Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

On Journolist, and Dave Weigel

I began Journolist in February of 2007. It was an idea born from disagreement. Weeks, or maybe months, earlier, I had criticized Time's Joe Klein over some comments he made about the Iraq War. He e-mailed a long and searching reply, and the subsequent conversation was educational for us both. Taking the conversation out of the public eye made us less defensive, less interested in scoring points. I learned about his position, and why he held it, in ways that I wouldn't have if our argument had remained in front of an audience.

The experience crystallized an idea I'd been kicking around for some time. I was on all sorts of e-mail lists, but none that quite got at the daily work of my job: Following policy and political trends in both the expert community and the media. But I always knew how much I was missing. There were only so many phone calls I could make in a day. There were only so many times when I knew the right question to ask. By not thinking of the right person to interview, or not asking the right question when I got them on the phone, or not intuiting that an economist would have a terrific take on the election, I was leaving insights on the table.

That was 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.

At the beginning, I set two rules for the membership. The first was the easy one: No one who worked for the government in any capacity could join. The second was the hard one: The membership would range from nonpartisan to liberal, center to left. I didn't like that rule, but I thought it necessary: There would be no free conversation in a forum where people had clear incentives to embarrass each other. A bipartisan list would be a more formal debating society. Plus, as Liz Mair notes, there were plenty of conservative list servs, and I knew of military list servs, and health-care policy list servs, and feminist list servs. Most of these projects limited membership to facilitate a particular sort of conversation. It didn't strike me as a big deal to follow their example.

But over the years, Journolist grew, and as it grew, its relative exclusivity became more infamous, and its conversations became porous. The leaks never bothered me, though. What I didn't expect was that a member of the list, or someone given access by a member of the list, would trawl through the archives to assemble a dossier of quotes from one particular member and then release them to an interested media outlet to embarrass him. But that's what happened to David Weigel. Private e-mails were twisted into a public story.

In a column about Stanley McChrystal today, David Brooks talks about the union of electronic text, unheralded transparency, 24/7 media and a culture that has not yet settled on new rules for what is, and isn't, private, and what is, and isn't, newsworthy. "The exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important," he writes.

There's a lot of faux-intimacy on the Web. Readers like that intimacy, or at least some of them do. But it's dangerous. A newspaper column is public, and writers treat it as such. So too is a blog. But Twitter? It's public, but it feels, somehow, looser, safer. Facebook is less public than Twitter, and feels even more intimate. A private e-mail list is not public, but it is electronically archived text, and it is protected only by a password field and the good will of the members. It's easy to talk as if it's private without considering the possibility, unlikely as it is, that it will one day become public, and that some ambitious gossip reporters will dig through it for an exposure story. And because that possibility doesn't feel fully real, people still talk like it's private and then get burned if it goes public.

Broadly speaking, neither journalism nor the public has quite decided on how to handle this explosion of information about people we're interested in. A newspaper reporter opposing the Afghanistan war in a news story is doing something improper. A newspaper reporter telling his wife he opposes the war is being perfectly proper. If someone had been surreptitiously taping that reporter's conversations with his wife, there'd be no doubt that was a violation of privacy, and the gathered remarks and observations were illegitimate. If a batch of that reporter's e-mails were obtained and forwarded along? People are less sure what to do about it. So, for now, they use it. Facebook pictures get used too, though there's a bit of shame in it. If the trend continues as it is, people will become much more careful in those forums. For now, we're in an awful transition, where we haven't quite adjusted for the public sphere's ability to appropriate the freshly-enlarged private sphere.

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 re-form 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.

As for Dave, I'm heartbroken that he resigned from The Post. Dave is an extraordinary reporter, and a dear friend. When this is done, there will be a different name on his paychecks, but he will still be an extraordinary reporter, and a dear friend.

By Ezra Klein  |  June 25, 2010; 3:10 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Research desk responds: How generous is the United States?
Next: The pitfalls of leaks

Comments

Sorry, Ezra. Good post, but it doesn't offset the hurt I'm sure you're feeling.

Not surprised re: Tucker C. He's even a worse person than the horribly dishonest and disingenuous Joe Klein.

Posted by: AZProgressive | June 25, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Re Carlson: Doesn't sound "ironic," it sounds like Carlson was looking for exactly what he eventually got, he just had to do it through indirect means once you turned him down.

And I realize how difficult it would be for you to criticize your employer, but as you well know the crime here is that WaPo accepted Weigel's resignation. Worse than a crime, of course, it's a mistake.

Posted by: gcedwards10 | June 25, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

You're next, Ezra.

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, the notorious liar and Iraq war enabler Jeffrey Goldberg is slandering you and Dave in the Atlantic. The knives are out.

Posted by: allanbrauer | June 25, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Here's the problem. In adding the likes of Ezra Klein and Dave Weigel, the Post has ventured farther away from journalism and more into the business of waging ideological warfare. It's an unfortunate road the Post has chosen. Hopefully, the very wise axing of Weigel will be a start toward pulling the newspaper back in a proper direction.

Posted by: FreeMas | June 25, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I suppose that we the Unwashed Masses will never know exactly what happened behind the scenes, beyond that WaPo accepted Dave resignation, but I hope that they tried to keep him on.

Posted by: Interceptor402 | June 25, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we should try to work with these people, who are just out to destroy!

Republicans and their supporting interests have too much money on the line to play fair, I wish dems would learn that.

I wish Dems would realize that they 'don't believe in keynesian economics' whenever that position could help them destroy the economy and help R's in November.

People need to wake up, the current crop of R's in power are monsters. they provide a steady stream of evidence to show this, all we need is to connect the dots.

Posted by: rat-raceparent | June 25, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Another partisan hack is exposed. What a bunch of crybaby lefties.

Posted by: mathscience411 | June 25, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand the tears for Weigel. Weigel was paid a lot of money by this institution to cover conservative politics and he was caught red handed insulting the very people he was supposed to be impartially blogging about. Weigel dug his own grave. He should never have been given this particular assignment to begin with. Weigel is an ideological left-of-center liberal. Something like this was inevitable.

Posted by: TheLastBrainLeft | June 25, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

While I feel bad for Ezra being caught up in the middle of this, after reading the E-mails that were posted it's clear that Dave Weigel is about as unbiased and objective on the conservative movement as Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or Bill Maher (Maher is actually probably more objective). Which would be fine if Weigel's column was labeled something like "Lying Racist RatF$#@$ers - Dave Weigel on the Conservative Movement". Billing his work as objective analysis is untenable now. For what it's worth, this is one of the advantages of the Mainstream Media - still attempting to uphold standards on what they publish and having something besides plagiarism considered to be a firing offense.

On another note, the media is going to have to get used to being under the same scrutiny that they subject everyone else to. See Helen Thomas.

Posted by: jnc4p | June 25, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Of course, Mr. Klein is deleting the liberal Journolist and all "electronically archived text" (probably changing names too, as we type, in order to protect the "innocents").

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

So this was a kind of forum for left leaning journalists to collude while hiding their heartfelt ideologies from the general public? Ezra do you still maintain the mantra that there is no liberal bias in the media? Are you that blind? Nosce temet.

Posted by: daveredhat | June 25, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I think what is missing here is that everyone is picking sides on this debate along lines of friendship and politics. The things that Dave said were pretty damn bad, private or not. Weather someone should have be made them public, or the Post should have let him go can be debated. But either way, Dave is not an innocent victim and should not be treated as such.

Posted by: dyermaker826 | June 25, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Enlightening article, Ezra. Vuvuzelas are music compared to the left-of-center media's echo chamber. Don't you get sick of smelling each other's breath and finishing each other's sentences day after day?

Posted by: sopra07 | June 25, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

As the manager of the listserv, I would think that Carlson's publication of what are essentially private emails is a violation your copyright.

The firing of Weigel over this seems pretty ridiculous too. In order to get someone who is acceptable to the conservative movement, the Post is essentially going to have to bankroll some uncritical hack with a background in PR, not a working journalist. There isn't a heck of a lot of talent to chose from.

Posted by: JPRS | June 25, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The things Dave said were nothing, especially in light of the nonpublic nature in which they were intended. God, the rightwing goes NUTS when anyone hurts their widdle feelings. See, e.g., Palin, Sarah and about a thousand other loons.

Posted by: gcedwards10 | June 25, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

JPRS writes: "In order to get someone who is acceptable to the conservative movement, the Post is essentially going to have to bankroll some uncritical hack with a background in PR, not a working journalist. There isn't a heck of a lot of talent to chose from."

Plenty of people fit that exact description who write for the WaPo Op-Ed page right now.

Posted by: tsgauh | June 25, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

JPRS:

I would LOVE to see that lawsuit (with discovery being conducted for all to see into every DELETED text ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Missing the point, JPRS. The issue isn't whether the blogger is acceptable to the conservative movement. The ethical issue concerns covering people who you obviously and openly despise.

Posted by: FreeMas | June 25, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

American journalism:
Trust NO one.
Believe in NOTHING.
Make MONEY.
Best regards,
--Stan McChrystal

Posted by: bgreen2224 | June 25, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Self righteous clap trap. You had a listserv where the media could discuss issues without the pretense of being objective. What makes your comments so delusional is that you think there was some need to form a secret listserv to discuss your leftist agenda. Please. As if people can't see right through the media's agenda. The Post, like virtually all old media dinosaur newspapers, is staffed by knee jerk, sanctimonious liberals who view the world as two camps: the enlightened,'progressive' liberal Democrats and the mouth breathing dimwits. Enjoy your day in the sun, Ezra. Newspapers, network news, CNN, MSNBC... you are all going the way of VHS. All people needed was an alternative. The Post will be done within 10 years and all of you geniuses in the vanguard of the proletariat will be vying for jobs at Starbuck's.

Posted by: buehford | June 25, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

i'd much prefer someone reporting on someone they loathe than someone they love (which is the current trend with washington reporters it seems)

Posted by: sarijoul | June 25, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I read this as the child, Ezra Klein, defending a secret list where opinion columnists can say things they would not say publicly. This is the same list they can use to formulate a group opinion they can all promulgate as original thought.

What we have here is the journalistic equivalent of Skull and Bones. Lovely. And, the child Klein thinks the only problem is that someone combed the archives. No child, the whole idea of the secret list is the problem. When you grow up, you will recognize that.

Posted by: RickCaird | June 25, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Do you really think it's "smart" to underscore the hypocrisy in the MSM?

Posted by: glasater | June 25, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"The ethical issue concerns covering people who you obviously and openly despise."

Um, so when a reporter interviews Charles Manson there's an ethical issue if they despise him? You understand, of course, that there is no ethical issue here AT ALL.

It is common and perfectly normal to write about people you despise.

Posted by: bbcrock | June 25, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post is working overtime to alienate me. Weigel's real crime is that he was casting a light on the right wing crazy on a daily basis.

Scrutiny, they hate it.

Posted by: lcrider1 | June 25, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"The things that Dave said were pretty damn bad, private or not. "

Um, link to the bad parts because I read the Daily Caller piece and they were pretty innocent. Certainly no worse than Fox News.

Posted by: bbcrock | June 25, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"I don't understand the tears for Weigel. Weigel was paid a lot of money "

HA! There isn't a journalist in Washington, DC who is paid a lot of money. Get real.

Posted by: bbcrock | June 25, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations Ezra... You've finally hit upon the Tea-partiers' ultimate objective: a complete takeover of all public discourse. The right doesn't believe in "fair and balanced"; that's why they've gone about attempting to redefine it with their propaganda machine known as Fox News. That's why they inundate comments sections, liberal and centrist forums, news sites, and even Facebook with their senseless, misdirecting diatribe. This is actually something they plan and discuss at these so-called tea "parties" they have, where they make some mocking gesture of patriotism to hide their neo-anarchist goals, which look and sound eerily familiar. (1930's Germany, anyone?)

At least give them credit: they realized fairly quickly that to establish dominance and take over the nation, as they want to do, they have to control the dissemination of their message. So spreading lies is part of the propaganda effort as well. And ultimately, our national short-sightedness will be our undoing, as we fail to notice them taking over and driving the nation to economic, social, and cultural ruin, before installing their own version of a corporate dictatorship, which will look convincingly like a democracy without actually being one.

And then, of course, they'll blame it on liberals.

Posted by: pjb_spammable | June 25, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

bbcrock:

Who at Fox News urged someone to light themself on fire?

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Liberals grow old and become Conservatives

Posted by: chiefshamus | June 25, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"Ezra do you still maintain the mantra that there is no liberal bias in the media?"

If you read the piece you would know that media elitist Tucker Carlson is not a liberal. Did you read the piece because you clearly missed that critical part of the story!

Posted by: bbcrock | June 25, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

No self respecting journalsist -- or columnist -- would join such a group. if you had any experience actually reporting -- not blogging - you'd know that.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | June 25, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Whether it was intentional at the beginning or not, the Journo-List became little more than a way for leftist "journalists" to coordinate their message. They traded idea's in secret and then used the "best" to attack conservatives. Fine if you are a PAC or political operation. Not so much if you want credibility as a journalist - not to mention the hit the WaPo takes - yet again.

I am sure Ezra and his other leftist companions will find a way to push their operation further underground.

As for Mr. Weigel, no matter where he goes or how pretty he writes, this episode will always make me doubt his fairness on anything political.

Posted by: dftpub | June 25, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The leftwing loonies on here are defending a breach of ethics that even a freshman j-school student would understand. And, yet, I don't find this surprising in the least.

Posted by: FreeMas | June 25, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

This would be an ethical issue if Mr. Weigel's personal feelings led him to misrepresent the facts or omit important facts. There's nothing objectionable about a journalist having personal feelings about politicians or public figures -- they're human beings (and voters) too. To take an example, say you were a journalist in 1997, that you personally disliked and distrusted Bill Clinton, and that you just stumbled on the first evidence of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Would your dislike disqualify you from breaking that story?

The conservative commenters here seem to require journalists to be automatons who are incapable of having personal opinions regarding politicians, no matter how odiously they behave. The sad fact is Weigel reported the tea party movement honestly, and the movement just happens to be pretty idiotic in its principles and behavior.

Posted by: horsecow | June 25, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

NoVAHockey:

Have you seen the (partial) list of so-called journalists and columnists who were members?

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Who at Fox News urged someone to light themself on fire?"

oh, so you drank the kool-aid and believed that line was serious? What kool-aid are YOU drinking?

Posted by: bbcrock | June 25, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

A nice, succinct commentary by Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/dave-weigel-quits.html

Ironic it is that the right wing, who consistently mocks "political correctness" in the face of any complaint about the constant streams of broadcast invective from people like Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, and so many others, are so thin-skinned about a handful of privately expressed comments such as these.

The bigger shame is that the Post rolled over and gave up a great asset. Hopefully Weigel will be writing again in a better place to work very shortly.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

It's beyond depressing to see a fiercely biased man being defended by many on the internet as a supposedly victimized journalist capable of objectivity. Mr. Weigel quitting, it seems to me, shows that he figured he couldn't continue on with his gag at the Post and be seen as such by his readers.

And I'm sorry, but the leaked emails from Mr. Weigel are hardly representative of a "smart, ongoing conversation." Your intentions may have been good with journolist, but from this outsider's perspective it seems as though it simply became yet another place for back-patting groupthink. A far worse fate than the arguments that would have ensued if you had deigned to actually include right-of-center journalists on the listserv.

Posted by: tdubois1982 | June 25, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

You teabagggers are a sick bunch of freaks.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 25, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Now that Dave Weigel's resignation has been accepted by the Post (I suppose it was "resign or be fired"), there's really no reason to read the WaPo.

I hope he finds another job quickly. He's a good writer and I found his columns to be most entertaining.

And I find Tucker Carlson to be a bottom-dwelling slug, so he'll probably get a job at the Post.

Posted by: jermain | June 25, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Ezra,

This is a very thoughtful posting on your part, and I am sympathetic to your explanation. At the same time, I am really happy that David Weigel got the boot for bad-mouthing the very same people he is trying to report on. I think John Lennon used to call it "Instant Karma."

Oh, and Ezra, don't ever cross swords with Matt Drudge , or you may find yourself on the outside looking in, just like your friend!

Posted by: mitchflorida | June 25, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Well I guess the Post can go back to its usual cheerleading from former Bush speechwriters. It was nice while it lasted. Watch out, Ezra - your time at the Post can now be measured with an egg timer.

And Tucker Carlson can go die in a fire with Drudge.

Posted by: tpsteele | June 25, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

buehford, you're nuts.

The Post is a right-wing paper. And not a very good one. Have you read their editorials? Or their op-ed page? Fred Hiatt's playground.

You're fighting a battle you already won, years ago. Right-wingers are still pissed off about Watergate but don't realize the Post has been a bland establishment paper the whole time.

You've got Krauthammer and Thiessen wishing death and misery on people with every word they write, openly. But Weigel cracks a joke in private about Drudge being setting himself on fire, and he has to go? What a joke.

And no, Weigel wasn't a "liberal" either. He was a l i b e r t a r i a n. Reason magazine. Made a defense of Rand Paul. Got it? Not a liberal. If you see someone saying he is (I'm looking at you, Jeffrey Hackberg, Atlantic semi-Monthly), ignore them forever. They're clueless.

For what it's worth, the world WOULD be a better place if Drudge doused himself and lit a match. I mean, that's just a factual statement.

Posted by: StPaulite | June 25, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"The leftwing loonies on here are defending a breach of ethics that even a freshman j-school student would understand. And, yet, I don't find this surprising in the least."

You have yet to define any ethical breach. You ultra-PC rightwingers are too confusing to follow. First, you have to define the ethical breach then you can point fingers. sheesh.

Posted by: bbcrock | June 25, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Silly typo--obviously I meant Mr. Weigel's "gig" at the post instead of "gag."

Anyhow, yeah. For whatever it's worth, I hope the Post finds a worthy replacement. And maybe Mr. Weigel will move on to better things and actually learn something from all this.

Posted by: tdubois1982 | June 25, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"Now that Dave Weigel's resignation has been accepted by the Post (I suppose it was "resign or be fired"), there's really no reason to read the WaPo."

Wow, either Dave Weigel's mother wrote that, or someone vastly overstates his importance to the Post.

Posted by: FreeMas | June 25, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow. What I would have paid to be a fly on the wall inside a listserv where only left-leaning journalists are talking to each other, framing the news, and deciding what is news.

As to David Weigel, while I am not fond of what happened to him, why the hell would he take a post where he is immersed in and only dealing with those people and ideas that he loathes. The Post doesn't know anyone on the right or in the center?

Maybe it's the nature of writing a blog - you're supposed to lose all objectivity and "make it interesting". Once upon a time journalism espoused a higher ideal, but that went away a long time ago. For you it would have been the day that you decided that only left-leaning journalists could converse meaningfully - against your own inner voice.

You might want to change that one sentence to "There would be no free conversation in a forum where...people did agree with one another." Sure - that makes sense.

One of the biggest problems with our current public discourse is the demonizing of anyone with whom one does not agree. Both left and right are guilty of this. Ideally the press would help both sides see the humanity and logic of the other side's views. You don't have to agree with someone to believe that their beliefs have merit - but your group and so many others out there aren't trying to foster understanding.

Posted by: Hutzy | June 25, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

This is sad news. I really enjoyed David's blog. I think it reinforces the insular nature of conservatives. Dissent is simply not allowed. Mr. Klein is liberal, but regularly points out the shortcomings of policies supported by both the left and the right. I just don't see the same thing on the right.

I'm not exactly sure why this is, but I imagine it has to do with their policy prescriptions. Conservative policies really only help a very small segment of the population. If you take a step back, and examine them objectively, you'll probably start disliking them. Ergo, no dissent, only PR.

Posted by: ntb1 | June 25, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Now Jake will have to find another blog to infest. He was banned from The Fix, and now Right Now is gone.

Look for Jake to start trolling the Plum Line. There's some Sarah Palin talk over there.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 25, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

What bothers me is that the news media always demands access, as a Constitutional RIGHT, to every little detail of the government.

Yet when the public is interested in behind the scenes information on the media, the journo's pout, and piously declare, "there's nothing to see." And proceed to shred (or in this case delete) the goods.

As the media always point out, sunshine is an effective detergent for ridding the body politic of the foul smell of secrecy.

Posted by: revfabulous | June 25, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

All I've got to say is that I hope a day comes when the full archives are released and the entire world sees just how closely the left-wing media collaborated on getting Obama elected, destroying Sarah Palin, and other acts of skulduggery.

And the notion that you, Ezra, a complete liberal hack was the person behind promoting someone to cover conservatism--that is one of the very best elements of proof of leftwing control of the putatively centrist media that can be imagined.

Posted by: georgepurcell1 | June 25, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for you starting a bi-partisan list. Can I join? I mean, given it's non-partisan. And, while I'm not a journalist, I read journalism . . . and, um. I really just want to watch wonks do wonkery.

And I had just started reading David's blog last week. Boo!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | June 25, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Right wing trollery complete with conspiracy theories abound about the listserv Ezra created.

"This is the same list they can use to formulate a group opinion they can all promulgate as original thought." --This is a totally unfounded assumption of what goes on on the list by someone who has no knowledge of it. Just RC's paranoid fantasy of what might go on.

"You had a listserv where the media could discuss issues without the pretense of being objective.... What makes your comments so delusional is that you think there was some need to form a secret listserv to discuss your leftist agenda. " This is a totally unfounded assumption of what goes on on the list by someone who has no knowledge of it. Just buehford's paranoid fantasy of what might go on.

"So this was a kind of forum for left leaning journalists to collude while hiding their heartfelt ideologies from the general public? Ezra do you still maintain the mantra that there is no liberal bias in the media? Are you that blind? Nosce temet." Ditto for this poster.

And looking at the WaPo editorial stable, I see Gerson, Krauthammer, Cohen (Faux liberal), Diehl, Parker, Thissen, Will, Broder, samuelson, etc. A large majority of the editorial staff and the editor in chief Kaplan, are firmly on the right wing. How many former Bush speechwriters does 1 paper need on its editorial staff?

Every major news/media outlet in the US is owned by a mega corporation, yet we don't ever hear these posters complaining about the corporate slant and unconscious self censorship that happens daily. While the intertubes have made it easier for non-corporate entities to get into the conversation, the reach of the large network, cable, and newspaper companies dwarfs anything that CAP or Daily Kos could aspire to. Rightwingnut troll whinery, all of it.

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm not drinking anything. Who at Fox News even JOKED then that someone should light themself on fire?

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The problem wasn't Journolist, the problem was that having Dave Weigel cover conservatives was like sending Robert Atkins to cover a confectioners' convention.

I think it's likely both Weigel and Klein misrepresented Weigel to the WaPo powers-that-be. He wasn't "covering" conservatives and their ideas, he was attacking them. He didn't "balance" Ezra, he abetted him. This was already fairly clear from Twitter, but when these emails came out, the tenuous remains of the facade collapsed and fully revealed the ugliness beneath.

Also, Ezra's claims about Journolist's intentions are self-serving BS. You don't need a list to have a private conversation. The purpose of Journolist was to coordinate messaging, stifle dissent, and say the nasty things about conservatives lefties think but aren't allowed to write in major publications.

Posted by: daveprice74 | June 25, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Not having read the e-mails in their entirety or Dave Weigel at all, I don't have a whole lot of time invested in the matter, however, one e-mail he wrote did call for the collusive boycott of the Washington Examiner because of things he did not like that they wrote. That in itself should be a terminable offense, and the fact that he apparently felt that the other members of the list would take him up on the request raises serious questions of journalistic integrity; if a group of reporters collude together to exclude someone based on their coverage, that is unpardonable, period.

Posted by: sgaliger | June 25, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"Certainly no worse than Fox News."

I'm no fan of Fox News, but I do not recall them calling anyone a ratf#@ker. Maybe in private, but this cat is out of the bag and it is not going back in. Let's be objective.

Posted by: dyermaker826 | June 25, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, he's shutting it down like he's performing a noble service. Klein is trying to save his own skin, like an executive running a shedder or fireplace before the Feds arrive. Only there's thousands of copies in hundreds of offices. I'm sure there is many a Acid-tipped phallus or virtues of Nazi Germany email floating around that he doesn't want the WaPo or anyone else for that matter to know about.

Posted by: Jenga918 | June 25, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Well, now I know how the wonderkind, young Ezra, has become such an expert in so many diverse policy fields. Health care, financial reform, immigration, foreign policy, Ezra is right there, posting as an expert. What will he do now that he's not getting his daily talking points. Stay tuned.

Posted by: GIna16 | June 25, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I just want to put out one Weigel quote that completely demonstrates all you were running is a message coordination shop for talentless liberal hacks:

“I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats.”

Posted by: georgepurcell1 | June 25, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"So this was a kind of forum for left leaning journalists to collude while hiding their heartfelt ideologies from the general public?"

Pretty much

And MSM wonders why they are not attracting readers.

Posted by: WrongfulDeath | June 25, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

First Helen Thomas, and now David Weigel.

Which left-wing jackass will be gone next?

Posted by: LdSentinal | June 25, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Ideally the press would help both sides see the humanity and logic of the other side's views.

Ironically, that is what Dave, regardless of his personal feelings, did on a daily basis. By not being a mouthpiece for Heritage, Fox, and NRO, his reporting on the conservative movement actually looked at their positions as opposed to blindly repeating them, which is what I see when I (very rarely) go to red state, etc.

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

From Conor Friedersdorf:

"Firing Dave Weigel incentivizes more digging into the personal opinions of journalists, and validates the idea that they should be judged on the basis of those opinions, rather than the content of their work. What's next? E-mails sent to a few people and leaked? Opinions offered at a bar over beers and surreptitiously recorded? Can I reiterate how glad I am to have moved away from Washington DC? (You should hear what I say about De Beers in private!)"

The whole piece is worthwhile:

http://www.theatlantic.com/special-report/ideas/archive/2010/06/how-should-journalists-be-judged/58756/

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I don't comment here often - too many trolls, too little sincere discussion - but heartbreaking post, Ezra. People like Carlson and like Weigel's other antagonists are Why We Can't Have Nice Things.

Posted by: WarrenTerra | June 25, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

Sorry (not really ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Still trying to catch up on this story. He quit over writing disparaging (and oh-so-tedious, cliched) things about conservatives in a private setting?

What's up with the WaPo, Ezra?

Assuming the leaked emails are accurate, none of that really seemed to leak over into his blog. He can't have opinions? Yes, it gets old for partisans wishing, even tongue-in-cheek, bad things (or death) on partisans they don't like, but . . . I mean, come on, WaPo. Seriously?

@ntb1: "I just don't see the same thing on the right."

You see it, where certain folks disagree. Red State, Free Republic, Ace of Spades (and you often see disagreement between posters on issues).

What's more of an issue in this case is this was private correspondence, and many pundits and journalists crack wise (and hurl epithets) when amongst friends. You think Tucker Carlson has never said anything wildly inappropriate when amongst friends?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | June 25, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"First Helen Thomas, and now David Weigel.

Which left-wing jackass will be gone next?"

Weigel is not "left-wing" - on the contrary, he is a libertarian with a functioning independent brain, as opposed to be a partisan right wing hack.

Every time one of you trolls calls him a liberal, you are simply disqualifying all validity for your own opinion on this subject. Try to have a clue what you are talking about, and then maybe you'll get taken somewhat seriously for the first time in your lives.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

First Ezra Klein admits that he started this leftwing list FOR THE PURPOSE of affecting his reporting:

"I was on all sorts of e-mail lists, but none that quite got at the daily work of my job: Following policy and political trends in both the expert community and the media. But I always knew how much I was missing. There were only so many phone calls I could make in a day. There were only so many times when I knew the right question to ask. By not thinking of the right person to interview, or not asking the right question when I got them on the phone, or not intuiting that an economist would have a terrific take on the election, I was leaving insights on the table."

Clearly, it was a biased list designed to inject that bias into their journalism. Next, Klein tries to downplay the list’s significance to the reporting:

"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."

Klein continues to downplay the lists significance later in the article: “Hopefully, it [the list] 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.”

Nah, Klein already admitted the list was set up to influence the reporting. Is anyone surprised the leftist list became enormous with mainstream media "journalists," and is anyone surprised they were not interested in the conservative POV? Is anyone surprised that the Washington Post hired a rabid conservative hater to cover the conservatives?

Not only should Weigel have resigned, but Ezra Klein also should have resigned. I hope whoever broke the Weigel story downloaded the whole list including all the archives, and we get to see more of what these liberal journalists had to say.

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

First Ezra Klein admits that he started this leftwing list FOR THE PURPOSE of affecting his reporting:

"I was on all sorts of e-mail lists, but none that quite got at the daily work of my job: Following policy and political trends in both the expert community and the media. But I always knew how much I was missing. There were only so many phone calls I could make in a day. There were only so many times when I knew the right question to ask. By not thinking of the right person to interview, or not asking the right question when I got them on the phone, or not intuiting that an economist would have a terrific take on the election, I was leaving insights on the table."

Clearly, it was a biased list designed to inject that bias into their journalism. Next, Klein tries to downplay the list’s significance to the reporting:

"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."

Klein continues to downplay the lists significance later in the article: “Hopefully, it [the list] 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.”

Nah, Klein already admitted the list was set up to influence the reporting. Is anyone surprised the leftist list became enormous with mainstream media "journalists," and is anyone surprised they were not interested in the conservative POV? Is anyone surprised that the Washington Post hired a rabid conservative hater to cover the conservatives?

Not only should Weigel have resigned, but Ezra Klein also should have resigned. I hope whoever broke the Weigel story downloaded the whole list including all the archives, and we get to see more of what these liberal journalists had to say.

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Burn all the records in your liberal bunker before the unwashed masses figure out how biased you and your fellow reporters are. I thought that exclusive cliques where only the province of middle school girls. I guess it made you and your friends feel special and pretty.

Posted by: cummije5 | June 25, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

@bbcrock: " and they were pretty innocent. Certainly no worse than Fox News."

Where exactly has Fox News called anybody "tards" of any kind? Or wished death on someone because they disagreed with them?

I'm not hassling Dave, I'm just saying.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | June 25, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

It never fails to astonish me what people will put into writing. Weigel seems like a very bright, rational guy, and here he was routinely writing e-mails that with a a moment's relection he should have realized could get him fired if they got out. And not just e-mails to one or two trusted friends, but to a listserv of all things.

Posted by: ostap666 | June 25, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, jcam1, data on Google groups never goes away permanently ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"Every major news/media outlet in the US is owned by a mega corporation, yet we don't ever hear these posters complaining about the corporate slant and unconscious self censorship that happens daily. "

This has to be one of the silliest arguments out there. A corporation is just a group of shareholders and employees, and those people can have opinions all over the spectrum. Pew polling going back decades has consistently found the people providing and controlling journalistic content (editors, writers) skew waaaay to the left.

That's why Fox News dominates the ratings: by being to the right of everyone else, they are at the center of the American polity.

Posted by: daveprice74 | June 25, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"You teabagggers are a sick bunch of freaks."

Hey, Dave's posting in the comments!

Heh. Just kidding. I'm a kidder. But now I'd have to resign from the WaPo, if I worked there.

Think about it, WaPo.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | June 25, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Patrick, when David Weigel is informinh his fellows brethren in the LIBERAL MEDIA to spin Scott Brown's victory as being Caokley's fault and not as a result of a repudication of Hussein's policies, Weigel is a left-wing turd.

Posted by: LdSentinal | June 25, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

@ Jake -- partially. I'm not surprised. It's disgusting. I never made it to the pros as a journalist but i remember a few things from journlism school.

1. if you're at a news confernce, you're missing the real story
2. use anonymous sources only in life-and-death instances.
3. avoid groupthink like the plague.

good jouranlism is incredibly difficult. it takes time and lot of work. klein notes there aren't enough hours in the day and you don't always know who to call. maybe that means you shouldn't be writting about 100 different topics as if you're an expert.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | June 25, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I'll state up front I am a Republican. I also have no problem with the fact that Dave Weigel does not agree with most (if not all of) my political beliefs. He's an American and has a right, in a private forum, to write what he wants.

The issue is this idea of "objectivity" that American journalism has trotted around for decades. It doesn't exist. Never has, never will. Human beings are inherently unobjective. A journalist is, at least subconciously, being unobjective simply by the words he or she chooses when they write.

The issue for me wouldn't ever have been about Weigel's personal beliefs because he, like every human, really isn't capable of true objectivity. Journalists should simply strive to report all of a particular story and not simply the ones they agree with.

Thus far, I don't think there's been any alligation that Weigel ever let his personal beliefs get in the way of his writing for the Post. If that were to be proven, only then I'd have a problem with Weigel.

For a newspaper like the Post to basically re-inforce the idea that liberals are incapable of properly covering the conservative movement (and by a logical extension, conservatives are incapable of properly covering Democrats/liberals) is only going to further what we've seen emerge over the past five or ten years. That is a "mainstream media" where liberals go to a few places for their news and conservatives go to other places for their news because those news outlets re-inforce the positions their audiences already believe and the majority of either side never bothers to read the other's media sources, we simply sit and scream "You're wrong!" (or worse) to each other.

Posted by: CJMARTIN04 | June 25, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Unpersuasive — although it is not clear that Klein even intended it to be a persuasive defense.

A bunch of highly influential public and semi-public figures with huge axes to grind collude on a daily basis to get their lies straight (plus reaffirm each other's prejudices)? The public interest trumps any claim to privacy.

Posted by: thebump | June 25, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Here is some of what was told to Jeff Goldberg at The Atlantic from those INSIDE the Washington Post:

"This is not just sour grapes about the sudden rise of these untrained kids, though I have to think that some people in the building resent them for bypassing the usual way people rise here. This is really about the serial stupidity of allowing these bloggers to trade on the name of the Washington Post."

"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."

"Ezra Klein is a talented guy, but he's just an absolute partisan. If this is where journalism has to go, so be it, but I don't want to go there."

"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."

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

@daveprice7: "Also, Ezra's claims about Journolist's intentions are self-serving BS"

As Rand Paul would no doubt tell you, people have the right of free association. I think there was an inherent elitism in such a list (how could there not be?) but . . . um . . . last I checked . . . this was still America and people can do that. And trying to burn down the club because you weren't invited (I'm looking at you, Tucker Carlson) isn't cool.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | June 25, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Face it Klein: Weigel set himself up for this embarrassment with your help by deliberately misleading your employer! If the two of you had just been straight up from the very beginning about where he's coming up the same way you were, the Post wouldn't have so much egg all over its face right now. This is largely your own fault, and I think deep down inside you know it as well as anyone.

The fact that a once-great newspaper like the Washington Post takes recommendations from guys like you is a big part of the reason why its credibility is shot and it is swirling down the toilet towards bankruptcy.

Posted by: GoNatsGo | June 25, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I just have to add this:

** Yes, Weigel was a left-liberal. ** He had some small libertarian leanings, but he was, basically, a leftist.

He rooted and voted for Obama, was for Obamacare, hated the Tea Party Patriots, hated Glenn Beck (who is consideranbly more libertarian). He's clearly had little urge towards small-gov't minarchism. I'm not even sure on what major issues he really differed from doctrinaire left-liberalism, if any.

Posted by: daveprice74 | June 25, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.

“I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjIxZDZjZmJhZGUzNzY0OTExZmQ4N2IwMzI2Y2YzM2Q=


Posted by: LdSentinal | June 25, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

@GoNatsGo: "Face it Klein: Weigel set himself up for this embarrassment with your help by deliberately misleading your employer!"

Are you suggesting WaPo was under the impression Weigel wasn't a liberal? I thought that was reasonably well known that Weigel was no conservative.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | June 25, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, would like like some cheese to go with that whine baby?

Jeeebus liberals are weak.

Posted by: robtr | June 25, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin_Willis,

I don't think anyone is suggesting the government arrest them. Lefties have the right to freely associate all they want, I have the right to mock Ezra for pretending some altruistic notion was behind it all, Tucker has the right to publish the snotty emails from their little club.

Posted by: daveprice74 | June 25, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

FreeMas, you hit the nail on the head.

All these partisan or bi-partisan or non-partisan blogs are nothing but a distraction from what journalists and reporters are supposed to be doing: getting at and reporting the pure, unadulterated truth. Their existence tells me that there are far too many lazy journalism school graduates (as with lawyers) with little or no real skills in reporting and/or writing. Instead of spending all day posting their biased, ill-informed, and ill-thought-out drivel, they ought to be out pounding the pavement looking for a real story.

Hopefully the WaPo has learned a larger lesson, but I wouldn't count on it.

Posted by: flintston | June 25, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Patrick_M states:

"Weigel is not 'left-wing' - on the contrary, he is a libertarian with a functioning independent brain, as opposed to be a partisan right wing hack."

A libertarian who supported big government, especially Obama's healthcare? Did you read the leaked emails? LOL. What in the world are you talking about? I suggest you find a dictionary and look up the word "libertarian."

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

We all know that the fast majority of you guys are liberals, and that's fine. As a conservative, I understand the worldview from which you write, and I take that into consideration, I have no problem with that. That being said, you couldn't find a moderate to cover the conservative movement? I mean, is being a liberal a prerequisite for every position at the Post aside from the token's you though "conservatives" in neocons like Krauthammer? It's just sort of disheartening to realize that you guys don't even seem to make a good faith effort to remain non-partisan at this point. Is there still a place for simply reporting facts, or does everything have to be spun?

Posted by: LHeselden | June 25, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 - since you have asked the question several times without a coherent answer, here's one: Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck has "joked" about and acted out pouring gasoline on Speaker Pelosi and lighting a match. Glenn Beck has also "joked" about and acted out giving Speaker Pelosi a glass of poisoned red wine. Last I checked, he still has an hour show on Fox News and has never apologized for either of these events. Asked & answered.

Posted by: bellamom | June 25, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

NoVAHockey:

Besides Ezra Klein and Dave Weigel, of course, Paul Krugman, Eric Alterman, Joe Klein, John Judis, Jeffrey Toobin, Jonathan Chait, New Republic editor Eve Fairbanks, Chris Hayes, and Brad DeLong, just to name a few.

CJMARTIN04:

Go to "Right Now" (before it's "deleted" too) and read any thread on Etheridge or McGinnis.

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand the anger and name calling. Do you folks actually believe that Weigel must be a "left leaning Liberal" to dislike or be angered by some of the people on the right? Although I describe myself as an Independent, I have voted Republican most of my life. That said, Pat Buchanan has always driven me nuts. Newt had some fantastic ideas in his Contract with America but like so many politicians, he was corrupted by the power he earned. Does that make me a "left leaning Liberal" unfit to cover the Conservative movement? This country is getting more and more polarized and both sides seem to be demanding unquestioned loyalty from members of each party AND those who cover politics. Get a grip! If you are member of either of the major parties and SOME of your party members don't drive you nuts, you're not listening to them. When did we go from "my country, right or wrong" to "my party, right or wrong.
Count me as one disappointed in the Post for accepting Weigel's resignation. If you can't handle a little embarrassment, get out of the game. The one at fault here is Tucker Carlson but comparing him to Keith Olberman is a little low.:)

Eric, I understand why you want to shut this down, but it would be a shame to lose such a valuable resource for journalists. Why not just make it harder (require approval) to access archived letters?

Posted by: leSenechal | June 25, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Marc Ambinder has also admitted to being a member of Journolist:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-post-shouldnt-have-fired-dave-weigel/58764/

P.S. to bellamom: thanks.

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I think it is a good idea to delete the Journolist, Ezra. Obviously, there are few friends in the liberal media. Why would someone leak Dave Wiegel emails? Watch your backs.

Posted by: d1carter | June 25, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

tsgauh,

Opinion writing and reporting are different crafts. With blogs you might get something that's a hybrid of the two.

Most of the conservative opinion columnists at the Post didn't get their positions on the basis of their reporting careers (most come from other fields).

JakeD2,

The most interesting part, at least as far as I'm concerned, would be resolving copyright ownership questions over password protected, listservs.

Litigation could create a new area in copyright law (perhaps there is more to this, but I'm not aware of it).

If Tucker Carlson had gone into Ezra's house, stolen his letters, and then published them, Ezra would be able to take him to the cleaners.

In this case, it might be more akin to Tucker robbing a locked building where a bunch of journalists write down ideas on issues of the day intended not for publication.

Once again, Carlson's ass would get slammed with a nice civil penalty (in both those cases he would be going to prison too).

The case here isn't as clear-cut. Say someone within the group gave him their password to Tucker, who is the final owner of the document? My sense is it would be the person who managed and created the list-serv. I don't really know, but there are likely to be lively arguments over the issue.

As far as the content of the messages goes and the discovery, you must lead an even more boring life than I do. Personally, I don't care much about what one reporter thinks about another reporter.

FreeMas,

Fundamentally, it is a question of whether the reporter is acceptable to conservatives.

In J-School you learn the importance of getting multiple sources, getting the facts straight; how to structure your writing; and a little bit of law.

If you work with someone long enough, you will form an opinion. That's just how it goes.

What separates professionals from amateurs is that a professional will still adhere to journalistic principles -- they will give a fair hearing to people that they disagree with personally.

Posted by: JPRS | June 25, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

ALSO, those of you criticizing the mere existence of an exclusive center-left listserv miss the point that listservs exist to serve the social needs of a variety of specific groups, interests, and professions. There are several listservs with exclusively conservative membership, including fiscal conservative groups, social conservative and religious policy groups, and many that focus specifically on social conservative topics, such as "protect marriage" and "pro-life". These forums provide an opportunity for their membership to discuss the issue(s) that are important to them. It's not conspiratorial for a liberal-leaning listserv to exist, it is comparable with the status quo.

Posted by: bellamom | June 25, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Hating Glenn Beck isn't the end of one's libertarianism, it's the beginning. The man is a paranoid lunatic.

Posted by: StPaulite | June 25, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

@georgepurcel: "All I've got to say is that I hope a day comes when the full archives are released and the entire world sees just how closely the left-wing media collaborated on getting Obama elected, destroying Sarah Palin, and other acts of skulduggery."

Yeah. I really don't think that would be appropriate, and anybody who doesn't see collusion in the media regarding talking points, and coordinated attempts at character assassination, just as a result of what we see in the news . . . if it's not obvious to them already, the release of the contents of a private email list won't convince them.

That being said, is all this talk about "collusion" coming from ostensible conservatives? Uh, people have the right to private conversations. Even if they're liberals.

Not only that, but nothing is really being hidden. I think the Journolist was exactly what its very existence and exclusivity implied. So, in essence, even if we didn't know the specifics, we already knew.

Still, folks have the right to have opinions, and share those opinions with others, even if they are journalists. If he hadn't been spouting that nonsense in public then, yes, perhaps he should have resigned. But these were private conversations.

And unless it was cool for Democratic operatives--I mean, kindly old grandparents on vacation--to eavesdrop on private cell phone conversations between Newt Gingrich and other Republican strategists, and then publicize that information to the world--then it's uncool for Tucker Carlson to do what he did.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | June 25, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

The problem is not that Weigel wrote insulting things about conservatives -- the problem is that he misrepresented himself to the Post as objective enough to be able to report reliably on a movement which, in fact, he hates. Klein can insist all he wants that the guy is "an extraordinary reporter" but in fact, dishonesty is an all-too-ordinary character flaw and not an admirable trait in journalism or any other profession. Weigel was lying not only to his employers but to his readers, and he was right to resign.

Funny, too, how convinced Klein is that if you want to have "smart" "free-wheeling" conversation that will "open the conversation" and teach the participants about different points of view, you'd better make sure to exclude everybody who disagrees with you!

Posted by: MrsWhatsit | June 25, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

@Jake -- this is why journalism is struggling. I don't care that Klein's liberal. but it just awful that the post has given him a platform, he passes himself off as as an experienced journalist.

there's a reason you start off in small towns. you learn how to cultivate sources and do research. you don't learn that from bouncing email off the same group of people asking "hey, i'm writing about X -- who do I talk to and what do I ask." pathetic.

but with these guys -- the story is about them and how important they are and how they know important people.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | June 25, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

JPRS:

I am retired, with PLENTY of time on my hands ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

So, a journalist can't have private opinions but Justice Scalia can openly advocate for hist opinions at conservative conferences and that's ok?

Let's face it, this is just about the fact that you're X and I'm Y so I hate you, not about principles.

Posted by: scathew | June 25, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"I hope a day comes when the full archives are released and the entire world sees just how closely the left-wing media collaborated on getting Obama elected, destroying Sarah Palin, and other acts of skulduggery."

Needs moar tinfoil! C'mon wingnuts, tell us how Journolist impregnated Bristol Palin and caused the BP blowout!

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | June 25, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"So, a journalist can't have private opinions but Justice Scalia can openly advocate for hist opinions at conservative conferences and that's ok?"

this is why we have bars.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | June 25, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Hating Glenn Beck isn't the end of one's libertarianism, it's the beginning. The man is a paranoid lunatic."

The interesting part is you never hear criticism of Beck's facts. Instead it's a soft smear like the one above.

Beck researches everything he does. You may not like what he digs up, but it's there....and it's verifiable.

Posted by: WrongfulDeath | June 25, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

bellamom,

Glen Beck never pretended to be an "objective journalist."

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"The interesting part is you never hear criticism of Beck's facts. Instead it's a soft smear like the one above.

Beck researches everything he does. You may not like what he digs up, but it's there....and it's verifiable."

I was about to write the same thing about Dave Weigel.

No accounting for taste I guess.

Posted by: StPaulite | June 25, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh, byt the way, here's how straight-shooting Weigel was calling the MA Senate race:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Precriminations-Dems-Expecting-Loss-Lay-Into-Coakley-2220

"In the debate over how Democrats could possibly lose the race--which has major repercussions for President Obama's agenda--Coakley herself is taking more and more of the blame."

Absolutely no indication that he himself was trying to DRIVE THAT NARRATIVE.

Posted by: georgepurcell1 | June 25, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Very nice Ezra. Only posting liberal comments that you deem fit.

What liberal media?

Posted by: LdSentinal | June 25, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

One can only hope that WaPo does a better job with Weigel's replacement. It is tough to be a fan of the Post and to be conservative. Even a conservative willing to listen to those on the left, like me, gets bored when the choice is either to read a left-wing (but generally excellent) blogger like Ezra Klein or "only" a left-of-center (and not so excellent) blogger like Weigel. Let's find a good, articulate conservative (there are plenty!) to take Mr. Weigel's spot, shall we? The Post would do well to find a good foil to Mr. Klein.

Oh, and shame on the Post for disabling and removing all of the comments on Weigel's posts (at least as of a few minutes ago).

Posted by: GSS1 | June 25, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"however, one e-mail he wrote did call for the collusive boycott of the Washington Examiner because of things he did not like that they wrote. "

That's an interesting gloss on the Examiner's decision to publish personal information of his girlfriend, who had no relevance to the "story." Anyone who wouldn't be royally pissed off if something similar was done to their loved ones is a pretty sorry excuse for a human being.

Posted by: zimbar | June 25, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, thank you for your thoughtful explanation of David Weigel's resignation. It's a real loss for WAPO since David's blog was consistently well-written, well-sourced and unbiased. It was a clear-eyed, reliable window on a part of our world.

I often thought that because he did such a good job reporting on the subject of his blog, there had to be a target on his back. So WAPO keeps warmongers and torture lovers, really intellectually limited folks, on staff. I look forward to reading David's work somewhere else.

Posted by: nancycadet | June 25, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

@daveprice74: The purpose of Journolist was to coordinate messaging, stifle dissent, and say the nasty things about conservatives lefties think but aren't allowed to write in major publications.

Just more totally uninformed speculation by someone who has no knowledge of this particular list or listservs in general, as far as I can tell. How exactly does a listserv stifle dissent?

'"Every major news/media outlet in the US is owned by a mega corporation, yet we don't ever hear these posters complaining about the corporate slant and unconscious self censorship that happens daily. "
This has to be one of the silliest arguments out there. A corporation is just a group of shareholders and employees, and those people can have opinions all over the spectrum. '

Whether or not individual workers or people who own a few shares of a corporation have the same opinions, the people that control corporations, you know, the board of directors, major shareholders, executive officers, etc. mostly come from the same privileged class, went mostly to the same schools, belong to the same exclusive country clubs, travel in the same insulated social circles. They are, as a group, very conservative and the people in the news divisions know this and consciously or (more likely) unconsciously censor the kinds of stories they run and how they report them so as not to step on their toes very often. If you don't think that there is a corporatist, conservative (in the sense of not wanting to change) bias in the MSM, then you are not paying attention (or are incapable of doing so).

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

@WrongfulDeath - puh-leez! Glenn Beck peddles in wildly freakish conspiracy theories, claims he is our newest prophet (that God is speaking through him), uses tape of his own blatherings from previous shows as "evidence" of the "validity" of his arguments, and regularly exaggerates circumstances to create fear and pathos amongst his viewers. There are plenty of people who have blasted Beck's "verifiable" assertions - the latest nonsense about Soros & PetroBas loan and stock ownership arragement comes to mind. It's just that the Beck-heads dismiss all Beck critiques as another liberal-media biased attack against their hero.

Posted by: bellamom | June 25, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

@WrongfulDeath - puh-leez! Glenn Beck peddles in wildly freakish conspiracy theories, claims he is our newest prophet (that God is speaking through him), uses tape of his own blatherings from previous shows as "evidence" of the "validity" of his arguments, and regularly exaggerates circumstances to create fear and pathos amongst his viewers. There are plenty of people who have blasted Beck's "verifiable" assertions - the latest nonsense about Soros & PetroBas loan and stock ownership arragement comes to mind. It's just that the Beck-heads dismiss all Beck critiques as another liberal-media biased attack against their hero.

Posted by: bellamom | June 25, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Dave Weigel is not a conservative. Not now, not ever.

That doesn't mean he can't have a blog "commission" at the Washington Post, but it should have never been represented as a conservative viewpoint.

THAT is why Dave Weigel had to go. He misrepresented himself as a member of a community that he was not a part of and as a proponent of a political viewpoint that he himself did not believe in. As much as I might despise Greg Sargent, at least he's honest about where he's coming from and what he believes in.

But see, that's why liberals love Weigel. Because he'll unfairly bash conservatives and they can say, "Well conservative Dave Weigel said this...."

But it's a lie. A big, stinking, unabashed lie. It's like if I just went ahead and "called" Ann Coulter a liberal, just so I could use her arguments against liberals.

I am crying no tears for that liar. I'm sure there's plenty of room for Dave Weigel at Daily Kos.

And if The Post TRULY wants a blogger from the right (which I don't think they really do), there are plenty of honest conservative blogs from which they can choose.

Posted by: etpietro | June 25, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

BTW, if this whole escapade isn't proof to you Liberal Media deniars, then you probably think the Holocaust is a myth.

Paging Helen Thomas.

Posted by: LdSentinal | June 25, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

oops sorry for the dup - I got an error message the first time.

Posted by: bellamom | June 25, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"A bunch of highly influential public and semi-public figures with huge axes to grind collude on a daily basis to get their lies straight (plus reaffirm each other's prejudices)? The public interest trumps any claim to privacy.

Posted by: thebump | June 25, 2010 4:30 PM "

If writing this blog makes Ezra "highly influential," then I'd say posting a comment does too. Please have your unredacted email archives posted by midnight. Thanks.

Posted by: zimbar | June 25, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

So Journolist has some bad press and so, like ACORN, you're going to just reform under another name so you left-wing, anti-American bigots have a place to coordinate your talking points.

It's too bad that the left is fundamentally unable to act productively. All you have is your hatred, so all you can do is destroy.

Posted by: malclave | June 25, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

StPaulite:

So, you thought that Rep. Etheridge simply "hugged" those kids who dared ask him a question? You wish that Drudge would self-immolate too?

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Liberals grow old and become Conservatives

Posted by: chiefshamus | June 25, 2010 4:01 PM |
........................................
Indeed, chiefshamus. Alzheimers and senile dementia will do that to you.

Posted by: palarran | June 25, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"Very nice Ezra. Only posting liberal comments that you deem fit."

Given the preponderance of right wing troll gloating commentary in this thread, this comment is especially hilarious.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"At the beginning, I set two rules for the membership. The first was the easy one: No one who worked for the government in any capacity could join."

So why didn't you shut down the list in January of last year, if not 2007? You leftist journalists all work for the Democrats, which took over Congress in 2007 and the White House in 2009.

You're a fraud.

Posted by: malclave | June 25, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Can't we at least all agree that the main culprit here is not Dave Weigel or Ezra Klein, but the Washington Post itself for its lack of even-handedness and diversity of ideas?

The Post hired Ezra Klein, who dutifully carries the policy water of the left. But there is no blogger espousing conservative policy ideas.

The Post hires Dave Weigel to blog about the conservative movement, as if it were some exotic species that needs to be explained. But there is no counterpart blogging about the left.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Post actually offered intellectual diversity among its bloggers?

Posted by: FreeMas | June 25, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

@jcam1 yes, I will agree that Glenn Beck is neither "objective" nor a "journalist. but, that wasn't the question now, was it?
-------------------------------------------------
I'm not drinking anything. Who at Fox News even JOKED then that someone should light themself on fire?

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:12 PM

Posted by: bellamom | June 25, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry Weigel left and that your employer is such a crappy one, but is there any chance you can talk Weigel into doing something useful with his newly found free time and starting up the news site you described a little while ago? The one that doesn't exist yet and actually informs people. Pretty please.

Posted by: slag | June 25, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

StPaulite:

So, you thought that Rep. Etheridge simply "hugged" those kids who dared ask him a question? You wish that Drudge would self-immolate too?

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

I saw Etheridge grabbed one of the kids and held him with both arms. I don't think calling it a "hug" is some kind of huge ideological crime. A "bear hug", like in wrestling, you know? So what, what else would you call it? It's obvious from the rest of Weigel's description that it wasn't friendly in the least. That Etheridge guy seemed like he has some... issues.

And yes, I'd probably just laugh if Drudge died in a fire. If he did it himself I'd probably laugh a little harder. Every human life is precious, except for Matt Drudge.

Any other questions?

Posted by: StPaulite | June 25, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Suggested new names for Journolist

The Washington Post
MSNBC
Rosie O'Donnell's ear wax
Loser Liberals Lying
Propaganda Times
The Censorship-ping News

Posted by: Cornell1984 | June 25, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Joh Stewart had it right Tucker Carlson is a dick.

Posted by: larsonlk | June 25, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh dear, lil Ezzie.

Journalists are supposed to COVER the news, not make it.

You silly celebrity, dear! Didn't they teach you that on the first day of j-school?

Oh, that's right...

So sorry to hear about your "dear friend". You live in small circles -- made smaller still.

Posted by: Mary42 | June 25, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

He misrepresented himself as a member of a community that he was not a part of and as a proponent of a political viewpoint that he himself did not believe in.

Where exactly did Dave do this? It doesn't say in the blog title that Dave believes anything one way or another. And is the analog true, ie. that conservatives can't report on "liberal" figures or ideas because they are not "part of the movement?"

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

No, StPaulite, I have no more questions for you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The email were evidence of Dave Weigel's conspiracy to shape the news to benefit democrats and to hurt republicans. He literally conspired with other left-wingers to have an attack on truth when covering the Scott Brown victory. He lied to his readers about the video tape of Congressman Etheridge assaulting a young student.

Weigel was getting marching orders from a secret society that explicitly BARS people from entry based on their political views.

This elitism is perfectly legal, but should be divulged to readers so they know the agenda of the person writing. The Washington Post misrepresented Dave Weigel as being "inside the Right". He was so far left, Castro called and wants his red hat back.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | June 25, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

How nice, that Jake the Liar is now threatening others. What a sterling example of humanity.

Posted by: Ellid | June 25, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

More from Goldberg:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/06/can-a-listserv-be-off-the-record/58765/

Nothing is really off-the-record. No conversation between more than two people is ever really off-the-record, and no e-mail is ever, ever off-the-record. It's just the way it is. I've been leaked postings from JournoList before -- wonderfully charming things written about me, as you might have guessed -- and I haven't had the opportunity to use them, but would be happy to if the need arose. Why anyone would think that a listserv with 400 people is private is beyond me. It's McChrystal-level naivete.

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I find it fascinating that the same people who are calling Dave Weigel a liberal are also claiming he was fired from the liberal media. For what?...being a liberal?

Also, I agree with Weigel that if Matt Drudge set himself on fire, it would indeed be one of the most mature things he has ever done. Obviously, that's a pretty low bar. Let's see if Drudge can meet it, shall we?

Posted by: slag | June 25, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

So, it's OK to call people "bigots" who think that gay marriage is unwise and say that Matt Drudge should "set himself on fire", all while covering the conservative movement "fairly," but it's a bad thing of those list serve e-mails become public?

David Weigel had no business covering conservatives in the first place, if he had such condescending and blatantly prejudiced ideas about them. It's like asking a tea party extremist to impartially cover President Obama.

Posted by: douglascoombs | June 25, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I am retired, with PLENTY of time on my hands ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

---

Consider this a warning, folks. JakeD spent a couple of years trolling The Fix and now has evidently targeted Ezra's blog. Just move along.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 25, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

For those trolls who insist that Dave Wiegel is a liberal, please consider this piece in your own right wing "American Spectator" -

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/25/defending-dave-weigel

And by the way, Martha Coakley DID run a terrible campaign, and if she had taken just an additional 3% of the votes she still would have won the race. It is possible for a libertarian to be able to see and understand that, even if it is not for some partisan hacks on this thread.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2

There is a difference between someone who admits he is a rightwing commentator joking about someone on the left dying (I didn't hear Beck's comment, by the way), and someone on the left who sells himself as a liberal journalist wishing in anger that someone on the right would drop dead.

Furthermore, Weigel admits in his emails that he is attempting to manipulate the news to benefit the Democratic party's agenda. He also calls on other members of the list to follow him in that effort.

So what is the point of your comparison? Do you claim both Beck and Weigel should be fired?

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Mickey Kaus has been exposing Ezra Klein's Journolist post for quite some time. The let the really, really smart people - smart that the smart people of the smart Journolist - know that Ezra Klein doesn't care about the truth, he is a lapdog for the liberals in congress and a propaganda tool of the DNC. The Washington Post puts him forward as a unbias policy wonk, when he is a far-left partisan LIAR. His views are opinion and rarely based on fact -- the doc fix makes his claim that Health Care Reform reduces the deficit a LIE.

The real crime is that the Washington Post puts forwards partisans as news writers. Make them opinion or op-ed writers. They are not credible news writers, they are pawns of the democrat establishment that controls all 3 branches of government as well as all but one news media outlet.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | June 25, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives have been angry at Weigel ever since he mocked their birther nonsense.

The other problem is that conservatives demand deference to themselves by those who come into contact with them. There's no right to be liked or respected. It should not surprise me at all if someone with constant and regular contact with members of the conservative movement found them to be loathesome and dislikable. The problem is that right-wingers insist the "respect must be paid" to them and demand that anyone reporting on them do their bidding.

Posted by: constans | June 25, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Do you Leftists even realize what a bunch of Orwellian monsters you are?

Regardless, I AM glad you're getting rid of the JournoList (or at least kicking some people out and changing the name) because I did get tired of reading the same old talking points from every Leftist pundit conspicuously posted at the same time every week. You could always tell who was on the JournoList because they'd all parrot one another at the same time - now, with the smaller, more exclusive JournoList 2.0, we'll get to see who's REALLY on the inside.

Only advice I'd give you, Ezra, is to tell your minions to mix it up a little to throw your readers off the scent.

Posted by: ferrarogeraldine | June 25, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

David Weigel had no business covering conservatives in the first place, if he had such condescending and blatantly prejudiced ideas about them. It's like asking a tea party extremist to impartially cover President Obama.

Would that be William Kristol, David Gerson, Marc Thissen, or Charles Krauthammer who should be banned from covering Obama? Just askin'

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

While the original concept of the listserv seems okay to me, the chance that it would be selectively mined for ammo in the left/right wars also seems obvious.

There is NOTHING that is private anymore.

For those crybabies claiming liberal bias here through collective 'meme-making', consider just how it is that conservatives all arrive at the precisely chosen words within hours when they attack Obama or the Dems. [Chicago Mafia? Obama does shakedown on BP?]

How about Grover Norquists weekly meeting with conservatives to distribute the party line?

Journalism can't and shouldn't require that the writer have no opinions, private or group-shared. It can/should only require that reporting doesn't get driven by those opinions and unfairly deal with the contrary facts or opinions.

What is the most laughable thing in current journalism? Fox News as 'fair and balanced'. It is anything but that, and therefore is not journalism but it is propaganda. Can anyone content that Fox News on-air characters don't have opinions?

Advice to Ezra. Get a throw-away cellphone (or use the public phone down the street). Never put your beliefs in writing. Share nothing with friends (who might be wired, even at a restaurant or while biking.).

Tucker Carlson (with a F) is just the latest exemplar of rightist willingness to do anything to win. If DC has a hidden-carry law that allows a pistol, get a permit, and get a gun, and you may make it your next decade of life. The right will not be tolerant of anything they don't control.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | June 25, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"Weigel is an ideological left-of-center liberal. Something like this was inevitable."

Uh, no he's not. Conservatives don't usually do their homework, but let me help you: Weigel wrote for Reason, he defended Rand Paul, and, loudly, voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries.

I AM a leftist and I would never do any of those nasty things.

Typical right-wingers.

Posted by: timb3 | June 25, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

*Do you Leftists even realize what a bunch of Orwellian monsters you are?*

So, um, how outraged were you by the use of torture by the US government and getting us into a ridiculous war in Iraq? Apparently much less outraged than you are about the fact that a reporter covering right-wingers turns out not to like some of them and takes umbrage at their petty harassment. Nice set of priorities you have there.

Conservatives carry with them a stunning sense of entitlement that despite their penchant for stalking, harassment, and insults at reporters, they deserve to be loved and respected rather than called out on their falsehoods and eccentricities.

Posted by: constans | June 25, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Ellid:

I'm neither lying nor am I threatening anyone (it was simply a prediction ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

slag: "I find it fascinating that the same people who are calling Dave Weigel a liberal are also claiming he was fired from the liberal media. For what?...being a liberal?"

Silly question. Weigel was forced to resign because he exposed the Post's bias. People had already been complaining about Weigel's biased and hateful reporting, and the emails proved, to any normal freethinking person, that Weigel was biased and hateful. Weigel clearly talks about manipulating the news to support the Democratic agenda in his emails. The Washington Post couldn't defend him anymore to normal people. Normal people find it odd that Post would have someone who hates conservatives cover them. The Post had to get rid of Weigel, so they could still masquerade to their normal readers as objective. Only the most fanatic liberals with a fanatic hatred for conservatives could read Weigel's emails and still claim he was an objective journalist who should be covering conservatives, and the Post already has the fanatics in the bag.


Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Jeez Ezra, another journalists beats you at your game and, like the whining liberal you are, you cry.

Posted by: hartwr1 | June 25, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post puts him forward as a unbias policy wonk, when he is a far-left partisan LIAR. His views are opinion and rarely based on fact...

Where exactly did Ezra or WaPo represent Ezra as unbiased, particularly since there is no such thing as someone with no opinions? Ezra has made his liberal leanings quite explicit and if you missed that then I am surprised you can muster the intellect to operate a computer.

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2

I said: "There is a difference between someone who admits he is a rightwing commentator joking about someone on the left dying (I didn't hear Beck's comment, by the way), and someone on the left who sells himself as a liberal journalist wishing in anger that someone on the right would drop dead."

I had a typo. I meant to say Weigel sells himself as an OBJECTIVE, NON-PARTISAN journalist, not as a liberal jouranlist.

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Ezra,

At the core of the problem is that the Right would not settle for anyone but a true believer to report slavishly on them if they were the main topic.

Being impartial and appropriately critical were signs of disloyalty that this reporter and the Washington Post should not display. Pointing out any hypocrisy in a candidate's work or lunacy in their actions were akin to Republican treason.

Republicans play hard ball and they get their way here. They were looking for an opportunity to attack and partially fabricated one. Their deep pain and faux outrage at the tiny slights were marvelous. They proved their influence but I think in the end they lost.

Dave made the Right interesting to others. He had a mix of readers. Drudge, Beck and Rush are toxic and dishonest to such a degree that only the faithful can drink from their gurgling chalices.

In a Washington Post world of 50/50 reporting and making sure both points are presented equally even if one if from the nutter fringe, he was a breath of fresh air. The proof of whether he was a good reporter was his blog. Was it interesting, topical, fair and honest? The answer to that has to be yes.

That said, I will miss Dave. He did a great job in making the Right engaging and I read him regularly. He was funny in his own quirky way and was direct as few few reporters today are confident to be.


The blog's name was Right Now not The Right is Always Right.

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 25, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

horsecow: It's not necessarily what Weigel said that irks conservatives, it's that what he said is basically what the vast majority of MSM journalists believe. Ideological balance would probably undercut all that "liberal media" stuff. If you want people to stop criticizing the "liberal" media, it should make an effort to stop being so damned....liberal. These e-mails only confirm what conservatives already knew about Weigel.

You are defined by those you associate with. Journolist was nothing but a shielded country club where a select, privileged membership could feel free to say things they knew were not acceptable (hence the secrecy). What Weigel said would be acceptable for someone who wrote for HuffPo or guested on Olbermann, but not by someone who was being presented as an impartial observer of the conservative political sphere.

Dave, I hope you're successful in your next venture. Just make it intellectually honest. You are a left winger. Embrace it and people will leave you alone. Even conservatives.

Posted by: TheLastBrainLeft | June 25, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Good, I suppose. Apparently your list was infested with sociopaths and no longer "private" for "professionals", only serving as another vector to attack anyone who doesn't ascribe to the conservative groupthink our media has become.

Posted by: chaohill | June 25, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

FreeMas,

RE: The leftwing loonies on here are defending a breach of ethics that even a freshman j-school student would understand. And, yet, I don't find this surprising in the least.


Really? What was the breach of ethics that is so obvious?

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 25, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Ezra Klein, it's all about you and your high minded intentions. You too are a victim- one smart enough to feign a kind of perverted nobility.

This is a bad day for WAPO, made worse by the mindless drivel of Ezra Klein.

The guy who maligned Tim Russert- a real journalist with decades of credibility- with invective, visceral hate and lewd and profane language has no business opining om journalistic standards.

None whatsoever.

Is anyone at the WAPO editorial desk paying attention? Whose idea was it to allow Mr Klein to post his drivel?

And you wonder why WAPO is losing readership.

Posted by: researchok | June 25, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse


Dave Weigel the despicable, loathsome leftist WaPo hack hit a new low, even for the vanishingly low journalistic standards of The Washington Post. Of course you miserable WaPo hacks let a far leftist like Weigel pretend to be "inside the conservative movement and the Republican party" from his desk chair at WaPo.

Weigel's parting shot was to CENSOR ALL COMMENTS that had been entered on his half-hearted, self-serving "apology". Are you going to follow suit Klein, you miserable hack? Hmm?


Weigel the miserable cur deserves to be hounded out of journalism.

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 25, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"Silly question. Weigel was forced to resign because he exposed the Post's bias."

Yeah. Because you all found the Post's "bias" such a secret before. Now it's all exposed! Because of one Dave Weigel! It's over! The Post has been outed! The empire has crumbled! But wait!...

"The Post had to get rid of Weigel, so they could still masquerade to their normal readers as objective."

Oh folly! The masquerade continues anew...But only to their "normal" readers now. Ahh well...c'est la vie. Better luck next time.

Posted by: slag | June 25, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

@jcam1 I can't wait for your dissertation on the liberal bias of all Murdoch publications.

Posted by: chaohill | June 25, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse


In case anyone missed it here is Dave Weigel the leftist stooge's pathetic so-called "apology to his readers"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/an_apology_to_my_readers.html

Notice that some time last night or today, WaPo hacks CENSORED ALL COMMENTS by readers that had been added to that story. All of them.

Miserable WaPo Hacks

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 25, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Carlson's mother's money must be running out sooner than he'd anticipated. Soon he'll be back to where he's always been: a good reporter who wants to be Something More -- even a game show host -- and simply isn't.

Posted by: misterjrthed | June 25, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

screwjob16,

Under your President's health care legislation you will soon not be denied insurance coverage by health plans despite your serious pre-existing condition.

Naturally, the new medications can make the world seem calmer and you will feel more steady within weeks. They are not miracle drug, so your thinking will not be any more logical or interesting. The anger will subside.

If are already have coverage and prescriptions then start taking those F*#k#ing pills because you really need them - and the full doses too.

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 25, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Ezra is bummed because somebody violated the secret handshake of the LiberalJournoList. You had to be approved to to know the Society's secrets and they approved a MOLE.

Journalists are so thin skinned they luminesce when you hold them up to the light. They demand transparency from everyone in business and government but prefer to hide themselves in the shadows. This wasn't about asking each other what questions to ask. If that were the case Ezra and company would WANT to learn from a from a conservative what questions should be asked of liberals in power. But they were more interested in advancing a partisan agenda. They wanted the power to influence events in a "progressive" manor without all the messiness of running for office.

Posted by: EJHill | June 25, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse


Just listen to Ezra Klein the leftist hack: "Speak of our true leftist intentions only in private. When caught, destroy all evidence of those conversations".

Klein you half a fascist, is that what you think American journalism is all about? Hiding your left wing ideology from the unwashed masses? That is your journalistic principles in a nutshell, you miserable hack? Well, that certainly explains the widespread political censorship of user posts that you oppose, here in the comments sections that happens at WaPo.

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 25, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Another unfortunate side effect of Dave Weigel's departure from WaPo is that the birther virus known as "JakeD" or "JakeD2" will now spread its ignorance and dysfunction to other locations on the internet. In other words, The Stupid is Metastasizing.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | June 25, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse


This is a message board not a chat room. I am not having a conversation with any of you.

It is impossible to get a rise out of me, because I do not read other people's posts.

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 25, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

chaohill

So you admit the Washington Post as well as the rest of the mainstream, except for Fox news and the NY Post, are biased?

Or are you claiming that everything else is objective, and only Fox News and the New Your Post are biased?

I'm glad more arguments are so bulletproof that you couldn't refute anything specific in them.

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

sounds like Tucker's revenge. Though not stated outright, one event did trigger the other.

Posted by: daphne5 | June 25, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

@mariewilson11: What "breach of ethics" are you referring to?

Posted by: chaohill | June 25, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

YOur first mistake was in thinking you were having "smart" conversations on Journolist, and not politcal rantings.

Your second was in helping to hire a leftist who pretended to be a conservative. That shows you to be a less than honest/honorable person, and certainly NOT a "journalist."

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | June 25, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Slag says, "Yeah. Because you all found the Post's "bias" such a secret before."

Obviously, the Post could care less what Republicans who follow the news think. And they obviously know that mindless liberals will believe them to be objective no matter what their reporters admit. The Washington Post needs to keep its credibility with the vast majority of Americans who are independent and/or centrist, so they can keep manipulating them. Why do you think they hired someone who admittedly hates conservatives to cover conservatives? You think Weigel's leftist bosses had no idea what was going on on the list?

Slag says, "Oh folly! The masquerade continues anew...But only to their "normal" readers now. Ahh well...c'est la vie. Better luck next time."

No. The masquerade also continues just like it always did with the fanatic, mindless left that can't see bias even when the reporter admits to it, says how he will do it, calls for others to do it, and then does it.

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Some of the commenters here (TheLastBrainLeft, jnc4p, daveredhat) display amazing ignorance. Being a highly professional journalist does NOT require one to FEEL neutral.

I am not very familiar with Mr. Weigel's work, but to the extent that his true opinions come as a surprise to those who have read his articles, he was a highly professional journalist producing fair journalism.

A journalist's quality should be judged on his work, not the things he spouts off in private.

But now the leak does mean he can't effectively cover conservatives anymore. They'll never talk to him again.

Posted by: karen2222 | June 25, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

jcam1, all news organizations have biases. The question is whether they acknowledge those biases and consciously try to make sure that their objective reporting is factually accurate. Organizations like Fox news deliberately take false and misleading statements from their opinion/entertainment side and bring them over to present them as objective "news." If you don't see this in their reporting, you are not paying attention. Jon Stewart had a great satire of this prevalent occurrence a few weeks ago. It's there almost every day if you look for it...

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

@sj16: Well, that certainly explains the widespread political censorship of user posts that you oppose, here in the comments sections that happens at WaPo.

Huh? Klein opposes censorship and that is a bad thing? Write much?

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Carlson's mother's money must be running out sooner than he'd anticipated. Soon he'll be back to where he's always been: a good reporter who wants to be Something More -- even a game show host -- and simply isn't.
Posted by: misterjrthed | June 25, 2010 6:05 PM
***************

After announcing last year the plan to launch a new political website leaning more to the right than Politico and TalkingPointsMemo, Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney aide Neil Patel have raised $3m in funding from conservative businessman Foster Friess.

Relying on an online ad-based model, the Daily Caller will introduce a profit-share model for reporters and freelancers.

"We're going to be relying on dozens, scores of freelancers because there are more freelancers now than ever and they're going to be writing on this profit sharing model where they're getting paid a significant percentage of the revenue generated by pieces they write as measured by ads served to those pieces," Tucker said to paidContent in an interview.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-interview-tucker-carlson-on-why-we-need-another-political-site/

There must be pressure to produce something ... if $3 million was given by a conservative

Posted by: Gracefulboomer | June 25, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Smart, ongoing conversation -- among journalists? Are you kidding? Ezra, you are so full of yourself you risk exploding every single day. Your arrogance is disgusting.

Posted by: meljane | June 25, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

"Carlson's mother's money must be running out sooner than he'd anticipated. Soon he'll be back to where he's always been: a good reporter who wants to be Something More -- even a game show host -- and simply isn't."

Years ago, Carlson wrote a profile of Governor George W. Bush that included accounts about Bush smirking and joking about prisoners that were about to face execution. Carlson openly admitted he found Bush's behavior to be extremely disturbing and distasteful.

Now, ten years later Tucker acts as though it is shocking that a fellow conservative journalist might discuss demagogues like Limbaugh and Drudge as less-than-saintly figures in a private dialog.

Maybe he's still angry with himself for having appeared as a fool by competing on "Dancing With The Stars" and immediately getting voted off the show. Or else somewhere during the past decade, Carlson perhaps tied his bowtie a bit too tight and cut off the oxygen to his brain cells.

I guess the WaPo editors are all bow tie wearers and failed game show contestants too.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

srw3

Only Fox does that, but not the Washington Post, huh? Not Weigel, huh? Only Fox.

We have the recent example of Weigel showing the Post's bias. How about giving me a recent example from Fox?

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Oh Excrement Klein, per usual you lie, lie, lie, because you can't handle people seeing through your paper thin machinations.

Journolist was founded by you, as a means to control discourse via a closed door community, herd those cats, get them to whinge away on your list and then coach what they should or shouldn't say. I remember losing respect for you several years prior to journolist being outed the first time. You revealed yourself to be a narcissistic hypocrite, elitist boor, the epitome of what had previously been dismissed as only a stereotype of the left.

You're dispicable, and as much a coward as you are a fraud. As long as the WashPo has you on staff, it will have zero credibility, for you are little more than the propagandists that raise Hitler to power, a disease that needs to be expunged from decent society.

Posted by: jenn3 | June 25, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

srw3

Only Fox does that, but not the Washington Post, huh? Not Weigel, huh? Not Klein, huh? Only Fox. Except for Fox, to say any of the media is biased means one is a conspiracy theorist even when the conspiracy is exposed and admitted to. One can find bias with Fox's journalists and not conspiracy theorist. You liberals have some scam going. LOL.

We have the recent example of Weigel and Klein showing the Washington Post's bias. Weigel admits to manipulating the news for the Democratic party, and Klein admits to setting up this leftist list to influence his reporting. How about giving me a recent example of bias from Fox journalists?

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

karen2222 wrote:
"A journalist's quality should be judged on his work, not the things he spouts off in private"

I didn't read Weigel often, but recently when Democrat Congressman Bob Etheridge got caught on film assaulting those students who simply asked him if he "support the Obama agenda", Weigel went into full spin defense mode, characterizing the forced grabbing of the student as a "hug" and further attempted to minimize the attack by describing it as simply "strange" behavior on Etheridge's part.. whereas Weigel was demanding to know who those kids were.. as if that would have made any difference at all (assuming they didn't say anything to the Congressmen off camera) even if they were on the National Review staff

That was bizarre as as hell, and an extreme partisan spin that Weigel was using there in order to defend inexcusable behavior... all because Etheridge was on his "side". Weigel loathed the tea party movement and his "reporting" demonstrated it

Posted by: ZippyD | June 25, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD2 |

{{You're next, Ezra.}}
********
Ezra isn't going anywhere unless he chooses to. He writes a good column and is an excellent, knowledgeable guest on political shows. My god, righties, don't you have enough conservative columnists in the WaPo to satisfy you? You even get to have a few totally reactionary ones like Thiessen and Krauthammer. The op-ed writers are on the op-ed page for a reason -- to give an opinion. Read only the straight news part of the paper if you don't like spin.

Posted by: Sandydayl | June 25, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

*That was bizarre as as hell, and an extreme partisan spin that Weigel was using there in order to defend inexcusable behavior*

I don't know much about what Weigel said about Ethridge, but the truth is that Weigel has been subjected to relentless personal harassment by movement conservatives, and I can imagine that he had sympathy for a guy who was being harassed by one of Breitbart's thugs and ended up manhandling him. The truth is that Weigel has been subject to the rage of the right for a long time and has learned that many of them are loathsome human beings. There's no reason why the right should feel entitled to Weigel's respect and admiration when they outed themselves as such awful people.

Posted by: constans | June 25, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney aide Neil Patel have raised $3m in funding from conservative businessman Foster Friess to launch the Daily Caller.

Alex Treadway, who used to do sales for National Review is now doing the same for the Daily Caller.

The Daily Caller is just another right wing blog.

The only difference is that reporters will be paid a percentage of the profit share.

Expect a lot of this type of ratting out- it is done to generate volume and increase the reporter's take of the profits.

Posted by: Gracefulboomer | June 25, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

@jcam1: from today...

Yesterday morning, FoxNews.com reported Gabrielle Giffords' (D-AZ) claim that the Department of Education and the U.S. Border Patrol "have joined the 'boycott Arizona' trend and nixed conferences there out of concern over the state's immigration law." The article stated that "FoxNews.com is awaiting response from both agencies," and said "the cancellations ... may have been more out of a desire to steer clear of controversy than outright protest of the law." Nevertheless, the headline on the front page of FoxNews.com asserted as fact that "two federal agencies join the 'boycott Arizona' campaign"...Shortly thereafter, Fox News' America Live, one of Fox's purportedly "straight news" programs, did a segment about "reports now that two government agencies have recently cancelled events planned to happen in Arizona. These are the federal -- this is the federal government cancelling events now, raising questions about whether the feds are now engage in an effort to try to punish Arizona for its new immigration law," in the words of host Megyn Kelly....Later that day, Stuart Varney, co-hosting on Your World with Neil Cavuto, stated that "two federal agencies are joining the 'boycott Arizona' movement by canceling conventions over the state`s immigration law," even though he noted moments later that the Department of Education will be holding a meeting in Arizona next week...Around that time, actual news outlets were reporting that both of the federal agencies had disputed the charge that they are boycotting Arizona to protest its immigration law...The Education Department says it moved a joint event held with Mexican and Canadian partners in a student exchange program because the Mexicans asked that it be moved. Each agency pays for its part of the joint North American Mobility Program.

The agency says it is holding other conferences in Arizona, including one next week....And the Arizona Daily Star reported:

Border Patrol officials say they did not cancel any Arizona events, according to a statement issued by the agency's public affairs office in Washington, D.C.

"CBP has not canceled any conferences in Arizona. We conducted a thorough review across our organization to ensure this is, in fact, the case. The agency has reached out to Rep. Giffords' office to clear up any misunderstanding," the statement says...Surely by the next morning, Fox will have adjusted their coverage of this story and provided the statements from the agencies?

When I checked in the morning, the front page of FoxNews.com still asserted: "Two Federal Agencies Join Arizona Boycott": And on America's Newsroom, yet another of Fox's "straight news" programs, co-host Martha MacCallum said: "Two federal agencies are joining the push to boycott Arizona. This is a very unusual development." She added...And if you visit Fox Nation right now, their top story is: "Obama Administration Launches Boycott vs. Arizona": Typical Faux "news" behavior...

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

@jcam1:The masquerade also continues just like it always did with the fanatic, mindless left that can't see bias even when the reporter admits to it, says how he will do it, calls for others to do it, and then does it.

This is just a meaningless rant. I don't believe Weigel ever said that his reporting was biased, nor has anyone else convincingly made that case. His reporting on Ethridge was spot on describing what happened and he clearly blamed Ethridge for the confrontation. Lets see some evidence, not just your paranoid diatribes.

Posted by: srw3 | June 25, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

constans wrote: "I can imagine that he had sympathy for a guy who was being harassed by one of Breitbart's thugs and ended up manhandling him"

Is there any evidence that those students were Breitbart's "thugs", or that they were associated with Breitbart in anyway prior to Etheridge's assault? Or did you simply make that up?

Even if they were working for Breitbart, since when is asking an elected Congressman "Do you support Obama's agenda" considered to be "harassment"? You're spinning as much as Weigel to defend the inexcusable because Etheridge and Weigel are on your "side". That's what leftists do

Posted by: ZippyD | June 25, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

"You're dispicable, and as much a coward as you are a fraud. As long as the WashPo has you on staff, it will have zero credibility, for you are little more than the propagandists that raise Hitler to power, a disease that needs to be expunged from decent society."

Posted by: jenn3 | June 25, 2010 6:59 PM

I believe that is a call for the assassination of Ezra Klein. I hope the WaPo reports this to the FBI.

Posted by: allanbrauer | June 25, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

When will the Post ask Klein to pursue his liberal agenda under a non-profit he founds, so he can crusade to his heart's content?

This subsidation of an alleged economist playing "reporter" is silly. An experiment that is failing, and become more and more painfully obvious with each passing ... revalation.

If he wants to MAKE news, let him resign and form a non-profit tackling whichever heartfelt issue he deems most crucial. He's to observe and write on the issues, not become involved in them.

The " MEMBERS ONLY " access is funny in an 80-s like commercial way. Mr. Klein was what? A pre-schooler during those days.

For his sake, let him cut his journalistic teeth elsewhere. There's too much on-the-job training here. (No son, you don't link to your girlfriend/lover's blog as a credible source...)(No child, you don't measure source credibility by whether you like the person and they like you and are going to ask you on on further playdates...)

Page hits can be manipulated, and entertainment with your "journolists" playing starring roles is not the same as legitimate page hits by dedicated news readers who are going to loyally support the WaPo brand.

Mr. Klein, unfortunately, is part of the overrepresentation of young ambitious Jewish young men who believe they create the news. If it were another ethnicity spinning and caught up in these continuous webs, we'd question their roles -- and worth in the newsreporting game -- outright.

These young men are surely nice enough, but sheltered with little to add to the deeper conversations the nation is currently discussing. Inserting oneself into the K-Street gossip scene is not the same as honest and capable news gathering and analyzing.

Founding an exclusive members-only-old young boys club is not the same as committing honest journalism -- whether it be for an old or new media source.

His boyish looks will fade, his gameplaying ... not so quickly. Let's hope the powers-that-be at the WaPo -- and the Grey Lady too -- take heed and learn from these lessons before the boys rig up something that can be cleaned up after so easily.

Now is the time especially that the industry must maintain integrity, when her intrinsic value hangs on but by a string.

Posted by: Mary42 | June 25, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

That is quite the self-damning first paragraph.

Anybody reading Mr. Klein's columns from this point forward should keep in mind that he is more interested in scoring points than he is in being fair, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

Posted by: breth | June 25, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

I believe that is a call for the assassination of Ezra Klein. I hope the WaPo reports this to the FBI.

Posted by: allanbrauer | June 25, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse


Well allan I agree that Ezra is unbecomingly inserting himself INTO the newscycle instead of being content to merely study and work WITHIN it, but really... no need to be an overtly Drama Queen over his need for FBI protection with theat read in every comment, eh?

Expunge is not so specific as you might believe. Spend some years learning the intricate meaning of words before you take fright in every thought you might not have heard on your exclusive thought-sharing sites?

Too much self isolation makes Jonas a dull boy.

Posted by: Mary42 | June 25, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

As I understand it, the purpose of Journolist was: leftist journalists being honest with each other in secret because they can't be honest with anyone in public?
What a foul, pathetic lot! Still, they should be able to play "Cream the cookie"
in private. And Wiegel ate it.

Posted by: velvetbob | June 25, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

In case anyone wonders how disgusting a comment here can be, I have googled the reference in velvetbob's comment to see what it means, and here's the result:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cream%20The%20Cookie

Now you know how velvetbob spends his days. Probably while thinking about Mary42.

Stay classy, trolls.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

"What I didn't expect was that a member of the list, or someone given access by a member of the list, would trawl through the archives to assemble a dossier of quotes from one particular member and then release them to an interested media outlet to embarrass him. But that's what happened to David Weigel. Private e-mails were twisted into a public story."


What rubbish! Weigel was posing at the WaPo as someone who could be objective about conservatives in general. That was a lie, and it was exposed.

Oh, and most of you are not "journalists" - you're bloggers. Jourolist had become a way for liberal bloggers and reporters to control the narrative in the media by collaborating behind the scenes, and it became obvious that people like Weigel were being foisted on the public in a dishonest way. He was exposed. Anyone who is a true journalist should be glad, not making excuses.

Posted by: anna_78750 | June 25, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

"This is just a meaningless rant."

I expect a fanatic to read something he disagrees with, and then claim it was meaningless. Obviously, what a normal person would say is that he or she disagrees with it. Only a close-minded fanatic would find an opinion with which he or she disagrees "meaningless." Obviously you understand the meaning since you are attempting, ineptly of course, to refute.

"I don't believe Weigel ever said that his reporting was biased..."

Weigel admitted he was worried about how a story would affect the Democratic party. According to Jonathan Strong:

"After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been."

"'I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats,' Weigel wrote."


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/emails-reveal-post-reporter-savaging-conservatives-rooting-for-democrats/3/#ixzz0rutP2TaC

Look at Weigel's email. Look at number two. He is clearly worried how the reporting will cause "more damage to the Democrats," and calling for other reporters to take that into consideration when reporting the story. This along with the Weigel's other quotes in the article clearly shows bias.

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

It says a lot about Tucker Carlson. A failure in most of his ventures and evidently a failure in integrity, too.

Posted by: suenaustin | June 25, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Ding Dong the liberal MSM is dead! Ding Dong the liberal MSM is dead!

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]

Posted by: libertyatstake | June 25, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

"I find it fascinating that the same people who are calling Dave Weigel a liberal are also claiming he was fired from the liberal media. For what?...being a liberal?"

His cover (flimsy as it was) was blown, so he was burned. From what I understand, he jsut moved to another arm of the leftist media (the PuffHos) where he can operate openly.

Posted by: malclave | June 25, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse


this evening, rachel maddow reminded us all, of the praiseworthy and historical accomplishments that president obama has set into place, in just half a term!
despite the horrific attacks, and daily perturbations, the desire to stop progress and reform in its tracks, the progressive agenda is growing by the month!
though it may not be enough for some, and too much for others, nonetheless, the progress of the record so far, is undeniable.
tonight was a reminder, to take stock, and celebrate these accomplishments!

Posted by: jkaren | June 25, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Awwww, did your little Liberal hate site get shut down? Poor Ezra. What will you possibly do for entertainment from now on?

This column is absolute proof of why print is dead. Could this dufus be a bigger whiner? Hey Ezra, we all know that you Leftists in the media gather and figure out ways to protect Obama and the Liberal agenda (check out the critique of the media following the Oval Office speech to see just how many TV reporters used the exact same phrase to describe it). You got busted, grow up and deal with it. Weigel is gone because he was a liar. If he had admitted he was a hateful Liberal who wanted to cover Conservatives, then he'd have no reason to resign.

Posted by: Des_ | June 25, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

"His cover (flimsy as it was) was blown, so he was burned. From what I understand, he jsut moved to another arm of the leftist media (the PuffHos) where he can operate openly."

Your understanding (flimsy as it is) is wrong. Weigel had a telephone conversation with Sam Stein at The Huffington Post to let him know the Post has taken hus resignation. Weigel has no deal with Huffington Post and since the Huffington Post does not really use everyday bloggers, it probably is not the sort of site that would present the right kind of opportunity for the sort of work that Weigel does.

There have been a lot of posts here today, and not one of the commenters has pointed to a single thing in any one of Dave Wiegel's blog posts that are distorted, biased, or unfair. Apparently his work is beyond reproach, even to the extreme right.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't think ever in my life have I heard of one human being wishing that another human being immolated himself.

What a horrible thought from an obviously tortured person. I pity Dave.

Posted by: cpameetingbook | June 25, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Gee, Weigel seems like a charming fellow, huh? More than a little bitter, but that goes with progressive territory. Their projection only facilitates their denial very superficially, and the anger oozes out in a very obvious and unattractive way. He'll be happy at Media Matters and fit right in. Anyway, WaPo won't be around much longer unless we bail them out, and I doubt that will ever happen. According to the latest polls the majority of Americans, aka "ratf**kers", think the media is only promoting the liberal agenda. November can't get here soon enough.

Posted by: IamOverit1 | June 25, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Patrick_M:

I've pointed to several (the Etheridge "hug" for instance was completely biased).

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 25, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

"This column is absolute proof of why print is dead."

Uh, Des_....? Des_? Take your meds, dude.

This is a blog post, not a column. This is the Internet, not print. Ezra Klein and Dave Weigel are both bloggers, not print journalists (although Ezra does articles for the business section at the Post and for Newsweek).

Pretty much every else you've said is wrong too (for example, the Obama "Oval Office speech" was panned by nearly everyone in the media, and liberal commentators hit it the hardest of all), but misinformaton and disinformation is par for the course with robotic childike trolls such as yourself.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

srw3,

Do you liberals ever think for yourselves??? It is very dangerous to plagiarize a dishonest radical group like Media Matters without citing them.

According to the Media Matter's article you posted:

"Nevertheless, the headline on the front page of FoxNews.com asserted as fact that 'two federal agencies join the 'boycott Arizona' campaign.'"

The headline asserted no such fact. The headline clearly represented the story about how a Democrat from Arizona was making the allegation. The only fact the headline asserts is that an Arizona Democrat is making the allegation. Here is the actual headline which Media Matters dishonestly edits and spins:

"Arizona Dem: Federal Agencies Nixing Conventions Over State's Immigration Law"

Clearly, this indicates that the Democrat was making the allegation against his own party.

It is a common rhetorical trick used by biased reporters to take a part of a quote and spin it by connecting it to a dishonest summary statement such as "the headline on the front page of FoxNews.com asserted as fact."

I fear I'm getting too technical for you.

When he was a conservative, David Brock (the head of Media Matters) himself explained "use of a tantalizing summary sentence to introduce a quote that doesn't support the introductory sentence is another common tactic..." http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/153/articles/brock03.htm

You add: "When I checked in the morning, the front page of FoxNews.com still asserted: 'Two Federal Agencies Join Arizona Boycott'"

No it didn't. You are dishonestly editing and spinning the headline to fit your point.

So how about finding real bias at Fox news, since we found real bias at the Washington Post?

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

srw3,

Do you liberals ever think for yourselves??? It is very dangerous to plagiarize a dishonest radical group like Media Matters without citing them.

According to the Media Matter's article you posted:

"Nevertheless, the headline on the front page of FoxNews.com asserted as fact that 'two federal agencies join the 'boycott Arizona' campaign.'"

The headline asserted no such fact. The headline clearly represented the story about how a Democrat from Arizona was making the allegation. The only fact the headline asserts is that an Arizona Democrat is making the allegation. Here is the actual headline which Media Matters dishonestly edits and spins:

"Arizona Dem: Federal Agencies Nixing Conventions Over State's Immigration Law"

Clearly, this indicates that the Democrat was making the allegation against his own party.

It is a common rhetorical trick used by biased reporters to take a part of a quote and spin it by connecting it to a dishonest summary statement such as "the headline on the front page of FoxNews.com asserted as fact."

I fear I'm getting too technical for you.

When he was a conservative, David Brock (the head of Media Matters) himself explained "use of a tantalizing summary sentence to introduce a quote that doesn't support the introductory sentence is another common tactic..." http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/153/articles/brock03.htm

You add: "When I checked in the morning, the front page of FoxNews.com still asserted: 'Two Federal Agencies Join Arizona Boycott'"

No it didn't. You are dishonestly editing and spinning the headline to fit your point.

So how about finding real bias at Fox news, since we found real bias at the Washington Post?

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

srw3,

Do you liberals ever think for yourselves??? It is very dangerous to plagiarize a dishonest radical group like Media Matters without citing them.

According to the Media Matters article you posted:

"Nevertheless, the headline on the front page of FoxNews.com asserted as fact that 'two federal agencies join the 'boycott Arizona' campaign.'"

The headline asserted no such fact. The headline clearly represented the story about how a Democrat from Arizona was making the allegation. The only fact the headline asserts is that an Arizona Democrat is making the allegation. Here is the actual headline which Media Matters dishonestly edits and spins:

"Arizona Dem: Federal Agencies Nixing Conventions Over State's Immigration Law"

Clearly, this indicates that the Democrat was making the allegation against his own party.

It is a common rhetorical trick used by biased reporters to take a part of a quote and spin it by connecting it to a dishonest summary statement such as "the headline on the front page of FoxNews.com asserted as fact."

I fear I'm getting too technical for you.

When he was a conservative, David Brock (the head of Media Matters) himself, in his review of the book Strange Justice, explained "use of a tantalizing summary sentence to introduce a quote that doesn't support the introductory sentence is another common tactic..." http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/153/articles/brock03.htm

You add: "When I checked in the morning, the front page of FoxNews.com still asserted: 'Two Federal Agencies Join Arizona Boycott'"

No it didn't. You are dishonestly editing and spinning the headline to fit your point.

So how about finding real bias at Fox news, since we found real bias at the Washington Post?

Posted by: jcam1 | June 25, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Sweet. We knocked off the old bat Helen Thomas and now this Weigel punk. There's blood in the water boys, let's hit them twice as hard. Every one of the hacks on JournoList is a bootlicking stenographer shill for the Democrats. Every one of them is the enemy of all American patriots. Every one of them hates you and hates the American way of life. Embrace their cocky ivy league hatred and smash it back in their faces five times harder. No mercy. Shout them down. Get them fired. Bankrupt them. Make them and their families suffer. Treat them like the communist traitor termites they are. Never again will we bow before union thugs, crooked politicians, or the dirty filthy flying monkeys of the commie traitor press. It's all Alinsky all the time now, that's the game the left plays, so play it for keeps and play it to hurt individuals, not institutions.

Posted by: JohnSkookum | June 25, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"Now you know how velvetbob spends his days. Probably while thinking about Mary42.

Stay classy, trolls."

*waving* Hi Patrick.

Not a troll. Just someone who disagrees with lil Ez, and the whole concept of a MembersOnly listserv for liberals, and conservatives who play them at the Post.

Your dig at me (sorry, I didn't click your vulgar link) is exemplary: like this Weigel boy with real American conservativs, you don't know me. Thus you stick your dirty liberal ideas, and vulgarities, on me.

As if you're pinning the tail on the donkey.

If you want to portray yourself as an expert on a topic, a credible beat blogger, or heck even a practicing journalist (not Journolist) like Klein plays, then know your subject.

Weigel no more knew real American conservatives than Klein knows journalism. He's pushing a lib agenda, but taking his dollars from the Post, not the White House.

Klein, and his Super Secret group pushing the healthcare law, blew their chances to pretend they were merely observing and analyzing.

Is there a pool going for how long lil Ez will keep writing as a neutral wonk at the Post, before he too jumps ship? Anyone who think he MAKES the news, instead of reports on it, won't last long as a team player...

I'd say January 2013 he's gone from the Post (after he gets his work in on the election). Off to pursue a more active Democratic job. And that's a conservative estimate. ;-) Ezra Klein is not going to be a journalist for life. It's clearly a stepping stone to let him pursue his other agenda interest. It's a shame the WaPo lets him trade on their name like this, and approves of the whole Journolist idea, or whatever private hidden form it will take in its next incantation.

Posted by: Mary42 | June 25, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

"Now you know how velvetbob spends his days. Probably while thinking about Mary42.

Stay classy, trolls."

*waving* Hi Patrick.

Not a troll. Just someone who disagrees with lil Ez, and the whole concept of a MembersOnly listserv for liberals, and conservatives who play them at the Post.

Your dig at me (sorry, I didn't click your vulgar link) is exemplary: like this Weigel boy with real American conservativs, you don't know me. Thus you stick your dirty liberal ideas, and vulgarities, on me.

As if you're pinning the tail on the donkey.

If you want to portray yourself as an expert on a topic, a credible beat blogger, or heck even a practicing journalist (not Journolist) like Klein plays, then know your subject.

Weigel no more knew real American conservatives than Klein knows journalism. He's pushing a lib agenda, but taking his dollars from the Post, not the White House.

Klein, and his Super Secret group pushing the healthcare law, blew their chances to pretend they were merely observing and analyzing.

Is there a pool going for how long lil Ez will keep writing as a neutral wonk at the Post, before he too jumps ship? Anyone who think he MAKES the news, instead of reports on it, won't last long as a team player...

I'd say January 2013 he's gone from the Post (after he gets his work in on the election). Off to pursue a more active Democratic job. And that's a conservative estimate. ;-) Ezra Klein is not going to be a journalist for life. It's clearly a stepping stone to let him pursue his other agenda interest. It's a shame the WaPo lets him trade on their name like this, and approves of the whole Journolist idea, or whatever private hidden form it will take in its next incantation.

Posted by: Mary42 | June 25, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

ps. Patrick?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I will pray that you find your path to manhood and maturity, and lose some of the anger that causes you to lash out so vulgarly at people.

Why is it, if you have the strength of conviction in your own beliefs, that young(?) men like you, Klein and Weigel must disparage those who don't share your obviously heartfelt liberal sentiments?

Perhaps my prayers, and time, will help you all to grow into more respectable -- and yes, classy! -- men. Certainly beats having your mouth washed out with soap, and it's obvious that some of your parents never had time to teach that lesson either. So sad the childlike condition of so many of those raised in the safety net of affluence, who missed so many valuable lessons in life being protected and sheltered as such.

Posted by: Mary42 | June 25, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

srw3

Only Fox does that, but not the Washington Post, huh? Not Weigel, huh? Only Fox.

We have the recent example of Weigel showing the Post's bias. How about giving me a recent example from Fox?

Posted by: jcam1

/////////////////////////////

For starters if we're firing people on the basis of likes and dislikes, it's fair to ask how objective a news organization can ever be if it's overseen by a guy who made his reputation as a REPUBLICAN AD MAN.

The world of advertising is the world of persuasion and manipulation.

The world of journalism -- at least at its best -- is reporting events in context and giving a fair hearing to all sides. 95 percent of events don't have any political dimension too them (except at Fox where it often seems that politics filters into 95 percent of the news, and only 5 percent of the lighter-hearted fare stands outside of the political realm).

PR-Advertising and Journalism are diametrically opposed professions.

Ailes is not just and AD man, but a nakedly partisan one at that.

As far as Fox's bias goes, sometimes it's not overt -- it can be as simple as the fact that they give a ton of coverage and positive spin to GOP figures, and only tend to give coverage to Democratic figures in a more negative light (e.g. for a few weeks now Fox has been pumping up the GOP nominee for Senate in South Carolina). Back in January after Scott Brown one his special election, Fox ran an hour long hagiography about the guy. Back in 2008, Obama got an hour long "documentary" about his radical black preacher and "African liberation theology" (actually a few of these).

Basically Fox has two hours of news in the evening the rest of the time it is effectively the communication and research arm of the RNC. It's "news" for old farts who need constant reinforcement of their prejudices in a world that is constantly in flux. It serves the same function that Pravda did back in the Old Soviet Union -- with some additional "panem et circenses" thrown into the mix to keep people watching.

Posted by: JPRS | June 25, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Good Ezra this list is closed. I am not so sure decades down the line, you will be so proud to have started it in the first place.

This whole thing 'smells' bad, so good that it will be all behind.

Posted by: umesh409 | June 25, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Build it, and the tards will come.

I hope you all do it again, a little deeper, a little quieter. This is, after all, how Skull and Bones was born. Theses need antitheses.

Good luck! :)

Posted by: SameRiverOnce | June 25, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

"...the Etheridge "hug"..."

What a truly earth-shattering mischaracterization of what has to be biggest non-story of the year, in which a squad of still unidentified juvenile Borat/Breitbart brats (who almost certainly were working for Breitbart) successfully pushes a guy's buttons until he loses his temper and over-reacts on camera. Whoa, stop the presses!

If that had been Joe Barton doing the same thing to a group of faux "students," the story would be equally dull, and had Weigel (or anyone else) downplayed the contact in the same way, I could not care less. It is not a political story.

As with Frum at Heritage, a smart, valuable player for your own team got kneecapped here, this time for blowing off steam in what he made the mistake of assuming was private conversation with his professional colleagues.

Someday maybe the fact that the loss was to your own ever-shrinking side will sink in.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 25, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

My own two cents:

What we desperately need is more reporters and fewer (or, preferably, NO) bloggers.

Blogging is not journalism, though an increasingly clueless and bilaterally biased public regrettably equates the two.

Posted by: ralphbackhome | June 25, 2010 11:47 PM | Report abuse

My own two cents:

What we desperately need is more reporters and fewer (or, preferably, NO) bloggers.

Blogging is not journalism, though an increasingly clueless and bilaterally biased public regrettably equates the two.

Posted by: ralphbackhome | June 25, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Ezra- if it's true, what they say (that you recommended Dave for the job),Journolist is not your only problem.

Posted by: doubletake | June 26, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

ralphbackhome,

It depends what you mean by "blogging". At its most basic a blog is just an electronic, online publication usually written by a sole author.

In many cases you have authors who are specialists, who can go into a lot more detail and provide more context than a print reporter with a generalists understanding of a subject writing for an audience of generalists.

The format also provides a lot more freedom. In print journalism if an item only merits 300 words and is timely, odds are it won't see publication in a newspaper. If an item merits tens of thousands of words, odds are it will be condensed to the point of gross-oversimplification.

Blogs also have an interactive component, so unlike traditional publications where you have to wait a day or several days to correct erroneous information (by which time everyone has already moved beyond the story); readers can highlight problems with an article and other readers can investigate the claims pretty easily in something close to real time -- in some cases the writer himself can update the matter in something close to real time when a correction or clarification is merited.

Additionally, you have the interactive features in blogs where readers have the chance to follow-up with original source material, and dig deeper if they are so inclined, etc.

The hostility to blogging generally strikes me as a case of seeing the use of technology for what it is not, rather than what it is. As with any novel use of new technology there are going to be trade-offs, limitations, and new opportunities.

Posted by: JPRS | June 26, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Sounds like someone is afraid of the possiblilty that many more comments such as Weigels will get out and completely expose all of the far-left "JourniList" hacks for who they really are.
Better batten down that hatch real tight Klein. It'd be a real pitty if Americans knew what you far-leftists in the media were really all about, wouldn't it?

Posted by: OxyCon | June 26, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

The rightwing dung-beetles here who are pissing their pants in horror that journalists would get together and talk a little treason in private in language they would never use in print have apparently never seen "His Girl Friday" or heard of Ricardo's or the Billy Goat or the Beachwood or any of hundreds of seedy little newsman taverns in every city in America where, for generations, legends of brilliant, two-fisted journalism from Mark Twain to Mike Royko hung out, drank, and used very naughty words to describe the various goofs, hacks and mobsters they were writing about.

http://tinyurl.com/27dgpxl

Posted by: driftglass00 | June 26, 2010 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Mary42,

As far as vulgarity and the need to wash one's mouth out with soap, I am not the one that feels the need to weave references to Ezra's "girlfriend/lover" into every thread in which I post, or to complain about "the overrepresentation of young ambitious Jewish young men" (did you remember to say that he was young?) in the media. That soap-worthy icky sex obsession and anti-semitic garbage is all you, lil Mary42.

Nor am I the one to use the vulgar term -- that was of your fellow right wing trolls. If you did not follow the link to the definition of velevetbob's charming phrase, I can only assume it is already a part of your vocabulary, otherwise you would not have known that it is vulgar.

Liberals disparage? Read velvetbob, your own anti-Jewish screed, and most of the other right-wing dreck posted in this thread.

You can spin little fantasies in your head about Ezra leaving the Post, or about whatever icky Ezra/Annie fantasies fill your head, but that "young ambitious Jewish young man" will be here blogging about policy issues for as long as he wants.

The most pathetic part of this whole episode is that you right wingers can't get it through your skulls that taking out Dave Wiegel has been a serious net loss for your own "movement." But keep on cheering your own set-back, it is an amusing spectacle.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 26, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

"What we desperately need is more reporters and fewer (or, preferably, NO) bloggers."

I agree with everthing JPRS already said in response. To which I'd add that it isn't a zero sum game. I would like as many top-notch investigative reporters as possible, but that doesn't mean there is not a place for bloggers too.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 26, 2010 1:23 AM | Report abuse

The simple fact that Weigel revealed his contempt for the entire conservative movement (and his desire to sabotage it wherever possible) means that any contacts he may have had prior to this story will no longer talk to him.

A journalist with no contacts, no one who will return a phone call, is basically useless and not worth paying. Why keep him around? To read the Drudge report to us every morning?

Posted by: sold2u | June 26, 2010 1:37 AM | Report abuse

I find it cute that leftist journalists couldn't handle what they dished out so adroitly.

Now that we understand that JournoList coordinated talking points, news suppression, etc., it's obvious why stuff like the Acorn debacle were muted in many liberal media outlets until the evidence become too overpowering to ignore.

I'm hoping that Ezra's attempt to destroy the evidence won't work, and that the entire content of Journolist shows up in the wayback machine so we can all see what was going down in the cozy coupe.

Posted by: unclesmrgol | June 26, 2010 1:38 AM | Report abuse

"[Fox News] serves the same function that Pravda did back in the Old Soviet Union -- with some additional "panem et circenses" thrown into the mix to keep people watching."

Posted by: JPRS | June 25, 2010 11:08 PM

Or that WaPo, NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. serve in fellating Barry O and other lefties?

Posted by: malclave | June 26, 2010 1:43 AM | Report abuse

"The simple fact that Weigel revealed his contempt for the entire conservative movement..."

Take off your blinders. As Julian Sanchez said:

"If the Princess-and-the-Pea brigade now cheering his departure would bracket their persecution complex for five minutes, they'd realize that [Weigel] was consistently delivering coverage about as fair and sympathetic as could reasonably be hoped for. What they apparently wanted was a movement hack to dole out indiscriminate praise to anyone claiming the mantle of conservatism--whereas Dave took the right seriously enough to make distinctions between what he saw as its credible thinkers and its nuts and opportunists. Memo to my friends on the right: If you bristle at being stereotyped as an undifferentiated bloc of racists and crude blowhards, maybe you shouldn't take automatic umbrage when someone points out particular individuals who are."

Goodnight trolls. Perhaps someday you'll see that you are dancing in the endzone over a loss today.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 26, 2010 1:51 AM | Report abuse

So which computer tech person would you rather have: Someone who understands and shares your pain, but is not very good at understanding your problem or fixing it, or someone who laughs like hell at the clueless morons looking for the "ANY" key, but can intuitively walk you through any problem or fix any computer in no time flat?

Dave Weigel knows and understands the conservative world and what their issues are and why conservatives feel so strongly about them. His private thoughts on the subject are in no way germane to his journalism. He is a professional through and through, and it is obvious in the columns he writes.

Unless he specifically told WaPo that he is a conservative writing about conservative issues, this is not an ethics problem for Dave. It should be one for WaPo, though.

Posted by: carole2 | June 26, 2010 2:02 AM | Report abuse

malclave,

"Or that WaPo, NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. serve in fellating Barry O and other lefties?"

Of course, some people on the right say this, because they tell each other this ad naseum.

However, what's the standard that you're applying? What's the criteria?

When Al Franken won his election there wasn't a 1 hour hagiography about his career anywhere (contra Scott Brown on Fox).

You don't see former Democratic presidential candidates (or likely future ones) basically being given jobs on a revolving door basis as is done at Fox.

Even though Fox has run blatantly false stories like the Obama "madrassas" story which it failed to fact-check, no one was fired over the episode -- even though it got play on the morning program, and two of the evening shows. Contrast this with what happened to Dan Rather at 60 Minutes.

Basically a person can assert that everyone else has the same low-standards as Fox, but when you actually start looking at the way that Fox operates and defining standards of conduct, it becomes clear pretty quickly that it's not run like a news organization -- it operates more like a PR firm 22 hours out of the day.

Patrick_M,

We're in agreement. One other area that I'd highlight is that there are many blogs which focus on specializations -- essentially focusing on a market niche, and get into the minutae and the weeds, whereas traditional print reporting, because of space limitations and the need to reach broad audiences tends to look at controversies from an 1,000 foot level. Long form magazines can get into some of the details, but many of those are falling by the wayside (or moving purely online). At its core and at its best, the best blogs serve a complimentary function to traditional reporting. Like you say, it's not a zero-sum trade off. In the case of Weigel's blog he came from a niche publication and did reporting for niche audience about conservative politics -- as a journalist he brings that understanding to his reporting.

Posted by: JPRS | June 26, 2010 2:31 AM | Report abuse

That any conservative would have the gall to complain about liberals 'coordinating their message', when there are entities like Frank Luntz working diligently for their tribe, strikes me as nothing less than despicable.

Posted by: ssully | June 26, 2010 2:58 AM | Report abuse

Ezra, you fail on so many points.

You and Weigel were exposed as conspirators in a rigged game that your employer insisted was being played on a level playing field. That's your greatest crime-- proving what the rest of us have always said but been unable to prove.

I've known since Watergate that the WaPo is a vicious tool of the radical left, but you and Weigel have now revealed your dishonest, political-thug employer to a new generation in a way that exceeds my wildest dreams. Congratulations, Einstein. Strike one.

You created and maintained the equivalent of a den of thieves where you developed, crafted and disseminated talking points that served a political agenda-- not to inform or enlighten the public-- but to undermine your political opponents. You're what they call on the street a 'liar'. Your purpose was cynically political and had nothing to do with Journalism. Strike two.

You worked in tandem with the White House and their political operatives to manipulate and supress people you disagreed with. That's the exact opposite of the purpose of a watchdog media. Strike three.

You can put whatever fig leaf on it that you desire, but your methods and your goals are nakedly obvious. You and Weigel are Frauds. And so are your Journolist co-conspirators.

One can only hope that someone recorded Journolist and will release it (as happened with the East Anglia emails) into the bright light of day. And you'll be shown to be a fraud equal to Al Gore. There's something for the resume!

Truth will finally shine on you and your dishonest co-conspirators, along with a heap of shame and, if my wishes are fulfilled, an indictment or three.

Shame on you and shame on them.

You are a disgrace.

Posted by: sporks | June 26, 2010 3:05 AM | Report abuse

Ezra is proud of the journolist, he says above, even after it has been publicly revealed to be a place where Weigel felt comfortable writing the most poisonous trash. Imagine what an e-mail group Ezra was ashamed of would look like!

Posted by: yourstruly1991 | June 26, 2010 4:35 AM | Report abuse

It's too bad that the Washington Post (and NY Times, NPR, Newsweek, etc.) have a leftist slant. What's really galling is that they pretend to be neutral. If they would just come out and admit who they are rooting for--as many other sources left and right do--people could trust them more!

Posted by: yourstruly1991 | June 26, 2010 4:39 AM | Report abuse

Boo.Hoo.

Sophisticated, tech-savvy journolists don't realize that _nothing_ posted on the web is private.

Taste of your own medicine? Yum.

Posted by: janbear | June 26, 2010 4:52 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives spend a life looking over shoulders because no matter how minor the deed, liberals blaze them over and over in the largest headlines editors will allow. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I'm amazed at how bad you folks think it is that a liberal was held to a similar standard. We'd all like a little privacy, to go back to a time when a private thought between friends could stay private. It's wild that liberals are only now realizing the damage this type of betrayal produces. Conservatives have lived it for decades.

Posted by: clayusmcret1 | June 26, 2010 5:49 AM | Report abuse

It's hilarious hearing the journalistic "bias" critique from people who apparently are incapable of defining what "objective" reporting looks like.

In your universe apparently, if someone has no experience reporting, conducts fundraisers for a political party; sets up PACs for political candidates; and provides hundreds of hours of free media to promote political events -- THAT is journalism. That's what a "news" channel does.

No, that's what PR firms do. That's what Fox does. That's what you get when you hire a political AD man like Roger Ailes to run a "news" channel.

As far as Watergate goes, apparently it's not news when reporters uncover a political scandal involving a Republican president? They should have avoided the story, avoided the hassle of having a White House threatening to cancel its broadcasting license as punishment, and let those in power do whatever the hell they wanted? Or are you essentially saying that Nixon was so corrupt that we should have just assumed that he was a criminal?

Bottom line Woodward (a Republican) and Bernstein spent hundreds of hours doing shoe-leather reporting collecting information from sources, going through documents, and constructing a story from the evidence. Only in an upside down world would that be seen as something other than journalism. It shouldn't matter whether the story involved a Republican or a Democratic president -- if the president or his immediate subordinates are engaged in unlawful activity and the facts demonstrate as much -- that's a story in the public interest.

At least it is if a person understand the role of the press within the framework of our Constitution.

Posted by: JPRS | June 26, 2010 5:55 AM | Report abuse

@clayusmcret1,

"We'd all like a little privacy, to go back to a time when a private thought between friends could stay private. It's wild that liberals are only now realizing the damage this type of betrayal produces. Conservatives have lived it for decades."

Conservatives drove the McCarthy hearings, which pretty much reduced the standard of private association to the level of a joke (at least until the overwhelming majority of McCarthy's colleagues got sick of his antics and sent him home in disgrace).

As far as public figures go, there's always a different standard.

If Weigel had given access to a reporter to do a profile piece, he should have had no reasonable expectation that his comments would be kept private. In the context though of a password protected listserv, it's a different story.

Once again, this is one of those cases where Cons seem to have difficulty defining STANDARDS of conduct. Where does the line exist?

Unlike the McChrystal story, Weigel didn't grant an interviewer unfettered access. In terms of the consequences of his comments, Weigel is a friggen journalist. No lives or international alliances hang in the balance because of ill-advised remarks.

Once again, if we're going to talk about double-standards, let's define the standard first Cons.

Posted by: JPRS | June 26, 2010 6:06 AM | Report abuse

WEIGEL'S GONE?

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Deep breath.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHA.

Ratf**ker.

Posted by: mstruth771 | June 26, 2010 6:28 AM | Report abuse

My my my. That Kingfish done bamboozled us again. The country understands you all are the dancing boys of the Democratic Party. Do you think no one understands that each morning as we look over the headlines and discover that talking points were distributed and that the leftists in government and its camp followers have agreed on an alibi over cocktails, dinner and their laptops. Have you noticed the overwhelming majority of the rest of the county does not approve of this inside-the-beltway circle jerk? Haven't any of you noticed the public quit reading your newspapers and watching your airheads on TV?

Posted by: hrumphgrumble | June 26, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

So your whining indicates that as a lefty you BLAME Tucker? you and your lefty journolist friends worked ENTIRE meme's into the mainstream of society and the entirety of what has occurred is that America as a majority has NO TRUST in the media. When each and every Corrupt Media person is using the SAME word such as "brilliant" to talk about Obama on a given day, the JIG IS UP!

I find you all and your made up LIES and protection of the Democrat Party to be an affront to journalism but I suspect as the Country turns to other forms of information and bypasses "traditional" media that you will all just fall away or actually get PAID by the Democrat Party for speechwriting!

Posted by: Jaded2 | June 26, 2010 6:42 AM | Report abuse

One doesn't have to read far to fully understand the reason conservatives couldn't be included. I can't think of a liberal blog or opinion writer I read that conservatives don't try to dominate the comments on everyday.

The most obvious thing in this is the exposure of the obvious lie that comes from the Tea Party and it's supporters..."We have both people from the right AND from the left!" No they don't. They are conservative Republican's and there would be no tolerance for any member who was left leaning.

Ezra, I applaud your attempt at providing a forum for intelligent grown ups, but obviously, political reality has gone the other way.

Posted by: dogdiva | June 26, 2010 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Awwwww. The poor little munchkin mockie doen't like the way the kiddies are playing in his sandbox.

Posted by: Clemenzza | June 26, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Well, thanks for setting it up. That's one lefty phony exposed and ousted, only several thusand more to go!

Posted by: standard_guy | June 26, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

"I am not the one that feels the need to weave references to Ezra's "girlfriend/lover" into every thread in which I post, or to complain about "the overrepresentation of young ambitious Jewish young men" (did you remember to say that he was young?) in the media. That soap-worthy icky sex obsession and anti-semitic garbage is all you, lil Mary42."

It's a valid criticism Patrick. Whether it rankles you or not.

If you don't understand why you don't continually link to (the person who shares your bed)(was girlfriend/lover in some way vulgar to you?)(Is it the criticism, or the description you object to here??) someone with which you have an intimate personal relationship, then you don't understrand journalistic objectivity or the value of a fair uncompromised press.

Listen, he's young. That's a valid point to. He didn't earn/learn his way up. And clearly he's oblivious to the problems with promoting your friend's work, when clearly they are not the best person for the job.

If you don't understand conservative philosophy, and are so hostile to spew what a "dear friend" Dave did, you're oblivious to the problems. I blame that not on some genetic stupidity, but on youth. Youth too caught up in his own power that he doesn't understand the need for self-imposed limitations: namely, let your friends and girlfriends/lover (is it better just to use her name, Annie Lowrey*? I thought not, but you object to my description...) find their own working gigs, and don't promote their careers on the WaPo's reputation and dime.

These kids are ... untested. That's another way of saying, YOUNG. They need to cut their teeth under supervision, learn the background of the profession -- why the "no nepotism" and "don't solicit source quid pro quos -- ie: link to my gal, invite me to that party, I'll plug your work in the WaPo-- rules are in place.

Clearly the Ez (yup, I do plead guilty of playing with his name!) is above all that. So advanced, with his expertise knowledge on ALL things Washington ;-), that he can skip the ethical parts...

Which brings me to your charge of anti Semitism against myself. How do I word this gently, so that your Holocaust sensitivities won't flare up, to say that indeed men like Ezra Klein are over-represented in our media. Young, Jewish, and pushing their friends. I know Weigel is not, but Klein -- the power at play here -- and many many of the young expertise pundits are. They don't understand Christian values, Republican norms outside the Beltway and their elite early upbringings.

You're missing something. When you tilt the field, and cherry pick the players, you lose out on a reporter who is openminded, and experienced enough, to cover the people as they are. The contempt drips over, and the misunderstandings build.

This kind of "journalism" is divisive and doesn't work. Stop the Members Only and insiders covering what they don't know. If you care about honest journalism. No more nepotism!

Posted by: Mary42 | June 26, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Jon Stewart still has the best take on Tucker Carlson: "You're a big a dick on your show as you are on any show."

Posted by: mattintx | June 26, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

"Liberals disparage? Read velvetbob, your own anti-Jewish screed, and most of the other right-wing dreck posted in this thread."

And again, please stop tossing your vulgar garbage my way.

My criticism were legit. Your linking of my name and comments to something about jizz-filled cookies ... sorry. Not my cup of tea.

You're just hot and bothered, and linking me in with the vulgarities spewed by your youthful liberal freinds, because you types tend to defind degeneracy down.

You talk like that youself "rat...." and become immune. If that's the way this personal Members Only journalist sharing list was run, NO WONDER NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE don't participate! Talking dirty doesn't cover the news. Cultivating hate might win you friends in some circles, but doesn't the anger eat at your gut and make you drink and otherwise abuse your bodies?

I fit it hard to believe many of you kiss women, or hug babies, with those mouths and arms you use to spew your garbage. Just please: keep it over there. Not spilling over on me and mine, simply because we show up here to represent, and say "I TOLD YOU SO" back when we were hip to Ezzie's ethical problems (remember: he first identified Ms. Lowrey as an live-in partner on his Census form -- belive it or not, I don't follow Washington punditry gossip.)

Just found it very telling, when in the following weeks, he continued to link to young Ms. Lowrey's work, without attributing her expertise as the person who also -- coincidently -- warms his bed and begins her day with him ... before he gets to the WaPo office and starts his day informing the nation with his neutral economic expertise.

(Do you honestly still not see it??? Easier to battle the "No You're an Ugly Vulgarity!!" strawmen.) (Btw, why is noting someone Jewish ethnicity considered a vulgar insult in this day and age? It's a neutral fact, being corraled here to demonstrate a larger point: critical mass skews proportional representation, and often you don't realize what you're missing until it blows up on you. As in this Weigel hiring / Members Only liberal journolist fete.

It's not that nobody else ever thought of it, they were just wise enough not to pursue such a fixed spin and play it off as neutral newspapering. And wisdom often comes with age.

subsumed.blogspot.com Life is good. Create your own adventure. Think, don't drink! Love, don't link! And be very careful about claiming that expertise crown when clearly it doesn't fit an overly swelled head.

Hth!

Posted by: Mary42 | June 26, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

"How do I word this gently, so that your Holocaust sensitivities won't flare up, to say that indeed men like Ezra Klein are over-represented in our media. Young, Jewish, and pushing their friends"

Not gentle enough, Mary42. Try a different codebook.

Posted by: mattintx | June 26, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

"that "young ambitious Jewish young man" will be here blogging about policy issues for as long as he wants. "

I suspect Ezra is using teh WaPos as a stepping stone to advance his own ambitions.

January 2013 -- if he still chooses to be working there, even after all the perks of promoting his buds and babes are curtailed -- I'll be amazed.

It's not much fun honestly covering other people in power, and doing the legwork to honestly report a story. Not when you've tasted the power of being a celebrity yourself, and inserting yourself INTO the newscycle, instead of just covering it and trying to better yourself by learning more.

In other words, it's hard to step into a conservative's world and cover it honestly when you break out in hives at the idea that there indeed is a reality other than the one you propound where you're a kingmaker whose recommendation carries weight in the hiring decisions.

A good lil boys club, as opposed to a good ole boys club. Kleiner, ya kill me man!

Posted by: Mary42 | June 26, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Say Patrick?

Is this Patrick you, by any chance?

http://www.patrickcooper.com/inside/resumeclips.html

Posted by: Mary42 | June 26, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Stop complaining about Klein's Jewishness, because it in no way informs his views. He is one of the most anti Israel commentators you could find outside of the Gaza strip. His first loyalty is to the White House and to the current president. There's not an inch of daylight between their agenda and what he writes.

Posted by: truck1 | June 26, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Please God, send us some old fashioned journalists who fight to get the facts and know how to then tell a credible (because it tells ALL the facts, in actual context) story that's good to read (as opposed to the stories filling the nation's papers that are invariably packed with distortion to support the elitist liberal, always predictable, agenda).

Posted by: SameOldTiredThinking | June 26, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

If Weigel had reported in a professional manner, and not as a partisan hack, his emails on Journolist would not have been an issue.

Journolist will provide material to expose more statists working in the propaganda business.

Thanks for being a useful idiot among useful idiots.

Posted by: Attila666 | June 26, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Ezra for Dummies (er, conservatives, since in WaPoLand we're all dumb or kooks):

- Me no likey cons 'cause they're stoopid
- Me start slam list where me and friends can call neocons poopy heads and stuff
- Me get idea to get Big House Paper to show neocons as poopy heads even more bigger
- Me tell them Davey 'cause he knows how to act like neocon poopy head real good and show kooky poopy head storys
- Now we tell not only easy "truf" about how gud and neat we liberuz are, but "fake truf" about how stoopid and racyist neocon poopy heads are
- Oops! Davey got on my gossip page and said he wuz only faking, he no likes stoopid poopy head neocons, and he will fake stuf to show how craazy and poopy they are.
- Then stoopid Tuckerhead finds out and sez it on his gossipy page stoopid poopy paper
- Now poor Davey has to quit and I half to shut down kool gossipy page
- But don't worry, I'll make a NEW gossipy page, call it sumpin' else, and get REALLY mad at poopy head neocons and get sumeone else to make up stuf about them.
- I like writting and do it real gud.

Posted by: mikeinaustintx | June 26, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

You can tell how linked Klein is to the White House by the access he has gotten, relatively early in his career, to people like Zeke Emanuel. He did an interview of him when Zeke was at his summer villa in Italy (don't know if rented or owned). Klein's is the voice of the administration. He is not, like Yglesias for instance, an independent liberal voice.

Posted by: truck1 | June 26, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"and I have no doubt that someone else will re-form it, with many of the same members, and keep it going. Hopefully, it will lose some of its mystique in the process... "

Kinda like ACORN. And yeah, we know echo chambers are what you do on the left. Glad the mask has been pulled off fake libertarian Weigel. More firings, please, WaPo.

Posted by: 2partsgin | June 26, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"oh, so you drank the kool-aid and believed that line was serious?"

I believe the expression is "inflammatory rhetoric." PS That's a pun.

Posted by: 2partsgin | June 26, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

"Dissent is simply not allowed."

Therein lies the rub. It's not dissent when you're, in fact, the opposition.

Posted by: 2partsgin | June 26, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Hey, where did everybody go? :)

Posted by: 2partsgin | June 26, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Why did my comment have to be approved? I don't think I said anything inappropriate...

Posted by: MosBen | June 26, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

"Stop complaining about Klein's Jewishness, because it in no way informs his views. He is one of the most anti Israel commentators you could find outside of the Gaza strip. His first loyalty is to the White House and to the current president. There's not an inch of daylight between their agenda and what he writes."

Newflash? It's not about Israel.

How can you write about honest Christian values, a conservative philosophy, or pretty much anything outside your own professed area of expertise, however wide you cast your net, if your stable is primarily young Jewish ambitious-as-all-heck-sure "reporters" whose loyalty isn't to getting the story right and learning what is essentially foreign to them, but rather to plug an agenda and advance a career.

Think of it this way:
If you had a stable of all African-American writers, even if none were loyal to Israel and even disavowed any special knowledge, how good would they be covering "white" issues?

Diversity ain't to be found on a Members Only website where the color (white), the ethnicity (lots o Jews and those who love them), the age (young men! and not the YMCA boys either), and economically sheltered (well to do 'rents.)

That's why the masquerade continues: you have outsiders covering the conservative core of the country, and no matter how much this "new breed" tries to manipulate coverage, you're missing the story of what's happening out here.

Posted by: Mary42 | June 26, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Here's how many times the top commenters on this thread have posted:

JakeD2 - 21 times
jcam1 - 16 times
Patrick_M - 13 times
Mary42 - 10 times
srw3 - 10 times
JPRS - 8 times
Kevin_Willis - 7 times

Didn't you guys learn the lesson in elementary school? Once you've had your turn at the fountain, let the other kids have a drink. I think we've gotten your point by now, and you're not adding anything to the discussion at this point.

Posted by: horsecow | June 26, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

It should be noted that most conservative bloggers and columnists I've seen are NOT gloating over Mr. Weigel's fall, nor are many roaring "Aha! See? We TOLD you all those reporters were biased against us!"

Most of the ones who've weighed in on this incident (including Ross Douthat, John J. Miller and Joshua Goldberg) have indicated that Weigel was an excellent reporter. They considered him a left-leaning libertarian rather than a partisan Democrat, and thought he generally covered conservative issues fairly and accurately.

Now, there's no doubt that he HAD to be fired, but NOT as a punishment for being rude or snarky. Rather, it's because he can't possibly cover the conservative beat effectively as a reporter any more, because no conservative is likely to talk to him again.

To use an analogy, there's no reason an atheist can't do a good job as a reporter covering the Vatican. Even if he believes, privately, that everything the Catholic Church stands for is a crock, he can still be an excellent source of information. But if he ever comes out and SAYS publicly "Catholics are deluded idiots," well, he has to go. NOT because he doesn't have a First Amendment right to say what he thinks, NOT because he was impolite, but because a reporter CAN'T burn bridges with people he NEEDS as sources.

Posted by: astorian | June 26, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"How can you write about honest Christian values?"

How can YOU, Mary?

Posted by: mattintx | June 26, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

There's another lesson that a troll can learn in elementary school, horsecow: Leave enough turds in the sandbox, and eventually you will have the whole damn sandbox all to yourself.

Posted by: mattintx | June 26, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

@horsecow : you analogy is nonsensical and inappropriate. everyone drinks at the fountain on the tubes.

Posted by: srw3 | June 26, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

@jcam1 : My mistake for omitting the Media matters attribution. It was not intentional. But the example is valid. Fox took an unsubstantiated rumor reported it as fact on their "news" shows and didn't correct it even when they had the correct information. Pretty clear cut and you have presented no reason why it is not a clear example of biased/lazy reporting.

Posted by: srw3 | June 26, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"Didn't you guys learn the lesson in elementary school? Once you've had your turn at the fountain, let the other kids have a drink. I think we've gotten your point by now, and you're not adding anything to the discussion at this point."

A "discussion," by definition, contains some back and forth exchange. This is not a fountain, there is no waiting in line, and you can immediately take your turn, and as often as you like.

Conservative Ross Douthat:

"Set aside the fact that Weigel — who’s actually a left-tilting libertarian rather than a liberal partisan — really is a good reporter, good enough and fair enough to have a number of conservative bloggers rallying to his defense, or at least speaking well of his reporting. The more important point is that no journalistic standard was violated by firing off intemperate e-mails to what’s supposed to be a private e-mail list."

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 26, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post is a dessicated old husk of American journalism. While a few papers have grown and changed to deal with the new media landscape, the Post just alternates between terror and the desire to co-opt it. You deserve better than this. I'm a reader who followed you over here from CAP, and honestly if you left my desire to visit the WaPo would pretty much evaporate (and it's my local paper!).

I mean this story is basically: "Washington Post arrogantly overreacts to innovative mode of information sharing." How does that surprise anyone...

Posted by: NS12345 | June 26, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

The liberals commenting herein seem to be complaining that Weigel should have been allowed to continue his journalistic malpractice because his work supported what they believe in. Which shows they just don't get ethics in journalism.

Any professional, whether they are an attorney, a medical doctor or a journalist, need to check their biases at the door to truly do their job well. I had to defend a child molester back in the early 90s which was the second hardest thing I have done as a lawyer (the worst was finding a site for a client to place a dirty bookstore and finding the only place left out of zoning was the ballfield of a bunch of neighborhood kids, the only open space for two miles in this neighborhood), but I checked my disgust for this person and gave him one the best efforts of my career.

Weigel should have been doing the same thing. You can think for yourself all you want. But when real and perceived biases affect how you write, which seem to have been the case here, your journalistic integrity has been lost and therefore you are only fit to write for the Daily Kos and their left and right wing equivalents. He was just too compromised to continue in his post and he embarrassed his employer. In this hyper-partisan environment we have found ourselves in these days, there could have been no other result. Good luck Dave.

Posted by: stvcar | June 26, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"No one who worked for the government in any capacity could join."

No, but Podesta's Soros funded Center for American Progress was front and center and WH folks worked through that organization to get out the talking points, according to a story I read a while back- believe it was WaPo. If CAP was not involved in any way, I would sincerely appreciate a clarification.

Shame on you, Klein. Can't you all come up with your own stories? There certainly is plenty to work with! Do you think readers don't know they are being snowed when they see the same 'meme', often with identical catch phrases showing up in various media?

I read several of Weigel's pieces. IMO, they were not good. His opinions were not 'conservative' but rather a not so subtle effort to discredit and/or belittle conservative viewpoints.

The fourth estate serves a vital, even noble, purpose. However, those who act in a blatantly partisan manner, simply regurgitating a message, rather than crafting a well-researched piece have betrayed the principles of good journalism.

Shame, shame on you, Ezra Klein.

Posted by: vintageaccent | June 26, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to point out what a few of the other posters have: Weigel was a miserable writer in every sense of the word.

Posted by: velvetbob | June 26, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Tea Bag Birther Queen Orly Taitz defines Weigel as a Libertarian, and expresses her concern that Weigel is being "framed" -

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=11949

"How far this purging of the Cultural Revoution will go {sic], if even Libetarians [sic] are being fired from the MSM?"

This all gets more funny by the minute.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 26, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"Klein wrote Friday that he is abolishing Journolist immediately because its archives have 'become a weapon.' He said he is 'heartbroken' over the resignation of Weigel, calling him 'an extraordinary reporter and a dear friend.'"

It must have been pretty inflammatory if it can "become a weapon".

I take it, there was much more to it then what Klein previously stated:
“it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”

Posted by: jacquelynwoods | June 26, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Weigel gave his opinion on the conservative media rather then reporting on the conservative media as he was supposedly hired by the post to do.

The posts on the journolist showed that he knowingly and willfully inserted his opinion into his writing.

Posted by: win1 | June 26, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Weigel gave his opinion on the conservative media rather then reporting on the conservative media as he was supposedly hired by the post to do.

The posts on the journolist showed that he knowingly and willfully inserted his opinion into his writing.

Posted by: win1 | June 26, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

srw3

No it is not valid. Both you and your source purposefully misquoted FOX, and then you argued about your misquotation. That is simply dishonest, and for you to come back here and try to claim otherwise is silly.

Fox did not report the rumor as fact. That is a lie fueled by a dishonest edit of Fox's actual headline. Fox reported that a Democrat from Arizona was making the accusation. That is a true fact. That is why you misquoted Fox.

Posted by: jcam1 | June 26, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Klein,
You state that you created JournoList to keep yourself informed about intellectual trends and ideas.

You then state that you deliberately limited it to only left-of-center individuals.

Aren't you then saying that you explicitly filter out "right-wing" ideas from your own exposure? Isn't that the opposite of what a rigorous journalist and true intellectual should do.

Wouldn't it be more interesting for you to form a listserv containing only conservatives so that you can expose yourself to thinking that is different from your own?

The way you have it set up, you are deliberately closing of yourself (and inceidentally others on the list) from different ways of thinking about the issues.

You keep yourself informed, but only of a limited spectrum of thought with which you already agree and understand, and you deliberately filter out voices that you don't agree with. You don't even give them a place at the table to debate. That's classic confirmation bias.

Posted by: tjk1 | June 26, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Weigel authenticated the Tea Party that the national news media is comprised of a conglomerate of liberal writers.

The only thing Klein is probably wondering is which of his 300 posters is the sleeper especially considering moving his WEB site to another location?

Posted by: jacquelynwoods | June 26, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Before you delete Journolist, I hope you make a forensic effort to identify the rat bastard that leaked from it, and identify him publicly. If we're going to fire folks for expressing honest opinion, let's know who's setting the stage and why. Be a journalist.

As a fan, Ezra, I hope you've prepared yourself some landing zones. I don't begrudge your getting paid, but you are working for a very corrupt institution, very indistinguishable from Cod War Pravda, and I don't think your truthfulness will be tolerated indefinitely.

Posted by: tggault | June 26, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

...hey, let's just listen to Palin and the failed GOP, and go back to cut taxes / cut govt that we tried for the 3 decades of the Reagan/Bush era. In fact, let's get ANOTHER big tax cut to the wealthiest as we did in 1981 and 2001.

I mean, that worked SO well to deliver trickle down prosperity. Almost nobody is unemployed now. And the banks and oil giants and health insurers, heck - they POLICED THEMSELVES!!! Get government out of the WAY by golly!

Abe Lincoln would have said;
"You can fool some of the people, ALL of the time"... ;^)

Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | June 26, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The real fun will start when those "ratf**kers" who were libeled by the Klein Kids Klub get subpoenas for discovery and start digging through the JournoList archives.

Hope you have a good lawyer Klein. A good EXPENSIVE lawyer, yuk yuk yuk. You're about to be smashed with full-bore punitive Alinsky style lawfare like the left wing scum have used for decades.

With a smile on our lips and a song in our hearts, we are unfurling the black flags of total war with the leftist enemedia. We mean to bankrupt you and make an example of you, to destroy your reputation and your career, and to take down as many of your co-conspirators as possible. We're going to hurt you bad.

PS. Don't bother erasing your archives. It's a hopeless task when there are 399 other copies out there, and the penalties for obstruction of justice are shockingly severe. Post them to WikiLeaks now and take your medicine.

Posted by: JohnSkookum | June 26, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

And now we know how much of a little man (questionable, I for one suspect his cojones were removed at birth) and punk Carlson is and what a bunch of punks those trained monkeys otherwise known as the editorial staff of the Washington Post really are.
Would it be tragic if one of those bow ties while around Tuckers neck would become snagged on something and accidentally strangle Carlson? One can dream can't they.

Posted by: jschamberl1n | June 26, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

And now we know how much of a little man (questionable, I for one suspect his cojones were removed at birth) and punk Carlson is and what a bunch of punks those trained monkeys otherwise known as the editorial staff of the Washington Post really are.
Would it be tragic if one of those bow ties while around Tuckers neck would become snagged on something and accidentally strangle Carlson? One can dream can't they.

Posted by: jschamberl1n | June 26, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The leftist elitist telling the common folk outside the loop (journolist) how its supposed to be.

In this digital age its is quite easy for more and more to see through the delusion.

Posted by: Steevo64 | June 26, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I shake my head every time I read a post by Ezra Klein, but this one takes the cake. What sort of delusional world does this man live in?

Nothing more exemplifies the realness of the D.C. liberal media echo-chamber than Journolist.

Posted by: systrac3 | June 26, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Your newspaper is dying, and you know what? It can't happen fast enough. This stuff happens, a writer or editor turns out to be a leftist wacko, and everyone act's so surprised, it's sickening. "Gambling in Casablanca? I'm shocked!"

You won't admit that your credibility is shot, though, so I don't have to worry that you'll turn it around and be successful again. You are so dishonest that at this point you're lying to yourselves - and believing it.

Posted by: mrdarklight | June 26, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

If YOU HAD A SHRED OF INTEGRITY YOU WOULD RESIGN TOMORROW MORNING and seek a real job producing something of value in the world, but your past history necessarily precludes you from having honor, prinicples or morals.

For all your stated nonsense about why you started this leftist circle-jerk, the very moment that it became a place for you and your leftist nitwits associates to gather each morning to decide how to relay the daily Democrat Party spin, a real "journalist", reporter or MAN would have plugged the plug on this affront to journalistic ethics.

The fact that the Washington Post still employs such a person of such low ethical standards tells the world all they need to know about the drivel being published by this organization.


Amazing how much damage has been done in the past three years to the status of an Ivy League diploma, with the empty suit Barry Obama and limited intelligence representatives like Ezra Klein, a diploma from a dog obediance school is more impressive.

Posted by: LogicalSC | June 26, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

"For all your stated nonsense about why you started this leftist circle-jerk, the very moment that it became a place for you and your leftist nitwits associates to gather each morning to decide how to relay the daily Democrat Party spin, a real "journalist", reporter or MAN would have plugged the plug on this affront to journalistic ethics."

What is about the trolls that makes them so obsessed with auto-eroticism? Here's a peek under the hood of the "secret society, courtesy of member Matt Yglesias:

"...I’ve been looking back a bit at what’s archived in my inbox and what you see lately is an effort to organize a happy hour in Dave Weigel honor, many threads about World Cup matches, Wimbledon matches, NBA Finals games, etc., and mostly a lot of what amounts to self-promotion. People sending out links to articles they’ve published or talks they’ve given, sometimes followed by a reply or two. We had a thread in which people speculated as to where Peter Orszag will end up when he leaves the White House.

This is the sort of thing that journalists like to talk about, but don’t like to write about in public, because it’s unprofessional to publish baseless speculation. Absent email lists those of us living in “the village” can talk about this kind of thing at the bar (or the mythical cocktail party), but the email list is a useful way for writers living in New York or the West Coast or at home with their kids to also listen in and chit chat.

Another common genre of posts was failed efforts to get an interesting discussion going. Someone recently wrote “I find that my own attitudes have hardened a bit regarding intergenerational equity and Medicare cost control issues after watching so many implacable seniors opposing HCR. Others feel the same?” That’s an interesting subject, in my opinion, but only one person replied.

More rarely, debate would really take off. As I alluded to here some of us had a long debate about whether middle class New Yorkers who own extremely expensive pieces of real estate really count as “rich.” Topics that traditionally divide liberals—trade, issues related to merit pay and charter schools, Israel—would often generate long threads.

Last but by no means least, you had requests for help. “Anyone have an email for Vanity fair columnist James Wolcott?” That was a quick one. A discussion got going recently about whether it made sense for writers to branch out into podcasts or video and what advice folks might have about that. Someone asked “there was one episode earlier this year when the D’s threatened that they were gonna roll out the cots and really make the R’s filibuster, and the R’s caved immediately. What was that about?” There was a question about whether anyone has any contacts at CSPAN."

Big deal, wingnuts.

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 26, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

I began to read & respect the Post in the early '60s. About 10 yrs ago I began to lose respect. With the Rah Rah Iraq warmongering it was fully depleted, but some reporters & commentators occasionally impressed. Now that it's standards of quality are completely gone, I am too.

Posted by: ked22 | June 27, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse

horsecow,

A drink at the fountain is all take and no give. Once you've slaked your thirst that's pretty much all there is to it.

A conversation, or an extended debate involves give and take. I've never seen a debate begin and end with an opening statement. The beauty of a blog discussion-debate is that those who are interested can continue discussing the subject until they've exhausted the topic. The space required to exhaust the topic is virtually unlimited. If a person just wants to make a statement and then walk away, this kind of forum accommodates that outcome. If a person wants to argue a controversy, clarify a point, or engage another interlocutor that's entirely possible on a blog too. This often happens, because different comment might raise a different line of thought or argument. It's also easy enough to scan through the text and ignore a comment if a person is so inclined (e.g. one of the beauties of comment breaks).

Blogs offers a forum for debate and discussion. Blogs aren't water fountains.

Posted by: JPRS | June 27, 2010 3:11 AM | Report abuse

If you say something you can't defend in public, maybe you shouldn't say it. Secret societies always worry the general public and when they are exposed as nasty and partisan, the worries are confirmed. Leave your lists open and you and the public will be better served.

Posted by: jy151310 | June 27, 2010 7:09 AM | Report abuse

Patrick_M,

Why so cranky this morning? Haven't had your cookies and cream, I bet.

Posted by: velvetbob | June 27, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Excuses... You have liberal activists calling themselves 'reporters'. There is a difference... it's called professional ethics. What is Weigel's job at WashPo? He's paid to cover the 'conservative' movement... and by cover I mean to misrepresent their positions in order to paint conservatives as 'fringe'. Why isn't there a similar reported for the progressive movement? Because the Post considers the progressive moment the norm and conservatism to be a fringe, outside movement.

The Post has done a very effective job at selling itself in the digital age. That means building a user base and covering stories pertinent to that user base. The result has been a paper for progressives by progressives with few conflicting viewpoints. The post has sacrificed their journalistic integrity in exchange for page views.

I used to read the Post but I stopped... since I can get all the stories a day earlier from MediaMatters.org.

Posted by: nptalcott | June 27, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

nptalcott,

Weigel may not be respected by extreme far right reactionaries whose "journalistic" standard has eerie resemblances to state-run media channels, but amongst peers who can recognize what real shoe-leather reporting is Weigel's work is respected.

The ones who feared Weigel's work the most were those in the wingnut movement who recognize on some level that the GOP has some pretty nasty components. To stretch a metaphor, the wingnut community sees this as a kind of mafiaso hit against an informant.

It's not that what Weigel was saying was untrue, the problem was that the truth about today's GOP and wingnut movements isn't that pretty. They don't like anyone airing out the trash in public.

As Eisenhower once said about the GOP hard-liners: they are "apostles of hate". Some things never change.

Posted by: JPRS | June 27, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"...there were plenty of conservative list servs, and I knew of military list servs, and health-care policy list servs, and feminist list servs."

But these people are not entrusted with disseminating information to a public that depends on factual and hopefully unbiased information. The bias of journalists these days is so clear, so partisan, so self-serving and promoting that it's bed-time partners clearly have an advantage in swaying the public to the policies they see fit. To act like this private group, espousing ideas that are contrary to fact, often, and disseminating them to serve as the mouth-piece of and to advance government causes should cause all of them to rethink who they are, their purpose and whether or not they can fairly call themselves journalists.
No wonder there is so much media that is 'sef-started' - 'real media' is no more credible than a state run media. The only difference? This group is the mouthpiece willingly, the Soviet journalist had no choice.

Posted by: Lynne5 | June 27, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Lynne5,

Yes, and when Rush, Ollie, Sean, Rep. Joe Barton, and the House Republican Conference all started referring to the BP liability fund as a "slush fund" on the same morning no less, that was somehow NOT evidence of coordinated talking points?

As far as journalists go at more traditional publications:

1. They don't run their papers.
2. They don't assign stories to other reporters.
3. By and large they report the news based on daily events.

The big "conspiracy" with journolist was apparently that some people in the same profession talked to each other about social events, sports, engaged in some self-promotion, and talked about policy and current events using a pass-word protected private list-serv.

The difference between your view and that of a Soviet KGB official strikes me as pretty minimal.

The Soviets also would have seen private conversations between private individuals as a "conspiracy" against those in power -- even in cases when that power was being exercised by a bunch of minor public figures with small audience reach.

Of course we have this concept called "Freedom of Association" too.

Posted by: JPRS | June 27, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"How can you write about honest Christian values?" How can YOU, Mary? "

???
I assure you, I haven't cashed one check from the WaPo writing about my honest Christian, or conservative, values.

Nor am I the one to use the vulgar term -- that was of your fellow right wing trolls. If you did not follow the link to the definition of velevetbob's charming phrase, I can only assume it is already a part of your vocabulary, otherwise you would not have known that it is vulgar.

No. I'm just good with context clues like that... (though I would have spelled it cream, not creme).

With age comes wisdom, you know. Hth!

Posted by: Mary42 | June 27, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

you just cant stop these darned writers, and their "secret societies!"

i believe dorothy parker once commented to franklin pierce adams and harold ross, that when she reached down to straighten her silk stocking, she felt the head of a lurking intruder, with a glass perched against the table, 'neath the linen tablecloth:-)

The Algonquin Round Table
was a celebrated group of New York City writers, critics, actors and wits. Gathering initially as part of a practical joke, members of "The Vicious Circle," as they dubbed themselves, met for lunch each day at the Algonquin Hotel from 1919 until roughly 1929. At these luncheons they engaged in wisecracks, wordplay and witticisms that, through the newspaper columns of Round Table members, were disseminated across the country.
Daily association with each other, both at the luncheons and outside of them, inspired members of the Circle to collaborate creatively. The entire group worked together successfully only once, however, to create a revue called No Sirree! which helped launch a Hollywood career for Round Tabler Robert Benchley.
In its ten years of association, the Round Table and a number of its members acquired national reputations both for their contributions to literature and for their sparkling wit. Although some of their contemporaries, and later in life even some of its members, disparaged the group, its reputation has endured long after its dissolution.
Because a number of the members of the Round Table had regular newspaper columns, the activities and quips of various Round Table members were reported in the national press. This brought Round Tablers widely into the public consciousness as renowned wits.
Not all of their contemporaries were fans of the group. Their critics accused them of "logrolling," or exchanging favorable plugs of each others' works, and of rehearsing their witticisms in advance

(sound of brock pemberton and frank sullivan applauding!)


Posted by: jkaren | June 27, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that Conservatives can get away with the exact same thing, yet are never made to pay for what they do?

So much for the conservative lie about the "liberal media".

I'm sad to see Dave go and sadder yet that Journolist is gone. They got what they wanted. To silence anyone who doesn't agree with them. Seems they're pretty good at dishing it out but can't take the heat when it's pushed back at them.

They have the Washington Times and Fox, seems they want the WaPo too. They aren't happy until they can silence any dissenting voices. It's their way or no way.

Edward R. Murrow is rolling in his grave. So is Walter Cronkite. So much for a free press.

Posted by: kewlbuwl | June 28, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

"they arent happy until they can silence any dissenting voices."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECT90KktYnA

Posted by: jkaren | June 28, 2010 1:13 AM | Report abuse

jkaren:

That's a great scene from a classic film, and I loved your Algonquin round table reference too. A couple of nice reminders of sanity among all the wing-nuttery trying furously to turn a grain of sand into a paranoid pearl over JournoList (my favorite nuclear over-reach so far is the comparison to the KKK).

I have a very early am flight to catch for business, but just wanted to say thanks for helping me start the day with a smile....

Posted by: Patrick_M | June 28, 2010 5:04 AM | Report abuse

How, exactly, did we "silence" anyone? Ezra's still posting and Dave Tweets (while he will be writing soon enough). Perhaps they will be more careful with their true opinions, but Silence? Nogood.

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 28, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

http://biggovernment.com/dweigel/2010/06/28/hubris-and-humility-david-weigel-comes-clean-on-washington-post-the-d-c-bubble-the-journolist/

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 28, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post was completely unable to hire someone to blog about conservatives without a liberal background? No, it was possible, and they chose not to and no conservative/moderate/independent/libertarian is surprised.

As to the listserv, if you say it, it can be published. That's true regardless of your background, your chosen career, or who the other people are that you are speaking with. Utter words and they are fair game to anyone that hears them. Use colorful enough language, and someone at some point isn't going to be able to resist.

Btw, what adult uses the word 'rat****er' in conversation, let alone in public? As a moderate, I'm not insulted by his words because he comes off as a child. Is an adult threatened by a child's use of obscenity? My automatic response is to chuckle and then ignore. Worthless spewing.

It comes down to not being naive. Only the most blind fail to realize that most journalists are liberal and report as such. What they say is less revealing than what they do not report about. It's clever, it's convenient and it worked for them for a very long time. Unfortunately for them, the world likes homeostasis, and the pendulum had to swing back at some point. Witness the death of the old media and that is it's result. There are no Edward R Murrows anymore. Journalistic integrity and character has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Now we are only fed opinion, disguised as fact.

History will not treat this stuff kindly. Journalists given the opportunity to speak to the world, choose not to inform, but to talk about themselves. Journalistic narcissism is not something for the ages.

You cannot teach values to someone who has none. You cannot describe character to those devoid of it. No one demands integrity so it's absent.

The audience cannot control the content, but they can control their attention.

Posted by: Geepers1 | June 28, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Journolist seems to be a redundant list. The AP membership has been the designated liberal chat forum for forty years. I haven't seen any evidence of that changing. Their "conservative" reporters are just right of far left, none of them come anywhere near center -- but of course they can't see that because the sea of their peers is so thick they think they are the world.

Posted by: NowSpeaking | June 28, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Tucker Carlson is the a jackass. He is like a slithering snake in the grass. He actually wears a bow tie. You think he could pull off wearing an ascott?

Seriously, he's a slime ball. He belongs at FOX with the rest of hem.

Posted by: cfahringerjr | June 28, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I will now cancel my subscription to the Post. When a newspaper starts caring about what someone says about rude man rush, I have no doubt in my mind that those running this paper have become polluted with this perverted man's ways of thinking.
Suggesting that someone "set themselves on fire" is mild compared to what these men have said about our national leaders, and any people who disagree with their ideas.
Goodbye washington post(little letters for little ideas).

Posted by: markroc | June 28, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, you've just confirmed to the world that Dave is (and has been) liberal.

As you pointed out, Journolist required members to be center-left.

Thus, it should be no surprise that he was fired. He was representing views that he did not actually believe.

How does a newspaper maintain journalistic integrity when its writers pretend to be something they're not?

Posted by: lfonlfonlfon | June 29, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, markroc.

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 29, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Right.... Nothing to hide so you destroy the evidence.

Nice

Posted by: Xander3 | June 29, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Mr Klein you and those like you are true scumbags. That's right... destroy everything and scurry under the rocks now...too late though...we know who and what you all really are. You are NOT journalists in ANY sense of the word. You are butt kissers and boot lickers to the Dems and the Unions and whatever groups those two want money or votes from. A lot of parents sure wasted a lot of money on college educations for their kids to become what is literally stenographers for Liberal/Socialist/Oppressive/Union party propaganda. Your description of a vibrant community is really hysterical...is that what you tell yourself so you can sleep at night. I see what you liberal "journalists" write and the comments by liberal/socialist/democrat posters and really do any of you have an IQ above room temp. The stupid lies and distortions and utter hypocrisy that you spout...so gullible...so stupid...so ignorant. If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

Posted by: caseoftheblues1 | June 29, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/06/29/reward-100000-for-full-journolist-archive-source-fully-protected/

Posted by: JakeD2 | June 29, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

So, if the list is meaningless and innocuous, why not just give it over to Breitbart and collect the $100K?

Posted by: mrbrianoconnor | June 29, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

It is quite easy to tell all the Right to Far-Right Fringe lunatics on here, you can hear their mantra against what Ezra put together. Only the Right would put a bounty out on private emails, much like the National Enquirer looks for their stories. Since Breitbart wouldn't know journalism if it was going up his nose, like his drug habit...oops, was that a secret? He will try to buy his dirt, failing that, the Right will continue to push their memes of lies, falsehoods, slander and bigotry, and call that news, without having to actually have any evidence, credible sources, or even a shred of truth to it. Much like my comment about Breitbart above, for them a rumor is as good as a true tale.
When a morning news hostess, likens her job difficulty in decision making, to that of a country's leader, can you say narcissist? The fact the sheeple of the Right actually believe all of their Fringe Right entertainers like Rush, Hannity, Palin, Coulter, Beck, Fox News anchors. That they believe their words are the absolute truth (as they want you to believe it), and every other outlet not known to be a Conservative entity is spewing lies, because it is HOW THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY FROM YOU!
Only the Republicant Party, as an organization that espouses "freedom" from government, would "threaten and terrorize" their own kind to insure that they did not THINK for themselves, and stayed with the PARTY LINE. And you say this administration is "socialist, communist, marxist?" A sure sign of insecurity on the part of the Right, they can only call liberals names like that , because they have no substantial ideas to benefit ALL Americans, just the rich ones, and that is called Capitalism.
The Right and far right, keep uttering the same lies that "the majority" of Americans want what they have to offer, perpetuated by the profit motivated astroturf groups. Yet, they are unable to back up that lie with actual numbers. They certainly won't take a poll of equal numbers of Right and Left, they will always be right side dominated to support "their" opinion.
The right is not interested in sharing anything with anybody, they will use intimidation to keep the party members in line, they will fuel lies and falsehoods to keep "their" point of view in front, they will do everything possible to keep this country from moving forward, to keep the populace from being safe in their own homes, careers, financial security. Americans are a burden to the Republicant Party line, if you don't already have your money, your screwed, because they certainly won't help you get any.
With the recent 2nd Amendment decision by the SCOTUS, liberals own guns, liberals know how to shoot, and a great many of us are veterans. I will protect "My Country" when the fringe right try to "take it back"

Posted by: RightSideFallsOver | June 30, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Just delete the list. I really don't think anyone but the bloggers on that list care.

And you, Ezra, are validating the belief among many, including self, that bloggers cannot become journalists. They exhibit too, too much me, me, me. I mean, who's going to take you as a serious journalist when you go around making lists?

Posted by: Realitycheck6 | July 1, 2010 1:21 AM | Report abuse

"In any case, Journolist is done now. I'll delete the group soon after this post goes live."

It's already deleted. Please re-read my posts, above, Realitycheck6. I was not on Journolist, yet I "care" what / who was.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 1, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Seen dining together last night at Potenza were The Daily Caller's Editor-in-Chief, Tucker Carlson, and none other than our gracious host, Ezra Klein. No doubt they had much to discuss - the Journolist perhaps? Klein founded the list in 2007 and it disbanded late last week. As readers know, last week The Daily Caller (and FishbowlDC) published e-mail from the Journolist written by ex-WaPo blogger Dave Weigel.

Carlson said he had no comment on the private dinner meeting. Klein did not immediately return an e-mail request from FishbowlDC for comment.

Potenza is an Italian trattoria in downtown D.C. The physical description of the restaurant: "Ripped from the Tuscan countryside" (WaPo's Going Out Guide).

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 2, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company