so. But I didn’t go posturing like some tough guy.
What I didn’t understand then were the little weasels who would talk all tough…and then when the real tough guys would confront them, get all weepy and scared.
If they talk tough, they should be willing to act tough.
And when I read “ratf&^ker” over and over again, and “Paultard” and wishing people would burn to death (and wishing Limbaugh would have a heart attack, as I recall) and the rest of the quite hateful material, I think: why is Weigel talking so tough?
Because he isn’t, and has some bad memories of the fact? Maybe.
Now, lots of people talk all tough and macho. Fine. Most of it is noise. But then they shouldn’t get surprised when they are called on it.
My father always warned me about writing a check with my mouth I couldn’t cash. It seems like Weigel is overdrawn.
“Just his private opinion?” I don’t think so, and I don’t believe he really thinks so, either (based on his weak defense of his juvenile behavior). Notice that his “private” comments contained wishes about the way the news should be portrayed, which is something he became involved with!
All that is fine. Maybe they should hire a right wing person to “explain” the democratic part and the Obama movement under a masthead? Riiiight.Eric Blair (02a138) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:16 pm
Ben, I like some of what Megan McCardle writes. But honestly, she has let her personal friendship with this person interfere with her thinking.
The part that made me choke on some coffee was this:
Because, of course, the MSM has been so openly fairminded about the Obama adminstration and the DNC, carefully analyzing fairly the pros and cons of every thorny issue? Right? WTF?
Why, the MSM is the definition of a “bunker mentality” at present, when it comes to being Chief Fluffers and Lotion Ration Officers for this administration.
She was a housemate of Weigel. She likes him. Good enough. But what he wrote—excuse me, the “cherrypicked comments” from this hard to define journalist—were self-damning toward anyone who wished to be perceived as an impartial journalist interested in reporting the news. He wanted to influence the perception of news, based on his own words.
Because, as you recall from one of his own e-mails, many of us just aren’t smart enough to know what is going on.
Well, I am smart enough to know a partisan hack when I see one. I hope he is happy over at HuffPo.
Incidentally, Weigel loves him that Health Bill. How is that Libertarian, again? Just asking.Eric Blair (02a138) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:24 pm
You’ll be amused by Amanda Marcotte’s rant on this.
I shall take no inferences on how she knows back-stabbing hater behavior when she sees it. 🙂 But if y’all wish to infer something on that from her paragraph:
well, go right ahead! 🙂
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]The Dana who visits some left-wing sites (474dfc) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:35 pm
I also found Sanchez’ defense less than totally convincing.
“To take a dim view of the self-serving demagoguery of a handful of prominent conservatives like Matt Drudge or Newt Gingrich is apparently, now, to display contempt for conservatives as such.”
Just like Ezra Klein takes a dim view of the self-serving demagoguery of a handful of prominent liberals like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.
WaPo’s ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, has a much better response:
Klein’s blog posts clearly pass through a liberal prism. For that reason, liberals have a comfort level with what he writes, and conservatives know where he’s coming from, even if they disagree. In contrast, Weigel’s blog seemed to confuse many conservatives who contacted me. Was he supposed to be a neutral reporter, some wondered? Others complained that he was a liberal trying to write about conservatives he disdained.
“We will look for someone to replace Dave,” Narisetti said.
Instead of just a replacement, The Post might consider two: one conservative with a Klein-like ideological bent, and another who can cover the conservative movement in the role of a truly neutral reporter.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:40 pm
You’ll be amused by Amanda Marcotte’s rant on this.
Comment by The Dana who visits some left-wing sites — 6/25/2010 @ 4:35 pm
Generally Amanda Marcotte’s amusing about just about everything. And thanks for yet another example. Would never have known about her except for her John Edwards campaign work (an amusement all by itself) and Michelle Malkin’s priceless skewering.the no one you know who doesn't visit many left wing sites. At all. (196ed7) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:50 pm
Matt Drudge is heroic for reals.happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:50 pm
–comment by The Dana who visits some left-wing sites —
Oh Dana, like you I often visit left wing sites to keep up with what’s what. But reading Amanda M. is beyond the call of duty as far as I am concerned. Please be careful out there.elissa (ababd7) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:53 pm
Bradley, Red State has a suggested list of very credible folk for the WaPo replacement:
1. David Freddoso, Washington Examiner
2. Mary Katharine Ham, Weekly Standard
3. Amanda Carpenter, formerly Washington Times
4. Jim Geraghty, National Review
5. Ed Morrissey, HotAir
6. Jennifer Rubin, Commentary
7. Jim Antle, American Spectator
8. John McCormack, Weekly Standard
9. Caleb Howe, RedState
10. Matt Lewis, Politics DailyDana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:54 pm
Matt Drudge is a fucked up person, and everyone knows it. He’s a creepy little twerp whose “politics” spring less from any coherent belief system and more a combination of sadism and attention-whoring. He’s too much of a disaster of a human being to be allowed to put together the menu at a restaurant that only serves grilled cheese sandwiches, much less set the agenda of the entire DC media establishment. People who use Drudge for leads should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone who defends him should eat a shit sandwich in shame.
Geez, was it a prerequisite that all JournoList members be angry, bitter uncouth bitches? And yes, I’m including the males, too.Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 4:56 pm
Why, Dana! Didn’t you know? Language like that shows you are tough and relevant and hip! Not some old fogey with old fashioned ideas about courtesy and respect for differences!
Which is why people who post like that, talk like that in person.
Because they are…dare I say…outlaws?Eric Blair (02a138) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:12 pm
It’s amazing to read how betrayed, wronged and angry the Journolist folks feel because someone leaked private emails that revealed a truth. Where was that feeling when the New York Times leaked Bush-era wartime intelligence?DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:15 pm
Oh, it’s not like Amanda could hate me much more than she already does! I suppose that this comment could get me banned on Pandagon, but it probably won’t.
But there is one thing about Miss Marcotte I do appreciate: while she was very angry when she wrote that post, and it’s often those times when we are really angry about something that we are the most truthful about our beliefs, Amanda has never seemed to be someone who modifies her opinions about things because she doesn’t want to offend someone, whether she happens to be angry at the time or otherwise. In some ways, she’s about the most truthful person on the internet; that’s one of the reasons I visit her site.The Dana who dared beard the lioness in her den (474dfc) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:19 pm
Dana, great list. Morrissey looks especially good. I would add NR’s Greg Pollowitz to the ConservoList.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:24 pm
Oh, c’mon DRJ. You know the answer to that one! The funny part about these people who have been fighting “The Man” for so long…is that they now work for “The Man.”
They aren’t cool any more. They are defending the establishment.
Outlaw!Eric Blair (02a138) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:24 pm
“while she was very angry when she wrote that post”
Adjectival Dana – When is she not angry?daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:25 pm
The Journo people are so whiny. Whiny, whiny, whiny. One might get the impression they believe themselves to be very special people.Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:32 pm
“I agree that it was intemperate of Dave to say that Matt Drudge should set himself on fire. But no one over the age of 5 really believe Dave was being literal here…”–Amanada (I’ll screw anything that moves, and if it ain’t moving I’ll kick it ’til it does move) Marcotte
That would be a more convincing argument if only liberal Democrats hadn’t burned a few hundred thousand Japanese civilians alive with napalm during WWII.
If I remember rightly, the “liberal” Democrats also used to have social clubs (like the KKK) which weren’t above setting people on fire, if the situation seemed to call for it.
Seems to me like setting folks they don’t like on fire is kinda a hobby of liberals.
I don’t know about y’all, but anytime I hear a liberal Democrat type start talking about setting people on fire…I start looking around for a fire extinguisher.Dave Surls (8c37a2) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:36 pm
Prerequisites for Journolist membership:
* must be capable of covering all aspects of politics, utilizing all forms of progressive bias and jingoismGeneralMalaise (181d1a) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:38 pm
* must be angry
* must be capable of producing a disturbing mix of news and analysis that consumers find both idiotic and counter-intuitive
* must be bitter
* must be able to meet the lowest common denominator standards of journalistic competence and professionalism
* must be an uncouth bitch
* must have an established record of making a spectacle of oneself
* must be able to show proof of an anti-social nature
* must have a solid understanding of basic Marxist principles and how liberalism continues that proud tradition
Another thought about this situation: If Wiegel was outed by someone, couldnt’ that same someone have screen shots of other JournoLister’s emails and be on the verge of outing them as well??? Maybe someone who secretly loathes these ranting lefties, someone who is bitter and wants payback…
OH NO! Say it ain’t so!
Laura Bush: “We have the huge-screen TV. That was one of the first things we bought and put upstairs in George’s man cave, that we call it, the one big room that’s upstairs, and where his desk is and his computer.Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/25/2010 @ 5:45 pm
whoops… left off
* must supply own ChapStick® and DNC KneePads®GeneralMalaise (181d1a) — 6/25/2010 @ 6:05 pm
After all, in WaPo thinking, libertarian is just another word for conservative.
Moreover, how can the media be slanted to the left??!!! After all, much of it is owned by big, money-hungry corporations. And we all know that corporations are managed by wealthy executives who identify with Republicans! (Uh, er, hi, Michael Bloomberg, you big rightwinger you!)
Meanwhile, in the real world, Weigel has to be pretty damn leftwing to be so indignant about Matt Drudge, assuming Weigel is referring to the Drudgereport.com.
While the posting of links on that website does favor stories and opinion pieces of rightist bent, it remains really nothing more than a grab bag of information offered by media sources far and wide. IOW, it’s not like Drudge posts his own personal, sharp-tongued essays on a regular basis, or anytime at all.
Reading the vindictive comments of people like Weigel and Amanda Marcotte, who likely believe their liberalism imbues them with great humaneness and generosity, I can’t help but think of the following. And in the case of most people, any leftist biases they do have begin early on. IOW, people will move from left to right as they grow older, less frequently the other way around. So interestingly and ironically enough, uber-liberal emotions appear to originate from a rotten core.Mark (411533) — 6/25/2010 @ 7:42 pm
I don’t know: I’ve never met the lady. But she does post on music frequently, and her writing doesn’t convey anger in those posts.The Dana that Amanda doesn't appreciate very much (3e4784) — 6/26/2010 @ 6:42 am
Music soothes the angry savage feminogynist beast?daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:06 am
#14 MD in Philly:
The Left believes that life is unfair, so to make it fair, they are on a constantly ganging up to find someone to take from to make it fair, because if somebody has more they must have cheated to get it. And that makes it okay to hate those people or groups, because they cheated.
The Right believes that life is unfair, but you don’t make it any fairer by taking what belongs to someone else.
At its core, the left is driven by a hate filled desire for mob rule.EW1(SG) (edc268) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:45 am
if daleyrocks speakColonelHaiku (181d1a) — 6/26/2010 @ 8:02 am
truth haiku must ask what soothe
On time full payment.daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/26/2010 @ 8:20 am
haiku think moneyColonelHaiku (181d1a) — 6/26/2010 @ 8:57 am
time and time money… have time?
haiku have money