Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Blogger loses job; Post loses standing among conservatives

By Andy Alexander

Post blogger Dave Weigel, who wrote about the conservative movement, resigned amid controversy today following disclosure of disparaging e-mails he’d written about some of the very people he was hired to cover.

Weigel bears responsibility for sarcastic and scornful comments he made in e-mails leaked from a supposedly private listserv called “Journolist,” started in 2007 by fellow Post blogger and friend Ezra Klein. Weigel’s e-mails showed strikingly poor judgment and revealed a bias that only underscored existing complaints from conservatives that he couldn’t impartially cover them.

But his departure also raises questions about whether The Post has adequately defined the role of bloggers like Weigel. Are they neutral reporters or ideologues?

And, given the disdainful comments in his e-mails, there is the separate question of whether he was miscast from the outset when he was hired earlier this year.

Raju Narisetti, the managing editor who oversees The Post’s Web site, said Weigel called him last night and offered to resign after Fishbowl D.C. initially revealed some damaging e-mails. Narisetti said Weigel alerted him that another Web site, the conservative Daily Caller, planned to disclose more e-mails today.

"This morning, after reading them, I accepted his resignation," Narisetti said. Contacted by e-mail, Weigel replied: “I no longer work for the Post.”

The e-mails made negative comments about Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, among others. One suggested it “would be a vastly better world” if Webmeister Matt Drudge “decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire.”

Weigel apologized online yesterday, but the damage was too severe to save his job.

“I don’t think you need to be a conservative to cover the conservative movement,” Narisetti told me late today. “But you do need to be impartial... in your views.”

He said that when Weigel was hired, he was vetted in the same way that other prospective Post journalists are screened. He interviewed with a variety of top editors, his writings were reviewed and his references were checked, Narisetti said.

“But we’re living in an era when maybe we need to add a level” of inquiry, he said. “It may be in our interests to ask potential reporters: ‘In private... have you expressed any opinions that would make it difficult for you to do your job.”

Weigel’s exit, and the events that prompted it, have further damaged The Post among conservatives who believe it is not properly attuned to their ideology or activities. Ironically, Weigel was hired to address precisely those concerns.

With bloggers such as Weigel, “I think The Post needs to decide what it wants to be online,” said Dan Gainor, a vice president at the conservative Media Research Center. “Does it want to be opinion? Or, does it want to be news? The problem here was that it was never clear.”

“If it’s going to be opinion, it ought to have somebody on the conservative side -- something Dave Weigel never was,” he said.

If The Post wants to assign a “good neutral reporter” to cover conservatives, “we’d be thrilled,” said Gainor. But quickly added, Weigel “wasn’t one. He looked at the conservative movement as if he was visiting a zoo. We’re more than that.”

Gainor raises valid points. Klein’s blog posts clearly pass through a liberal prism. For that reason, liberals have a comfort level with what he writes, and conservatives know where he’s coming from, even if they disagree. In contrast, Weigel’s blog seemed to confuse many conservatives who contacted me. Was he supposed to be a neutral reporter, some wondered? Others complained that he was a liberal trying to write about conservatives he disdained.

“We will look for someone to replace Dave,” Narisetti said.

Instead of just a replacement, The Post might consider two: one conservative with a Klein-like ideological bent, and another who can cover the conservative movement in the role of a truly neutral reporter.

In the meantime, Post managers would be wise to remind all staffers that personal opinions, expressed privately on listservs or through social media, can prove damaging if made public.

Klein addressed that danger this afternoon in a thoughtful blog post explaining why he is closing down Journolist, and why he is saddened that leaks from the listserv led to the resignation of Weigel, a “dear friend.” Klein wrote:

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.

Alas, it took only one listserv participant to bundle up Weigel’s archived comments and start leaking them outside the group. The result is that Weigel lost his job. But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives.

By Andy Alexander  | June 25, 2010; 5:24 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Difficulty in reaching The Post: a case study
Next: Post Salahi coverage draws heavy online traffic

Comments

This is the WRONG lesson to take away.

You are never going to get standing amongst conservatives unless you turn the paper into the moonie times or the NY Post. You know, lies, distortions and editorials that liken Obama to Hitler.

Besides, you have already run out Dan Froomkin and you have Krauthammer, Will, and Gerson spouting off their lies and distorions every week not to mention Howard Kurtz's selective attacks on liberals while writing puff pieces on right wing reactionaries like Michelle Malkin.

What you are calling for is the death of news. You tell the truth and shed light on what matters, you don't try to cater to an ideological audience. But if you think the WaPo should be like the NYPost then I pity you.

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

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

How can you lose something you never had?

Posted by: PowerBoater69 | June 25, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

As of right now, I will no longer view the Post online.
Consider this: The Washington Post found room for Bill Kristol a journalist/writer whose blatant exaggerations and obvious, plainly stated bias were considered the "new normal." And consider this: Michael Gerson, the Bush hire gets to further distort issues in favor of the elite in the Republican Party, there is no doubt your are an unreliable and wildly slanted news and discussion source.
Dave Weigel is a bright and reliable reporter. He will do much better without you.

Posted by: hrayovac2 | June 25, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

As of right now, I will no longer view the Post online.
Consider this: The Washington Post found room for Bill Kristol a journalist/writer whose blatant exaggerations and obvious, plainly stated bias were considered the "new normal." And consider this: Michael Gerson, the Bush hire gets to further distort issues in favor of the elite in the Republican Party, there is no doubt your are an unreliable and wildly slanted news and discussion source.
Dave Weigel is a bright and reliable reporter. He will do much better without you.

Posted by: hrayovac2 | June 25, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

Among silly sentences...

Posted by: ChicagoPride | June 25, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Whenever journalists start lamenting about how leaks are a bad thing, one can be confident that they're protecting their own.

Weigel was remarkably thin-skinned, flying intemperately off the handle when commenters used about him the same sort of language that he has frequently used to describe the people he covers. One hopes he'll find a new job where he can be a bit more insulated from criticism.

Posted by: tomtildrum | June 25, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Considering how many Conservatives feel free to cover the left from far more anti leftist cant that was ever apparent in the blatantly Right Wing Can't of Weigle, most of this is pure moonshine.

Apparently the vast majority of the Washington Post's commentators being particularly Right leaning on philosophy and cant isn't sufficient, there has to be a blog dedicated solely to ravings from the extreme right by an extreme rightist who would never even notice that damage the extreme right is doing to the Republican party, let alone to the whole nation.

The WAPO's opinion pages are chock full of Bush Administration ranting about how Obama isn't doing it their way, And centerist and liberal thought goes off and doesn't return on a regular basis, and private thoughts expressed privately, but subject to intercept and publication are all it takes to out an insufficiently true believer.

The newspaper that wasn't afraid of Richard Nixon is nopw scared silly by a vocal and non thinking 10% of the people.

And the other ninety can just go elsewhere for all the WAPO cares.

Of course, most of us ARE going elsewhere, driven off bu 37th in all his incarnations, JakeD, Zouk of the many many personas, and the army of trolls that makes nearly every comments section in the WAPO'se-verse unreadable.

And the WAPO wonders how to stay in business.

Hint, there is a real market for verified facts that the WAPO doesn't seem to care to serve.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 25, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Alex Pareen would make a much better ombudsman than Amdrew Alexander:

Conservative movement journalist and blogger David Weigel just resigned from the Washington Post, following an apparently coordinated campaign to humiliate and discredit him by forwarding and posting his private messages to a listserv to unfriendly media outlets. I'm reasonably sure Weigel quit -- as far as I know, he wasn't fired or forced out -- but it's still an embarrassment for journalism as a whole.

Weigel originally got in trouble with conservatives for calling opponents of gay marriage "bigots" on Twitter. He apologized, even though, to my mind, the position that the people actively, obsessively campaigning to restrict the rights of gay people will be looked at as bigots in 20 years is pretty defensible.

Then, this week, a hack named Betsy Rothstein -- a former DC gossip columnist whom I've known to write inexplicably nasty, personal items about other DC journalists (seemingly people she considered her competition) (including, full disclosure, a terrible piece she wrote about me the week I moved to DC many years ago), who's currently toiling in near-obscurity at Mediabistro's FishbowlDC -- scored a Drudge link by posting excerpts from messages Weigel sent to Journolist, a "private" email list of mostly liberal journalists in Washington, many of whom are friends in real life. It may or may not be smart for a bunch of journalists to have a "private" email list, but journalists are friends and they email each other.

more at salon

Posted by: NeilSagan | June 25, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Trying to placate conservatives by trying to include conservative points of view is an endless exercise in tail-chasing.

The right will continue to call you "leftists" whatever you do.

The answer, and the only way to rebut the criticism, is to hire smart, independent-minded journalists who can write.

Keep your quality, stick to your guns, and ride out the latest storm. This too will pass...

Posted by: factota | June 25, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives"

And, of course, that's horrible for the conservative publisher and the conservative editors! Boohoohoo.

Really, what hypocrisy. Mr. Alexander, come on, why is never anyone fired at WaPo for insulting a liberal? I don't care about that annoying libertarian Weigel, but in the interest of fairness it would be great if there was one standard for all. Or else WaPo should stop pretending being inpartial at all.

Posted by: Gray62 | June 25, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I read the Washington Post daily and I follow the Post on Twitter. Over the past few weeks I've been wondering about whether the Post has a responsibility to try to be neutral overall on Twitter -- some jabs at the left, some jabs at the right, but neutral overall -- and the very thing that made me start to wonder about that were all the retweets of Dave Weigel that were made from the Post's main twitter account. So when I read the NPR headline "Amid Criticism, Conservative Blogger Resigns From the Washington Post", I almost fell out of my chair. I never regarded him as a conservative blogger, but as someone who blogs ABOUT conservatives, and usually with some measure of disdain.

I'm an independent who voted for Obama, and I can tell you that something like this doesn't damage your reputation solely in the eyes of conservatives but also in the eyes of people like me who sometimes vote Democrat, sometimes vote Republican. We want the news straight; we're tired of MSNBC, tired of Fox News, and we're looking for some news organization that is self-aware enough to really be objective -- truly objective -- in their reporting and coverage.

Posted by: mark42 | June 25, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

"The right will continue to call you "leftists" whatever you do."
Indeed. Anything to the left of Foxnews and Rush Limbaugh is leftwing for them. WaPo can't win this fight. So, why care about the conservative crybabies at all?

Posted by: Gray62 | June 25, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Impartial in your PRIVATE VIEWS??????????

These were private emails, not his reporting. The WaPo really screwed the pooch with this one.

Given the editorial slant, there was really not much reason to read the Post these days. This just seals it.

How do I delete my online registration?

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

Stop. Think. Drop the word blogger from a bridge and watch it float away - it's meaningless.

What we have today is not a new type of journalist we call bloggers, but a fresh style of writing. Well, it's not that fresh, we've seen it before.

It's style of writing where the author is part of the story. It's a style of writing that doesn't sacrifice truth at the alter of objectivity.

Think gonzo. Think Menken. Hunter S. Thompson was writing like this decades ago and Menken decades before him.

That's what people want to read but in short form. They want the truth with a capital T. They want their journalists to ferret out BS and call it for what it is.

So keep doing what you're doing and good luck to you, but you need fresh blood at the WaPost and it needs to start at the top because you're failing.

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

"Neutral" reporting is what is killing your industry. Dave Weigel is a libertarian. Not exactly an ideologue as well.

Can you point to me the meeting that occurred that created the lousy reporting model that you have all embraced? Was there some sort of council of Nicaea for ink stained wretches that I missed?

The chief barometer should be accuracy not balance. Balance is boring and often kills accuracy in an attempt to be even handed when the facts don't split down the middle of the false left/right lib/con dem/rep narrative that you people have constructed.

The "Some people say the earth revolves around the sun, while others say it is flat" type reporting stinks to the high heaven. Too bad you folks will fight your way to death defending it.

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

This is an idiotic column. The right has been whining about Weigel for months - why? because he simply reported what they were up too.

It's not his fault that they look crazy - they are crazy. "Visiting a zoo"?? more like visiting an asylum.

Your prescription to hire a conservative to replace Weigel is ridiculous. Doesn't the right get enough tongue baths from the Post already??

Posted by: lcrider1 | June 25, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"'But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives.'

Conservatives? And the problem would be? Judging by their politics one would wonder if they read.

Posted by: Swingstater99 | June 25, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

We ordinary folks ain't philosophical wizards like all you sophiticated journalists, so we just have a tough time choking down this "noble lie" that you guys are "objective."

The way I see it, "objective human being" is an oxymoron, especially if the particular human being in question happens to give so much as a small rat's rumpus about the particular subject he's writing about. So please don't kid me or yourself about how, as a highly trained professional, you are able to set aside your biases and personal views and be objective.

Instead of "trying to be objective," I would much prefer that you would "try to be honest," as to which the very first and most important step would be to please quit fooling yourself about being objective.

The second step on the road to honest journalism would be for each of you to publish, for all to see, a very brief summary of your positions on the top ten political, social, and economic issues of the day, something about like this: "Abortion: agin it. War in Iraq: fer it. War in Afghan: fer it. Healthcare reform: agin it. Gay marriage: agin it. Tax cuts: fer it. Stimulus: agin it. Obama: agin him. Drilling Anwar: fer it." Okay, not too subtle, surely not subtle enough for you news ninjas, but you can always fill us in later on the details.

Let me repeat: We don't expect you to be objective. We know that's impossible. Although we don't expect you to be objective, we would very much appreciate it, and reward it, if you would try to be fair.

But even fairness is not an absolute requirement. The absolute requirement, for me at least, is that you must be honest--honest about the facts and honest about your own point of view. You can be a raving extremist lunatic, as long as you're honest about it.

Indeed, I would like to suggest that if you were honest and open about your point of view, you would find it much easier to be honest about the facts, because you wouldn't so much feel that little urge to nudge the facts toward a certain point of view, since you could just straight out write about why you think the facts support your particular point of view.

In any event, this lack of basic transparency, is--in an Aristotelian sense--the first cause of the decline and impending failure of the MSM. I don't understand why the MSM feels compelled to cling to the fatal fantasy of objectivity, since nobody believes it, nobody, nobody, nobody--not even you.

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

It is pure hubris to state "... the bigger loss is The Post's standing among conservatives". WAPO has no credibility or standing with conservatives. It is not and has never been an objective news source.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | June 25, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The problem that we have made a problem of is this. Nothing on the Internet should be taken as a truth. NOTHING. Especially on MySpace, Facebook, Yutube, etc. Even Wekipedia is NOT truthful. The Internet is rightfully so, ANONYMOUS. And that means nothing is to be believed, period. When companies and even the law, look into Emails and believe whatever is written is true is wrong. If no one can prove who REALLY wrote what, it's time to give it up and say it is free speech. To do other wise is to stifle free speech. No one can express themselves, even with lies. It is a right to lie. Not a crime so don't make it so. Simple question, do you always believe the Internet? If not, why do you make judgments of something you know is untruthful. Let the Internet run FREE and not shackled.

Posted by: daniwitz13 | June 25, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

best comment I've read all day LOL

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

How can you lose something you never had?
by Swingstater99

Posted by: jamw1 | June 25, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"...negative comments about Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh..."

Well, guess we don't need to apply for that opening.

Posted by: RainyDayIntern | June 25, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Rather than worry about its standing among conservatives -- or liberals, for that matter -- the Washington Post should worry more about its integrity. Charmides said it best in this comment: "...you must be honest--honest about the facts and honest about your own point of view."

And you must strive to make what Charmides calls the "noble lie" of objectivity more noble and less of a lie.

Posted by: mamapanda | June 25, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

A very thoughtful response, IMHO.

Posted by: laser83 | June 25, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

It's almost uncanny how the answer to every editorial decision at the Post is "we should hire more conservatives."

Posted by: HunterDK | June 25, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

This is a parody, right? It's like asking Ward Cleaver to comment on appropriate parenting approaches for the 21st century.

Uh oh, I expressed an opinion! The journalistic ethics robot overlords will be hunting me down next...

So, besides 3 Wash Post people, Alexander quotes one other source, a conservative who unsurprisingly (and quite understandably) used the opportunity to slam The Post. What about getting comments from other professional bloggers who tread the same territory? Or their editors? Or perhaps, ghast, a truth teller like Jay Rosen?

The ombud position is supposed to represent the reader, not the groupthink-driven institutional values of journalism. Show me where Weigel's reporting/writing for The Post hurt the readers?

I suppose this is a case of turnaround = fair play. Politicians are no longer accorded any privacy. Now the rule is being turned around on reporters. Who loses in both cases? The reader/voter.

Posted by: Russ_Walker | June 25, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Really? I find your chastisement of Weigel reprehensible. Is he really at fault for having his private grievances systematically exposed to discredit him. Alternatively, is the paper not at fault for misrepresenting him as a conservative. You shouldn't have a problem with private political beliefs, you're quoted as saying "I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did."

Those of us who are long term readers of Weigel followed him to the Post with the full understanding that (for once) we were learning about the conservative movement from someone who wasn't explicitly promoting its agenda. I wouldn't trust a so called "neutral" journalist. Studies show a clear association between education and the coherency of a political ideology. Just because one is ideological, does not mean that they can't report objectively. What Weigel managed to do was engage those who have the most to learn about the conservative movement, those outside of it.

By kicking out Weigel you are guilty of encouraging the epistemic closure of the left. If I can't get objective reporting on the conservative movement, then I'm not going to be engaged in those ideas (let alone your paper). I'm a progressive whose engaged conservative ideas academically and personally. Reading about Hayek, Kirk and Buckly doesn't mean that I think well of them. It also doesn't mean that I didn't benefit from exposure to a new perspective.

What Gainer really wants is for you to put a conservative lackey there who can report grandiosely about the success of the Tea Party, and how America is fundamentally a conservative country. Why do I think that? Because if you were hiring someone to cover the liberal movement, I'd want them to be "yes man". In reality though, a conservative reporting on the left objectively might be better at addressing debates within liberal thought.

I hope that you can decide what in fact the identity of the paper will be moving forward. Today, was a major blow to my hopes for the paper.

Posted by: karl5 | June 25, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein's JournoList presented the Washington Post an ethical problem that it failed to address until it was too late.

JournoList was composed both of journalists and of liberal policy wonks whose business was to influence government. Can you see how a secret forum like this coaxed journalists, even the ones who think they are sophisticated, into identifying with the causes of the wonks? This process is call "co-opting." It is a highly corrosive influence that leads reporters into having a personal investment in the outcome of public policy issues -- something a professional journalist should not have. It degrades the quality of the reporting into something that is dull and tendentious.

Ezra Klein is the real villain in this debacle. The Washington Post should have recognized the Journolist listserver for the threat to professional journalism that it was. If Klein has any respect for the Post, he should resign too.

Posted by: twospiritbear | June 25, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

But the fact is that today's 'conservatives' do not want objective coverage of them

Posted by: dmls2000 | June 25, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow, talk about a totally missed boat. You think you lost ground with conservatives? You fool, they're the ones that set Weigel up. They didn't like the way he covered them and so they leaked some of his private emails and the Post obliged them by firing the guy who was covering them honestly. You people got played. And the rest of us now have to recognize that in addition to their other faults, the people running the Post are fools.

Posted by: marde1 | June 25, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

Among silly sentences...

Posted by: ChicagoPride | June 25, 2010 6:28 PM
================
Pretty much. WaPo, NYT, LAT, Time, Newsweek, etc etc etc have already lost their journalistic integrity. The 2008 elections were the last straw.

I hope going over the edge to get Obama elected with a democratic super majority and continuing to justify, slant or simply not report facts is important enough to irreparably trash your reputation as a credible source of news and information.

Posted by: Cryos | June 25, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Liebercreep had it exactly RIGHT. Conservatives have whipped themselves into a froth and the only coverage they accept is fawning obeisance. Ask the Washington Times what kind of a business model that is.

I can accept the inevitability of Weigel's resignation in that it made it difficult for him continue to cover the Right Now blog. In truth, he reacted to the venom that the Drudgeherd spews every time he links to an article.

It is slander to state that everything he writes is through a liberal prism. If you are going to be a decent ombudsman, then you need to research your own words. There is ample evidence that Weigel is not a down the line liberal.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 25, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Whatever else he is, Weigel is an establishment hack. Now, the WaPo is going to replace him with two (2) establishment hacks.

Instead, how about replacing him with someone who won't be an establishment hack?

Using an issue that the DC establishment is aligned on as an example, there's not a single reporter at the WaPo willing to do things like follow the money on immig. matters. There's not a single reporter at the WaPo willing to do things like call politicians on obvious and outrageous lies about immig. Instead, their famously impartial reporters simply retail the Beltway line over and over.

P.S. Here's more on the WaPo's newest ex-employee:

http://24ahead.com/s/dave-weigel

The chances of the WaPo thinking he wasn't ideological are incredibly slim. The issue is just that his ideology - and the things he lied about - broke the WaPo's way. Perhaps the only thing they're really concerned about is the possibility that Drudge would link to a competitor instead.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | June 25, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexandar, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic reports that the Post's Ezra Klein once advised parties unknown, via his Twitter account, to "f--- tim russert. f--- him with a spiky acid-tipped d---"

Care to comment on that? Here's the link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/06/an-unhappy-day-at-the-washington-post/58745/

Posted by: jethro1 | June 25, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

"But his departure also raises questions about whether The Post has adequately defined the role of bloggers like Weigel. Are they neutral reporters or ideologues?"

Your bloggers are ideologues, pundits, and reporters, all the same.

Also, so kind of you to stick behind your reporters when they get harassed because of their private, unpublished conversations. What a stupid non-issue, and that you would encourage him to quit is abhorrent.

He's a conservative covering conservatives, to expect him to lock-step with them is to encourage a narrative over reality.

Posted by: chaohill | June 25, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Not a good idea, WaPo. You got rid of Froomkin, you give more than adequate space to the conservative ideology by allowing Will, Krauthammer and Gerson to excoriate anyone who has the consummate gall to be a liberal rather than a conservative, and you make the mistake of thinking the Daily Caller is an actual news source. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a truly neutral reporter on either side of the divide anymore.

Buchanan, Limbaugh, Ron Paul, Gingrich and Drudge open themselves to such impolite raillery with their equally nasty rhetoric about any non-con.

Keep the catering to the far right up and you'll be losing this online reader.

Posted by: ktartiste | June 25, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I'll retract the previous post. I read it too quickly and conflated a comment about Ezra with one about Weigel.

I sharply disagree with the proposition that Weigel's emails "revealed a bias that only underscored existing complaints from conservatives that he couldn’t impartially cover them." Weigel doesn't suffer fools or abusers lightly. Take a look sometime about the sewer that the comments section becomes whenever Drudge links

Clearly, Ezra allowed a snake into the discussion group. May he/she rot in the 9th ring of Washington social circles.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 25, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

"Blogger loses job; Post loses standing among media-reading public"

There, fixed that for ya.

You lose with anyone who reads because you're deciding that Weigel's personal views colored his commentary. Any fool could see that wasn't so. You folks have dropped below fool level.


“I don’t think you need to be a conservative to cover the conservative movement,” Narisetti told me late today. “But you do need to be impartial... in your views.”

Wrong. You need to be impartial in your coverage and writing. To ask journalists to abjure having views is to ask them to stop being human. It's irrational and ridiculous.

In summary? Journalism: you're doing it wrong.

Posted by: txvoodoo | June 25, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

This is really quite appalling, and should signal the end of the Washington Post as a respected news source.

You never had standing among conservatives, no matter how hard you fellated them.

Now you have none with anyone else, either.

Posted by: allanbrauer | June 25, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Short version: You capitulated.

You've come a long way since you stood up to threats from the White House itself.

Posted by: Hieronymous | June 25, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

I would happily take the job of providing the Washington Post with unbiased coverage of the conservative traitors' activities. I slept with communist girlies (if they were cute) back in late 60s and early 70s in California, so I can obviously write about Satan's minions (Republicans) if the pay is right.

I promise that I will not lose the Post any of its respect from conservatives or their anti-American allies in groups such as al Queda and Hamas, and I will refrain from making more than a few jokes per week about the impotence problems that plague Glenn Back, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Matt Drudge, and I will not discuss Anne Coulter's alcoholism -- at least in public.

Posted by: roblimo | June 25, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Alexander was hired to be a hood ornament.

Why be surprised if he isn't smarter than one?

Posted by: misterjrthed | June 25, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

"a supposedly private listserv"

Hilarious.

I suppose physical mailboxes too now are "supposedly" private.

Posted by: Hieronymous | June 25, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey Andy (and the rest of the WaPo geniuses)

Did you guys really think that David "Weasel" was really fooling anyone on the conservative side?

We all knew what a conniving little piece of garbage he was.

Now Andy - I ask again: Did David Weasel really have all you guys fooled?

I mean, what kind of morons are you guys?

Posted by: johnrtorres | June 25, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Your insistence on maintaining an endless View From Nowhere is what has caused your decline as a newspaper, not the appearance of writers with a point of view. Have you guys ever bothered to stop and consider why in a world of rapidly proliferating information sources people are turning away from you and towards people and organizations who both report fairly and hold a point of view? Has it even crossed your mind that your readers - you know, the ones without whom your organization would have no point? - saw through this false notion of objectivity years, if not decades, ago? If not this, what precisely do you use to explain the epic collapse in trust that suffered by newspapers over the last generation?

Conservatives have been screaming for decades that your objectivity is a false one. In an effort to placate them, you began twisting yourself into endless knots of "one the one hand, on the other hand" journalism. This then led to liberals complaining of your endless need to offer false equivalencies, where every issue has two and only two sides worthy of equal consideration. Rather than step back and ask why an overwhelming majority of your readers are unhappy with the product you are delivering, you instead fell back on the lazy idea that if you are angering "both sides" you must be doing something right. Except - hello?!? - those readers who are angry at you are the only reason you exist! In a world where they had no alternative to the service you provided, one where they were held captive by the constraints of the larger communication environment, your organization could survive their anger. But today it cannot. Now they have options, and when given the choice, they are not choosing you. Don't you guys get it? Without their readership, you are nothing more than a fancy test prep service with an interesting heritage. Is that the future you want?

I had thought your hiring of people like Weigel and Klein signaled that you were beginning to understand, but clearly not. At this point I have only a small handful of reasons to read the Post, and all of them are bloggers. I may not live in DC, but I was born and grew up there, and I always considered the Post *my* paper. No longer. And never again. Its not too late to save yourselves, except that you seem to have no interest in trying. Its as if you'd rather die clinging to a failed ideology than consider how and why things have gone so wrong. Sad. And more than that, a little bit pathetic.

Posted by: awhalen71 | June 25, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Unless you report the Republicans are never wrong and Democrats are never right, the Post is going to lose standing among conservatives. In case you have noticed, the right has gone completely insane lately.

Want to raise your standing among conservatives? Take a stroll through WingNutDaily and see how it's done.

Posted by: wiscoman | June 25, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

I've been a Red State Republican for 32 years and was a journalist for 25, but I think I speak for a lot of people across the country and the political spectrum when I say: Washington Post, just die already.

Seriously. Dave Wiegel gets fired and Fred Hiatt still has a job?

I don't know what "negative comments" Wiegel made about Rush Limbaugh, but they almost certainly were factually accurate. The man has zero redeeming human characteristics. And Wiegel's assessment of Matt Drudge is more acute than those of several psychologists I've met.

You write, "Are they neutral reporters or ideologues?" as if it's really a binary question. It's not, and it hasn't been for at least a decade.

"But you do need to be impartial... in your views" to cover conservatives, you quote Narisetti as saying. The Post has a decades-long record of not applying the same standard to coverage of liberals. Apparently, in Postworld, "fairness" means you can punch a hippie anytime you like as long as you don't say anything bad about a kiddy-diddling Oxycontin-gobbler with a popular radio show.

And, honestly, tell me this: What "standing" do you think the Post has among conservatives? Have you not been PAYING ATTENTION since, like, the 1968 presidential campaign?

There may have been good reasons to accept Wiegel's resignation, but if so, not a single one of them surfaced in this column. Now go back and do it over. And this time, do it right.

Posted by: lexalexander1 | June 25, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Non-believers must be purged! Only the truest of the true believers can report on the movement of the true-believers.

Posted by: HeavyD1 | June 25, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

The WaPo fires a blogger whose private e-mails were outed by someone whose sole goal was to torpedo his job. And yet the WaPo pays, and features, op-ed writers who openly defend torture and propose proactive nuclear strikes.

The WaPo fires a Froomkin and hires a Thiessen.

The WaPo prates of journalistic ethics while its owner sets up salons where the powerful can directly lobby its journalists.

Save your breath to cool your tripe stew.

Posted by: laboo | June 25, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Mission accomplished by the insane right (I know, it's redundant) casting objectivity as bias and frothing lunacy as objectivity.

What a depressing spectacle.

Posted by: jdizzle | June 25, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

You must be joking. You think the post had "standing" among conservatives? Have you ever read a really conservative blog or the comments posted below their stories? The Post, despite its uncritical embracing of numerous right-wing ideologues as editorial writers, is never seen as anything other than the "lamestream media" by conservatives. Do you WANT to be Fox News?

What the Post should have done here would have been to quickly hire a smart, right-leaning blogger to cover left-wing politics. That would have been interesting, stimulating, and fair. But no. The Post just caved like some congressman who's been rude about Rush Limbaugh. You disgust me.

Posted by: elizahonig | June 25, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Are you reading the commentary above? Or will we get just a dismissive comment about the nasty tone of the commenters that offended your virgin ears and thus you ignored it all.

Conservatives don't want the media to tell objective truth. That makes them look bad. They want propaganda outlets that reinforce their beliefs. Unless you are prepared to become that, you will always be written off as part of the "liberal media" to be ignored and derided for your "bias."

The fantasy that you engage in is demonstrated by the notion that an objective reporter could cover figures like Newt, Limbaugh and Palin and not hold negative views of these men. Unless you have a robot who can write, that person will quickly come to the obvious conclusions about these despicable excuses for human beings. Limbaugh does and says horrid things on a regular basis, in public, on the air. You don't need to "dig" for dirt on him.

Weigel isn't (or wasn't initially) a liberal. He wrote for *Reason*. He was a libertarian, driven to be a liberal by seeing the ugly truth of movement conservativism up close. It's not an uncommon story, it's pretty much my own.

Posted by: Scientician | June 25, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

THE WASHINGTON POST had standing among conservatives ahhahahahhaahhhahahha. Its just another Obama rag.

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

Andrew Alexander strikes me as a pompous ass.

Posted by: Alwaysosinski | June 25, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Good riddance, Dave Weigel. Don't worry though - Obama will give you 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, free health care, and he will pay your mortgage for you on the backs of people who actually do something productive for a living. Now practice your new lines: "Would you like fries with that?"

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

The Post is anything but impartial.

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

"...Weigel’s blog seemed to confuse many conservatives who contacted me. Was he supposed to be a neutral reporter, some wondered? Others complained that he was a liberal trying to write about conservatives he disdained."

I haven't followed Weigel's work but of all the Good things I've read about him today, the above is the very Best. Your confused conservative contacts couldn't comprehend coverage by someone who is Not Red, Not Blue, AND Not Neutral Grey. Excellent! Let the Bonfire of the Bipolarities begin! Somebody snap up this newly-unemployed journalist quick. Clearly the guy's good.

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

For the WaPo to try to gain credibility with the Beck/Limbaugh/Coulter/Malkin axis is equivalent to Lenox, Mikasa or Royal Doulton trying to gain respectability by announcing that they provided the cup for "Two Girls, One Cup".

Posted by: laboo | June 25, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Narisetti said that when Weigel was hired, he was vetted in the same way that other prospective Post journalists are screened. He interviewed with a variety of top editors, his writings were reviewed and his references were checked.

I wonder if this is the same vetting the New York Times did when it hired Jayson Blair.

Maybe the Post is a little disingenuous.

Posted by: Spares99 | June 25, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

I can't tell you how entertaining it is to read some of the comments left by leftists here.

A quick 10 min stretch gives me the laughs I would need 3 weeks of The Daily Show to get.

You people are a national treasure. Keep it up please.

Posted by: NotEasy | June 25, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

[CAPS emphasis added - ]

"If The Post wants to assign a 'good neutral reporter' to cover conservatives, 'we’d be thrilled,' said Gainor. But quickly added, Weigel 'wasn’t one. He looked at the conservative movement as if he was visiting A ZOO. WE'RE MORE THAN THAT.' ”

LOL! Y'all sure are, Gainor. You're a whole damn Wild-animal Nature preserve. ;}

Posted by: madereinerue | June 25, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander seems to lament that fact that Weigal was caught by the divulging of his emails more than that he held such views in the first place. Weigal's wildly inappropriate hiring can only reflect directly back on a hopelessly liberal editorial staff. It wasn't his private emails, it was the completely unacceptable liberal slant to his public writing, to the degree of obscuring even bald moral issues such as Rep. Etheridge's assault on a college student, that was the real scandal. And to put this guy on a conservative beat? That can speak of only one possible thing: WaPo was looking for an assassin when it hired Weigal.

WaPo damaged its standing among conservatives? Yeah, I guess so - if that is even possible at this point. Shame - yet again - on WaPo.

Posted by: pbpublic | June 25, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

I have this constant question in my mind about the WaPo administration who pretend that somehow a lot of people think that they are unbiased: my question is.."are you just dumb or are you intrinsically dishonest?". This is so weird, this acting like some wet-behind-the-ears columnist *may* have disturbed conservative readers. Wake up, WaPo... you're liberals. Admit it. Live with it. Know that everyone has known it for years.

Posted by: Poster2 | June 25, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

The real news here, is that the Post has an ombudsman. Who knew? Evidently the mission statement for the office of Post Ombudsman is see no evil, and hear no evil - when it comes to liberal bias. The idea that anyone didn't realize that Weigel was a hatchet man against conservatives, is laugh out loud funny. There's no way that there weren't a ton of people who knew exactly where he stood, and exactly what his agenda was. Heck, that's why he was hired for the job from the get-go. The other revelation here, is that someone at the Post is under the impression that they have a standing with conservatives. It's a heavily biased rag with a heavily slanted liberal agenda, and any pretense to the contrary is just funny.

Posted by: gdog63 | June 25, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Conservative and this hasn't changed my mind about the Post. I'm still going to read the comics, get the ads, do the Sunday Crossword and read Parade Magazine.

Posted by: marahnatha | June 25, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Post loses standing among conservatives?

It was at zero before. Now we are getting into negative numbers. The WaPo is a running joke, and this just adds to the hoots of derision we will heap upon your fish wrap.

Posted by: deeprock7 | June 25, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Objectivity is a big lie. Everybody has a bias. Reporters shouldn't pretend to be objective. The veneer of neutrality only encourages readers to let their guard down.

Posted by: rightklik | June 25, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Andrew:
It is not the Conservatives that are upset with the WaPo. Maybe a review of the comments here will back that up. Most conservatives and I think most liberals want reporting straight up. Yes, there will be some ideology of the writer infused in the reporting, after all they are human. As long as the reporting is fair and logical, most reasonable people will be....well, reasonable. Dave was a little immature in his responses to criticism and I think he knew to get ahead in this business, he had to ingratiate himself with the left's intelligentsia of Jlist. That group is finally what cost him his job. I am sure he will land a comparable job soon somewhere on the left. I wish him well.

Posted by: d1carter | June 25, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Here's your conundrum and it's one that liberals and your average journalist (but I repeat myself) miss. Weigel should be covering conservatives and asking them the tough, adversarial question. But they should also have a conservative doing the same to the left.

Sure, The Post has conservative opinion columnists. But they need conservative REPORTERS. They need someone to challenge the liberal orthodoxy. It's not that the conservatives demand a conservative cover them, they just don't see the fairness in the left fawning over there own while they get savaged.

Posted by: EJHill | June 25, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Imagine liberal bia against conservatives in the press. The Obama media network msnbc, cbs, abc, cnn, etc., have always spun stories in favor of left wing radicals. That is why conservatives are held to a higher standard.

Posted by: quillerm | June 25, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Ok, I don't get around much. I'm confused. This guy is being called a journalist AND a blogger. Which one is he?
Let's see... A journalist is a respected writer/commentator employed by a newspaper or a radio/television station/network. The last one that fit the description was, I think, Walter Cronkite.
A blogger is a person who posts stuff on the internet. Why would a newspaper PAY a blogger?

Posted by: AlPhresceaux | June 25, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

WaPo, take note and learn: Every DC institution needs to strive for a proper and equal balance. Consider the Skins, for example. For every Portis, there has to be a Haynesworth.

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

The Democrats have this "enemies list" --- denominated in epithets aimed at the people whose wallets they wish to hijack and take up residence inside. You can be a ‘Racist!’ and you can be a ‘Homophobe!’ and you can be a ‘Teabagger!’ --- a homosexual man taking his partner's testicles into his mouth. You can be ‘Selfish!’ and you can be a ‘Hick!’ and you can be a ‘Rube!’ You can be a ‘Right-wing-nut!’ and you can be "Unenlightened!" and you can be a ‘Fascist!’ --- although no one more closely approaches the precise description of ‘Fascist!’ than the usual Demo propagandist --- either official, or self-appointed.

So all you have to do to occupy multiple epithets on the Demos' enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself, off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech. Insist on all these good things - and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum --- by The Friends of All Mankind --- by a gang of lying, thieving, sticky-fingered, bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thugs --- by the Democrat party, in other words. No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction.

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | June 25, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

OhBummer is a boob and a fool for attacking the American Tea Partiers. He is annoyed that they’re not grateful to him for hijacking the American healthcare system --- the greatest act of vandalism perpetrated upon the American people since a gang of jihadi frootloops and loonytoons hijacked some planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, and made a failed attempt to crash into the White House and instead drilled a hole in a Pennsylvania farm thanks to some very courageous American passengers.

And --- now widely seen for what he is --- the president presents a problem for the Democrat-captured media. They pump out his propaganda for him --- and, like the opinion monitors in Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” --- they are dodging brickbats and rotten vegetables.

He’s pompous, pampered, and pretentious --- a pseudo-intellectual fop. He’s a glorified, smooth-lyin’ dandy, and slicker than Sick Willie Clinton. He’s a dictator-on-the-make, a bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thug, and a low-down skunk.

He’s a fraud and a swindler. He lies when he inhales and he lies when he exhales; his oxygen is the falsification of reality. He lies, placidly and laconically, as if deception were a soporific drug.

He’s a friend of the poor and the downtrodden --- indeed, you can hear the milk of human kindness sloshing around inside of him when he walks.

He declares himself the post-racial leader --- “Let me be clear!” he intones --- and he hides behind his race, daring his critics to put their reputation for fairness at risk.

He pauses to ponder the portent of his propaganda --- and it is fakery; he smiles and his mendacity comes shining through. Shake hands with Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer --- “The Mistake of ‘08” --- the illegal alien squatter in the White House --- and America’s first and last Arab president. Now count your fingers.

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | June 25, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

SAM ADAMS IS MORE THAN JUST A GREAT YANKEE BEER! TAX HATER SAMUEL ADAMS, ON A ROLL AND ARMED TO THE TEETH, AUGUST, 1776……

"You darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism, tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, and supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

“Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty. Dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause, as incontestable, the only question is, What is best for us to pursue in our present circumstances?”

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | June 25, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

He will probably be working at the Center For American Progress by Wednesday.

Posted by: paswingvoter2010 | June 25, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow, just reading the comments here lead to one conclusion or a few conclusions that wrap up into one.

Just to say that I was a life-long liberal of about 30 years before I began a journey of self-examination and reflection. Trying to put into practice the philosophy of "seek to understand the other side before vilifying them" This seems to be the liberal philosophy when it comes to how Conservatives should conduct foreign policy or how liberals attack Christianity vis-a-vis other religions.

However it is now my experience that liberals have no interest in understanding conservatives at all. They are content to listen to a guy like Weigel post strawman arguments and toss out stereotypes and make slanderous judgements upon conservatives rather than actually listen to the substance of the arguments.

When one makes a statement like I just did, you get a reflexsive and usually quite defensive response about how there is no need to listen for there is no substance. Of course that is based upon a certitude that used to only belong to Christians who are mocked by liberals for their certitude.

Weigel is a classic liberal media member in the sense that he is liberal in his views, hence he gets along fine with others in his field and manages to get jobs writing about whatever he wants, which in this case is conservatives. Those who read his column for insight or information on conservatives got neither but we all knew the guy was a phony.

Most conservatives I know are like me, converted, and keep a low profile amongst our liberal, conservatively intolerant brethren in the media. When we do occasionally wear our conservativism on our sleeve we get the cold shoulder or shut out of social situations. Don't get me wrong, I have a vibrant social life and many friends and great loving family. I say this more point out the duplicity and hypocrisy of the supposedly more loving and more tolerant left.

The main conclusion of my reading are that liberals are in a world of their own making. DailyKos, MoveOn, MSNBC have all created this world where if you aren't far-left you are conservative. Any publication that wastes time exposing or even commenting on this of interest to conservatives is a waste of time, because they all "Know" that conservatives are evil, lying, people without a shred of decency.

Weigel built a career as a stealth conservative. A far-left liberal whose every job involved pretending to be a conservative and cover conservatives. Yet listening to his interviews on NRP he was literally laughing out loud describing the heartfelt beliefs and aspirations of the conservative movement.

I am sure he was loved by the left as a voice of reason.

Posted by: ExLib | June 25, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

"Imagine liberal bias against conservatives in the press."

You have to imagine it to think it is true.

Posted by: Tiparillo | June 25, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

What this country needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress! And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!

But the Democrats believe in "statism" --- not "liberalism."

They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology ---- we say "the government" here in the USA ---- rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism ---- this last is sort of a mix of fascism and socialism.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government ---- it is a constabulary ---- and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction. I speak of the inalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.

The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ----The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.

Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words. The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists and fascists long ago ---- and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.

It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.

Well, how about "progressivism?" Whuzzat?! “Cancer” is “progressive,” too. Isn't “progressivism” just another statist cancer? It chews you up, piece by piece, in the name of Da Peepul? Eat Da Rich? Moral cannibalism, anyone?

Friends of freedom! Friends of peace-through-strength! And friends of prosperity! Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then ---- and kick over the bloody coffee tables --- and overthrow and trounce the Democrats in 2010 and 2012!

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | June 25, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Has the WP ever hired a conservative to cover developments in the liberal tribal lands? What's fair is fair, no?

I'm in agreement with NotEasy at 9:36. The righteous indignation expressed by outraged liberals on this thread is very entertaining.

"First Froomkin and now this!!!"

Posted by: theduke89 | June 25, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein's JournoList presented the Washington Post an ethical problem that it failed to address until it was too late.

JournoList was composed both of journalists and of liberal policy wonks whose business was to influence government. Can you see how a secret forum like this coaxed journalists, even the ones who think they are sophisticated, into identifying with the causes of the wonks? This process is call "co-opting." It is a highly corrosive influence that leads reporters into having a personal investment in the outcome of public policy issues -- something a professional journalist should not have. It degrades the quality of the reporting into something that is dull and tendentious.

Ezra Klein is the real villain in this debacle. The Washington Post should have recognized the Journolist listserver for the threat to professional journalism that it was. If Klein has any respect for the Post, he should resign too.

Posted by: twospiritbear | June 25, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

------

Kudos to one person who "gets it".

Being in the industry myself, don't get fooled by this "listserv" the media is one big leftwing peer pressure group.

It all starts in college where Professors ply you with leftwing talking points and begin tearing down anything conservative.

If you stand up and express that you are conservative you are laughed at, ostricized, and have your work rated more critically.

It's not intentional it's inbred.

Posted by: ExLib | June 25, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

He will probably be working at the Center For American Progress by Wednesday.

---

Or HuffPo or MSNBC

Posted by: ExLib | June 25, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

His leftist fulminations were childish, but he did not deserve to lose his job. How do we maintain public discourse unless we foster a forum where views can be shared?

Perhaps Daily Planet could simply revise the policy of disguising bias as news and label it accurately. In that scenario the poor fellow would still be employed and paying his (soon to be raised) taxes, and we could choose more easily whether to give it a serious read or convey it immediately to the birdcage.

Posted by: mjrie | June 25, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Ombudsman: Just read the readers' posts when the subject of Israel, Obama, Bush, etc.. is a WP blogger issue.

What biases and attitudes, bigotry and incitement, the WP bloggers display is magnified thousands of times by the posts commenting on various articles. The posts reflect a sickening impression of people who are given a chance to comment and use that chance to blast each others in language that would make a politician blush.

I think that a responsible newspaper would revert back to "letters to the editor" and not to each others. I am going to see on line those papers and no others.

Posted by: worldweary2 | June 25, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that the left always accuses everyone who holds a differing opinion than themselves as lying? You see this with Weigel, you see it with most of the posted comments here and I've experience it upon sharing my opinions on
non-particularly eventful events with lefties only to be told I am lying. It's weird. I personally think it has to be some sort of psychosis that elicits that response. It's probably linked to the reason the Nazis gave us the death camps and the Communists gave us the gulags--so they would have a place to put all those supposed liars and take care of them once and for all.

Posted by: npmike | June 25, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Scientician
Your petulant foot-stomping is a perfect example of what people hate about progressives.
Your "commentary" ( I'd call it a lamentation) is way too typical of the effete, self-important anti-intellectualism that defines main stream progressive thought, and demonstrates it's ineffectiveness in even making a cognizant argument.

And the funny part is you don't even recognize the irony in claiming that " Conservatives don't want the media to tell objective truth.", while you admittedly believe that no "objective reporter could cover figures like Newt, Limbaugh and Palin and not hold negative views".
You keep using the term "objective".
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The problem that conservatives have with twits like Weigel isn't his progressivism/insanity.
If that were the case, conservatives would have stopped consuming main stream news decades ago.
The problem is when outlets like WAPO place people in places where they can use their position to subvert the perceived aims of the impostor's target group.
If there were any out there stupid enough to believe that this guy was actually a "conservative" media figure, then he could possibly sway their opinion, where if they knew he was a rabid moonbat secret operative, they would treat his propaganda accordingly.
I hope that wasn't too complicated for you.

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

Spares99:

"I wonder if this is the same vetting the New York Times did when it hired Jayson Blair"

Yes because having opinions about the people you cover is very near to literally inventing sources and plagiarizing entire stories.

See WaPo? You can't reason with them. They're not playing the same game. An objective media that accurately reports on events is not something they desire. Destroying anything that approximates same is though. So now Dave Weigel joins their lists of "liberal media" grievances starting with Cronkite turning against Vietnam, right on through the oh-so-unfair take down of Nixon, to Rather to Blair. Every sin is remembered forever, every good deed ignored.

Posted by: Scientician | June 25, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Leftists always accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a criminal, a liar or insane. That is how the Soviet Union functioned.

Posted by: pkhenry | June 25, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

The better solution would have been to rebrand Weigel's blog as "A reasonable liberal rants about ratfu**ers". I have no problem about idiot liberals ranting about conservatives, but to suggest that the blog is "conservative" will blow up in your face.

Now, there is a real question of whether it is possible to host a site that actually has both strongly liberal and strongly conservative opinions. Hasn't been done, but could be really successful.

Posted by: 75jz | June 25, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

I recently suggested to my journalist friend that a smart media outlet would stop pretending that individuals are unbiased, and would instead score all their journalists for there place on the political spectrum. Readers or viewer could then find out the details of their political convictions on a separate website.

Another commentor suggested an end to pretending anyone can set aside their political biases and report neutrally. I agree. I know that every article I read is slanted in the direction of the journalist reporting the story. Stop playing the game. You can't be fair and you can't be balanced but you can acknowledge who you are.

Posted by: SimJim | June 25, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Mr Meaner:

Let's imagine another planet with an alien race. Some of them hold beliefs about how that society should govern and run itself that turn out to lead to most of these aliens being miserable most of the time. Except for the leaders of this movement who seem to do very well for themselves even though their ideas don't work out at all the way they claim.

Now picture an objective media that reports on these policies failing and those that hold them profiting so much while so many suffer amidst plenty.

That kind of media in these circumstances would be both "objective" and "biased" against the terrible ideas because they're actually terrible ideas that don't work out for the greater good in real life.

Obviously the analogy is about conservatives and the aliens are us, but the idea that objectivity should lead one to have no opinions is to say that the media should be neutral to serial killers and mafia kingpins.

This is the hidden contradiction at the heart of Fox that conservatives can't seem to grasp: Balance and fairness can be in conflict when fairness calls for imbalance. A Judge presiding over a rape trial must put the rapist in jail to be fair, but what would being "balanced" mean? Letting both rapist and victim go free? Imprisoning both? It's absurd either way.

Conservative ideas are terrible and this unworkable mess of contradictions and hypocrisy cannot be reported on objectively without offending its adherents. Media outlets like the WaPo are straining to be the refs in a game where one side cheats as a game plan and wonders why that side complains about biased officiating so much. It's by design.

Keep working the refs right wingers. It's clearly working. You're all here whining in an article about the Washington Post firing someone who offended you for having personal opinions and the omsbud grovelling for your forgiveness. Could your petulance get any worse?

Posted by: Scientician | June 25, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow, there sure are a lot of angry people who hate conservatives commenting here. I thought you libs were the "tolerant" ones, the ones who accepted all people's "life choices"!

The truth is we Conservatives don't really care about the left-leaning bent in the media anymore. It's a given and we know that we're never gonna change it as long as ideological left-leaning Universities keep churning out left-leaning ideologue "journalists".

We just read the articles and roll our eyes. Conservative pundits like Limbaugh, Malkin, Ingraham, Beck and the like point the bias out, but that's what they do for a living, and they're open about their views; subtlety isn't their forte.

Every major city (though the number is dwindling these days) has two major papers: The Left-leaning one that the liberals call objective and love, and the right-leaning one that the liberals call biased hate-speech and despise.

Conservatives don't "hate" the Left-leaning one - we're more amused by it than anything else. We like the right-leaning one, but on the other hand, what's so fun about being the choir the paper preaches to?

In DC, the Left-leaning paper is the WaPo, and the Right-leaning paper is the Washington times. Everyone knows it.

I agree with the liberals posting here. Let the WaPo remain Left-leaning. It's their thing. Don't get rid of Weigel. He's probably one of the favorite personalities in the newsroom.

Don't change for us Conservatives, WaPo. There are plenty of other places for us to get our news, and we're smart enough to identify and filter both the Left- and Right-wing bias. (Increasingly, we're finding the most objective source of American political news coming from London newspapers.)

If this action you're taking is a business move based on Gallup's poll showing that 42% of American identify themselves as "Conservative" and 20% identify themselves as "Liberal", well, that's another matter completely.

(If you're wondering where I found that statistic, there's a link to it on Drudge. *Wink*.)

Posted by: atomiccmg | June 25, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

I recently suggested to my journalist friend that a smart media outlet would stop pretending that individuals are unbiased, and would instead score all their journalists for there place on the political spectrum. Readers or viewer could then find out the details of their political convictions on a separate website.

Another commentor suggested an end to pretending anyone can set aside their political biases and report neutrally. I agree. I know that every article I read is slanted in the direction of the journalist reporting the story. Stop playing the game. You can't be fair and you can't be balanced but you can acknowledge who you are.

Posted by: SimJim | June 25, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

The result is that Weigel lost his job. But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives.

It is a shame that the loss is seen by Omblog only as one to be suffered by conservatives, and not by all readers, who should be equally put off by Weigel's obvious lack of impartiality. I would hope that intelligent liberals, as well as intelligent conservatives, would be offended by the Post's hiring blunder and inadequate supervision of its writers.

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

Why would the Post ever have standing among conservatives? We have known all along that the Post is a left wing propaganda machine. Its almost comical that they hired a rabid left wing extremist pal of Marxist Ezra Klein to be cover conservatives.

Posted by: dencal26 | June 25, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

this is a lot of hand wringing over nothing. on both sides. I lived in London for a number of years where there is a healthy selection of newspapers - broadsheets and tabloids - left, right & center. the difference is that they are mature enough to admit that journalists have opinions and that the notion of "objective' journalism is ridiculous. when i buy the Guardian I know what perspective I will get. Same goes with the Telegraph. I like others would read papers opposite their view to get a different point of view - while I almost never agreed with the guardian, I always found the paper's perspective refreshing because it was at least honest. as it pertains to the gentleman who just resigned - why couldn't the commentary have been honest - conservatives covered by a liberal and liberals covered by a conservative?

Posted by: ronp123 | June 25, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

factota apparently missed what happened here.

Trying to placate conservatives by trying to include conservative points of view is an endless exercise in tail-chasing.

The right will continue to call you "leftists" whatever you do.

The answer, and the only way to rebut the criticism, is to hire smart, independent-minded journalists who can write.

Keep your quality, stick to your guns, and ride out the latest storm. This too will pass...

Posted by: factota | June 25, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dencal26 | June 25, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

You liberals need to get out of the city and meet the "little people" you have so much disdain for. There are more of us than you think. We don't call people stupid, or redneck because they don't agree politically with us.
The msm has maligned us too many times, this is why we watch fox, and listen to Rush. We know fool well that these outlets are strictly from a conservative viewpoints. It's all we have. Your group gets every other Hate spewing outlet in the country. Let's meet back here after the election in Nov. after you realize how many of us there are.

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

What a frightening list of angry, blind commentaries there are here. You liberals wouldn't know objectivity if God Himself were the source. Thank God you fools are outnumbered 2-1 in this country.

As we ride the locomotive of economic and political devastation over a cliff, you morons cheer and applaud our President for tearing out the bridge and stepping on the accelerator. If wisdom is vindicated by it's children, you are truly convicted by yours; yet you deny the bastards and claim they are the product of your opponents.

You sad, sad, scary people.

Posted by: jjd1965 | June 25, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Mr Meaner pt 2:

"And the funny part is you don't even recognize the irony in claiming that " Conservatives don't want the media to tell objective truth.", while you admittedly believe that no "objective reporter could cover figures like Newt, Limbaugh and Palin and not hold negative views"."

Just to be clear, there is no "irony" in this (talk about using words that don't mean what you think they mean, seriously go look up what irony means), but even in the wrong definition of irony you're using (meaning a contradiction) there isn't one.

Limbaugh is objectively a despicable man. He is mean, petulant, low and nasty beyond description. He mocked the shakings of a parkinson's sufferer for recording an ad supporting research that might cure his parkinson's. He mocks the pre-teen children of the President. He suggests the poor should go "dumpster diving" to feed their families (while he earns hundreds of millions). I could go on and on with the litany of simply vile things Limbaugh says and does.

Newt Gingrich of course is famous for issuing divorce papers to his wife while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. Which wife? I'm not sure he's had several, which comports well to the "traditional definition" of marriage he espouses for the little people. Not the type he practices where you just marry your assistant every 10-20 years once your current wife stops looking so good.

He was Speaker of the House while impeaching President Clinton over the Monica affair. Naturally he was cheating on his own wife at this time.

Shall we talk about "Diaper Dave" Vitter? Bill Frist and dissecting cats? Tom Delay? Oliver North? Nixon's plumbers? Nixon?

The conservative movement is rife with extremely flawed human beings, that go beyond normal political corruption and hypocrisy. Yeah, Charlie Rangel abuses rent controlled apartments. Diane Feinstein's husband makes money off the contracts Feinstein's committee oversees. Neither of them is in the same league of absurd misanthropy that is Glenn Beck mocking a rival DJ's wife for having a miscarriage. Who does that? Really, who?

Sociopaths. That's who. Weigel's sin is that he calls a spade a spade. And you cry bias because you want to believe you've been voting for a flush of hearts. You want a "balanced" media that pretends the horrible people leading your movement are well intentioned and honest. I want an objective media that calls liars, liars.

Posted by: Scientician | June 25, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I served as a Republican communications director for two U.S. Senate Committees. On one occasion a reporter told me that in his experience, Republican communications people like me seemed to be satisfied with accurate quotes, even when stories were bad for us... But he said that when Democratic press staff read a story they didn't like, they would call and scream at him and say things like, "I thought you were on my side."

In contrast, I rarely met a reporter who held conservative views nor did I ever expect a reporter to be on my side. Indeed, one state news director for the AP told me flat out that his views were to the left of Ted Kennedy. So... am I surprised that somebody that writes for the Post is a flaming liberal who says disparaging things about Republicans? Not at all. Indeed, in the town where I first cut my teeth in politics, local Democrats held their county meetings in the local newspaper's office. The managing editor had been Ted Kennedy's press aide, so their meetings there were disappointing but not surprising.

What does surprise me is that a liberal at the Post got fired.

Posted by: Gasguy | June 25, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

You liberals think that only a "pure" conservative can cover conservatives. Hello, he said Matt Drudge should LIGHT HIMSELF ON FIRE. If he is going to have those kind of views, then let them out in the open.

But Weigel got fired because he PRETENDED to be a conservative while being a bitter, partisan liberal.

WaPo had to fire him and act shocked shocked! that a liberal was covering their conservative beat.

Of course they knew it all along given that he must have talked to them in private about conservatives in a similar fashion dozens if not hundreds of times.

But like the leaders they cover, WaPo feigns ignorance and Weigel falls on his sword.

Posted by: onecaguy12345 | June 25, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

"Let's imagine another planet with an alien race. Some of them hold beliefs about how that society should govern and run itself that turn out to lead to most of these aliens being miserable most of the time. Except for the leaders of this movement who seem to do very well for themselves even though their ideas don't work out at all the way they claim."

I'm with you so far...
Are we talking about George Soros?

"Now picture an objective media that reports on these policies failing and those that hold them profiting so much while so many suffer amidst plenty.
That kind of media in these circumstances would be both "objective" and "biased" against the terrible ideas because they're actually terrible ideas that don't work out for the greater good in real life."

Again...I'm with you...But there's only so much that Foxnews can do.

Seriously
Can you not see that you are just assuming that you (in your infinite wisdom) are holding claim to possession of the "real truth"?
It's as if you believe that because you believe it...it is.
I could post pages of evidence that indicate that it is progressive statism (Nazis, Communists, Maoists, Fascists,etc) that has caused almost every plight that man has suffered for over 100 years.


Posted by: MrMeaner | June 25, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Reading the comments today is an exercise in understanding how little readers understand about newspapers.

I've told people that all news organizations - newspapers, cable news, news magazines, TV news - all are political organizations. All have an agenda, from the halls of Congress to City Hall itself.

Journalists have lost credibility because they aren't honest about it. Instead of trying to sell the Big Lie that they are "impartial conduits of events, writing the first draft of history," they should honestly admit they are players on the stage of political power, using their mass reach to promote their agenda.

At the St. Petersburg Times, I asked the Editor of Editorials why they thought officeholders should reveal all to the public, but journalists exempt themselves, when the truth is that the journalists are part and parcel of political dynamics.

He answered that they are exempt because they are not asking people to vote for them, and to give them power over the course of the community.

I replied that we didn't stand up to a vote, but exercised power over the course of the community anyway. At least they had a democratic rationalization for their exercises. What was ours?

The editor looked at me blankly, then suddenly remembered he had something else to get done.

I also see in these comments that "Truth" is whatever you already believe. I've long held that talk radio - from either end of the spectrum - was a reinforcing mechanism to give gravitas to what the listener already held sacred. It allows the listener to hear their beliefs expressed forcefully, and adds weight to their expression of beliefs by holding that it wasn't just their belief, but it was the belief of someone who was an opinion leader of their belief system.

That explains why Rush could pontificate about locking up illegal drug users while being an illegal drug user - and never see a ratings dip.

The same applies to left-wing pontificates; this is not a left or right phenomena. Listeners don't care about the talker's personal moral consistency, they care about having someone repeat what they already believe and thus make their thoughts common with "millions" of others. Not only does it make them feel righteous, it makes them feel they are on the front ranks of a parade of fellow travelers.

Finally, we have the fractionalization of news sources that allows everyone to find somewhere to read exclusively what reinforces their beliefs. The MSM never had a chance in that environment, because they could never satisfy all beliefs.

The WP is just as trapped in its ongoing marginalization as is any other news organization. Equilibrium is setting in and market shares are shifting. This is the inevitable, and unconquerable, reality of the Internet.

"Resistance is futile."
-30-

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

Thirty to forty percent of Democrats today are hard left liberals and would vote for ANYONE with a D after their name. They have no flexibility, no sense, no moral direction, hate God and Jesus, hate the constitution, want to kill babies by the millions, hate our military and hate America as it once was and what the founders like Jefferson and Madison wanted. And we are supposed to take their insane posts on this comment page seriously? No Thanks. They are irrelevant without the other fifteen to twenty percent of real American democrats. You remember the old Democratic Party don't you? That’s the party of Scoop Jackson, JFK, Harry Truman and Sam Nunn. You remember them. Honest opposition, not the anti-America progressive-liberal morons that infect the Democratic Party today. The Democrat Party (ie, liberals, progressives, Marxists, socialists) is the culture of corruption. To read the liberal comments here is really amusing. I would really hate to be a worthless liberal.

Posted by: rchaa27aa | June 25, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

As one can see from this comments thread, WaPo is supposed to keep carrying water for the administration and the liberal commentariat. So a conservative is supposed to read it for . . ?

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

Who are the "...non thinking 10% of the people" referred to? If you intend to refer to conservatives, they outnumber liberals in this country two to one. Only 20% of the people are liberal; 42% are conservative.

Posted by: old_and_wise | June 25, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm a moderate and I cannot think of the last time that I read from an objective news source as I no longer think that they exist. In recent memory, I've read zilch that wasn't offering up opinion, while disguised as 'news', especially when you're talking about stories about 'conservatives'.

There is no source in the mainstream media that I take as gospel. As such, if I read something, I check the story from multiple angles and oftentimes do background myself. I have to, there are no real journalists anymore.

Not shocked, not bothered, just nodding my head. It's more of the same. I gave up on the Post at some point after Watergate. Probably the 80s somewhere. No matter, I don't see it changing back. Propaganda is here to stay. Thank God for courses in critical thinking or I'd be doomed.

Posted by: Geepers1 | June 25, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

"But his departure also raises questions about whether The Post has adequately defined the role of bloggers like Weigel. Are they neutral reporters or ideologues? "

Are you kidding ? Weigel or the WaPo NEUTRAL? To even pretend that is insulting to our intelligence.

I and several other posters had called out Weigel's lies - particularly in his attacks on Drudge, where Weigel claimed he never wrote - WHAT WE READ (and in a couple of our cases, cut and pasted back into him comments - in his postings regarding the congressman's assault of the student)

JUSTICE26

Posted by: Justice26 | June 25, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post lost standing with conservatives well before Weigel. Don't forget the Washington Post led a jihad versus George Allen and Bob McDonnell (both conservatives and Republicans).

So, why should any conservative or Republican continue to subscribe to your newspaper?

Posted by: LdSentinal | June 25, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

The WaPo is a liberal flagwaver to everyone except members of the Democratic Party and SEIU, who extol it as the height of objectivity.

I remember when Ben Bradlee said in an interview he knew nothing about JFK's adulteries. He was either a politically partisan liar, or the worst journalist in the USA. I was a teenager in FL and I knew about JFK's affairs from recently retired military officers - my father's friends. Either way, he's a stupid, stupid man.

The WaPo will be objective when it writes an editorial saying "We were wrong. Barack Obama was un-qualified to be President, and/or his political and economic beliefs are so flawed as to be unworkable." Because that's the non-partisan truth.

Posted by: sampjack | June 25, 2010 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Also pathetic that he was allowed to resign.
Not only should he have been FIRED, he never should have been hired - hideous bias having a liberal ideoloque falsely labeled as a impartical reviewer of conservatism.

YOU LIE - the label that DOES fit most (if not all) liberals

Posted by: Justice26 | June 25, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

What a loser this guy was. And shame on the WaPo for letting him get away with it for so long. The WaPo would actually increase their readership if they dropped the liberal bias that has been around for years.

Posted by: DaMan2 | June 25, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Could the first clue have been that he was highly recommended by Ezra Klein? I mean, come on, birds of a feather and all that. And now the WP says, in effect, gosh, we had no idea. Bull puckey!!

Posted by: rubydid | June 25, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I have a great idea for the Washington Post to get back conservatives!

Hire Glenn Reynolds from Instapundit to cover the Right. He would be perfect for the role.

Posted by: LdSentinal | June 25, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Reading the Liberal comments on here, they have lost their minds.

The WPO is a Liberal paper for Liberal. I never read your paper or care what you have to say about any issue. Liberalism does not work ands all your paper is is a mouth piece for the Democratic party and you play a role in protecting your boy king Obama.

Do you have a reporter or blogger writing about the "Liberal" spectrum?????

You guys are so far out of touch. You live in a world that does not exist.

Most people despise Liberal think, that means most Americans despise the WPO.

Posted by: easy1965 | June 25, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

atomicmg:

"Wow, there sure are a lot of angry people who hate conservatives commenting here. I thought you libs were the "tolerant" ones, the ones who accepted all people's "life choices"!
==========================
This is because you don't understand what liberals believe and have ingested some caricature of liberalism from right wing sources. We don't believe in tolerance of activities which harm others, and we believe conservativism harms everyone so we're working to stop it and that involves a lot of criticism of conservative thought.

One more paragraph that needs comment:

"In DC, the Left-leaning paper is the WaPo, and the Right-leaning paper is the Washington times. Everyone knows it."
==============================

It's amusing that you would welcome this comparison. The owner and founder of the Washington Times is of course an infamous meglomaniacal cult leader who claims to be the second coming of Jesus Christ. Despite being a paper that espouses typical right wing views about markets and the virtue of profit, it loses money year after year.

Putting aside any debate over the abject lack of reality and facts in most of the Washington Times' reporting, let's just compare the WaPo and WaTi on the subject of bias. Does the WaTi employ *any* columnists who are left wingers? Have they ever? Keep in mind the WaPo's columnists include Marc Theissen, Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker and George Will, not to mention formerly employing Bill Kristol and the semi-regular retinue of neocons published by the Post (this week a special treat: Henry Kissinger!). At least the WSJ has Thomas Frank and Fox used to have Colmes for some fig leaf of exposure to contrary opinions.

Show me anyone like that from the left on the WaTi and we can talk about equivalance.

The Washington Post is the establishment, centrist, enslaved to conventional thinking paper of power and access chasers in modern Washington. The Washington Times is a crazy money losing extreme right wing paper run by an even crazier literal cult.

If movement conservativism had any principles other than the pursuit of power, they would have rejected and jettisoned Rev. Moon a long time ago. Instead you welcome it as a counterpoint to a paper that at least makes some semblance of effort to report the news for its own sake.


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

Are you kidding about Weigel's replacement?
Wapo will just hire another radical joker with sense enough to not spread his crudity laced ideology all over listservs on the internet. Zero credibility. Zero. I wouldn't read Wapo for free.

Posted by: bill4598 | June 25, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

"Post loses standing among conservatives"

That's tantamount to saying O.J. lost the respect of Nicole because he tracked her blood across the living room carpet.

Posted by: Armed_Texan | June 25, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Weigel's bias infects every page of the Post. Not only is your bias pervasive it is utterly unwarranted. Conservatism is a reasonable approach to politics and governance. Not always right but right often enough. The Post to its lasting discredit doesn't get this. The Post's failure to report fairly and its failure to offer conservative opinion marks it for collapse. This country is center right and the Post has walked away from the mainstream. The Post is lost in a narrow leftist cul de sac and will not recover.

Posted by: jy151310 | June 25, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

There is little or nothing conservative about The Washington Post, other than a few of its employes, and they keep their heads down and their mouths shut. A number of fine people worked at The Post in the three-plus decades I was there. Few of them were conservatives. Many of them were objective. It seems times have changed for the worse. Kay and Don Graham, Ben Bradlee, Howard Simons--their likes will not be seen again. Not at The Washington Post.

Posted by: MontanaBilly | June 25, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

"his private messages to a listserv"

When you broadcast a missive something to four hundred people, it isn't a "private message".

Posted by: tenzors | June 26, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Washington Post announces that they are hiring Joseph Goebbels to report on the "Jewish question" in the middle east. Standing with conservatives? After "Macaca?" Your rag, always has been and remains, an unofficial propaganda arm of the Democractic Party. Your downward spiral is justly earned.

Posted by: PACIFICENV | June 26, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

A lot of you left of center people really need to get back on your meds...

Some of the comments are characteristic of a delusional obsession that cannot be healthy....

.

Posted by: oldnova | June 26, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

So, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, Walmart-shopping, trailer-dwelling trogs are the target audience now? What's the deal? These primates are never going to respect a reasoned or carefully considered position anyway. If, on the other hand, you need a few "Friday Night Smackdown" style commentary columns to maintain a revenue stream from the small forebrain set, then that should be easy enough to provide. Any half-sober journalism major can manufacture that tripe.

Really, I don't see the drama here...

Posted by: Geezle | June 26, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Here's a novel idea for you big shots at the Post. I'll help you keep your "progressive readership" and not offend the rest of us in the process.

Assigning a hack like Dave Weigel, a pinko masquerading as some objective reporter, to provide meaningful and intelligent commentary about Conservatives is akin to assigning a devout atheist like Sally Quinn to cover your religious section.

Are you people that deluded, or just nuts? Do you honestly think the rest of us are that stupid that we don't see through your false promotion to increase readership?

The fact of the matter is, whoever the powers are that run this paper should forget about us Conservatives, especially those who happen to call themselves Christian Conservatives, and concentrate on pleasing your bread and butter liberals.

We will read your screed for free, but there will never come a day in this generation that we consider you anything but a rag of pretentious nonsense to promote hard core liberalism.

You're not fooling anyone - even with this mea culpa.

Posted by: TexTaylor | June 26, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Mr Meaner:

"Are we talking about George Soros?"

Let's talk about this one. George Soros is a billionaire who gives some amount of money to a set of left wing causes and groups. Let's say millions, possibly tens of millions over his life.

Stack him against the following right wing billionaires who actively fund all those right wing groups, foundations, think tanks and even media outlets that mostly lose money from the National Review to the Media Research Center, to the Heritage Foundation. Why do you think we accuse Jonah Goldberg of living on "wingnut welfare"? Why does every defeated conservative Senator immediately land in a six-figure think tank job?

Richard Mellon Scaife
Pete Coors
Rupert Murdoch
"Rev" Sun Moon
Pete Peterson
Steve Forbes
David and Charles Koch
Sheldon Adelson
Carl Lindner, Jr
George Argyros
Stanley Hubbard
Peter Thiel
Dick Farmer
Roger Milliken

It didn't take long to google these. So yeah, the left has 1 billionaire keeping MoveOn and ThinkProgress afloat. Whoopee.

This reminds me of the common right wing belief that climatologists fabricate climate change for profit while ignoring the vast sums of money the oil companies provide to any hack willing to soil his academic reputation by denying the same. Yes, Al Gore with his $100M is a match for Exxon's $10B profit per quarter.

Projection like this could show a movie on the moon.

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 12:06 AM | Report abuse

" We don't believe in tolerance of activities which harm others, and we believe conservativism harms everyone so we're working to stop it and that involves a lot of criticism of conservative thought."

Stalin couldn't have said it better himself.

You, sir, are a walking caricature of the smug, conceited and laughably self-unaware leftist

Posted by: Bohemond | June 26, 2010 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Are they neutral reporters or ideologues? Neutral? Neutral? HA. Funny dude.

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

How about hiring someone from National Review to blog about liberals, and reassign Klein to cover conservatives? It would be interesting to see which one did better reporting and had more "objectivity."

It would probably get me to read both blogs, occasionally.

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

The question isn't the Post's "standing" among one group or the other. The question is: Does the Post want its readers to feel they are well-informed after spending time with the Post? If so, then the Post will need to publish as much truth as it can, without putting its thumb on the scale: including a fair and impartial account of all sides of a story, as well as a variety of perspectives on contested issues.

More importantly, beyond the left/right question, is the press's watchdog role. What on earth is the point of a free press if it does not offer a counterweight to those holding political power? The press is not living up to its constitutional responsibility if it fails to offer a critique of the official narrative, and inasmuch as the present regime is strongly left/liberal, at the moment that means a conservative critique.

Posted by: thebump | June 26, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Lessons I learned from the conservatives in this discussion:

1) a cult leader who considers himself Jesus is runs a respectable right wing newspaper

2) one left wing wealthy funder is far worse than 15 or so right wing billionaires who do the same

3) Weigel having personal opinions is the same as Jayson Blair inventing sources and plagiarizing

4) The Washington Post was wrong to report on George Allen saying something racist to insult a non-white person working for his opponent in front of a crowd of supporters. This is tantamount to Goebbels level of propaganda.

Yes, you learn a lot interacting with conservatives. Is it any wonder the flat out crazy lie about "death panels" caught on? They will believe anything at all. It's no surprise their hottest star hypes scam-gold coin operations (if money is so worthless, why would anyone run a business selling valuable gold coins in exchange for soon to be worthless cash?)

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Bohemond:

"Stalin couldn't have said it better himself.

You, sir, are a walking caricature of the smug, conceited and laughably self-unaware leftist"
==================================

Yes, Stalin was well known for engaging in debate and criticism with his ideological adversaries. That's what he was famous for no doubt. How Stalinesque of me to have the temerity to tell conservatives their ideas don't work and try to persuade my fellow citizens not to try them anymore. It's practically the same as sending people to gulags and liquidating the insufficiently loyal. How did you survive my latest purge of words on your computer screen that were contrary to your ideals?

Here's a protip, don't call everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman "Stalin" and then criticize them for being "self-unaware." The cognitive dissonance you're performing is painful to watch, you might cause yourself an anyeurism trying to contain that level of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

The guy is a liberal who treated conservatives as the left always does. There was no intention as far as I can tell to be fair or neutral and I remember how the Post introduced him. He was well respected and followed. I guess that was by Klein. The question is how does he differ in the way most of the reporters and their editors at the Washington Post cover conservatives or the conservative views as they affect issues. My guess is there isn't a pennies worth of difference either in his posts at journalist. How many of your reporters and editors so his rants there and did nothing when he was threatening the integrity of the paper and if the material he was writing ever got out damaging the Post?

How many of your other reporters and editors wrote similar things at Journalist? How many of them used this "secret" group to coordinate their coverage of events or allowed it to shape their perception? Since it was Klein's baby and he didn't allow even moderates in or anyone with any taint of conservative views or values you have to know it was an echo chamber and did affect the way the reporters and editors covered the news. Since Klein is an employee of the Post I think you as ombudsman should review all the posts made to and from Washington Post employees to see just how bad the problem really is not just fire the guy and move on.

I also noticed that your reporter now has a job at Huffington Post. Not exactly a bastion of neutrality.

I also think you need to look carefully at those who vetted they guy and looked over his work. Also at those who recommended him for the job. Did they sandbag the post and put in a Trojan Horse designed to not cover conservatives fairly but to damage them?

Posted by: airedaletwo | June 26, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander makes a claim based on the facts not yet in evidence; that the WaPo had standing among conservatives prior to L'Affaire JournoList.

Presumably he must think that David Frum, Kathleen Parker and Christopher Buckley qualify as conservatives. Only along the Beltway Mr. Alexander, only along the Beltway.

Ms. Weymouth and Mr. Brauchli got what they wanted: someone from the (supposed) Right attacking the Right. Thanks to the leaker we all now know it's BS. Let the WaPo reap what it sowed.

Posted by: dhorton1 | June 26, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

"The Post might consider two"-- Yes, because then that would be balanced coverage. 200 to cover the 30% of America that calls itself liberal, and two to cover the 50% that calls itself conservative!

Anyway, I hear Helen Thomas is free.

Posted by: mgmax | June 26, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

"Post loses standing among conservatives"

ROFLMAO

What makes you think your DNC newsletter has any "standing" to begin with?

Conservatives know you're at best a joke.

Posted by: malclave | June 26, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

"Let's talk about this one. George Soros is a billionaire who gives some amount of money to a set of left wing causes and groups. Let's say millions, possibly tens of millions over his life."

Wow.
I didn't think you would take the Soros bait, but since you did...
Let's talk indeed. Did you know that Soros's second biggest investment is in Petrobras? He made that investment after they received 2 billion dollars of Obama's stimulus package, for start-up costs.
They're also one of the companies that are waiting for Obama's moratorium to take effect, so they can lease those oil rigs.
Oh yeah, Brazil is going to drill it's wells at a depth many times what the BP well was drilled.

Soros is the founder of Moveon(dot)org, and
The Center For American Progress (from which he runs the country through John Podesta)
Tides foundation, which funded the Apollo alliance, which lays claim to assisting authorship of the healthcare bill.

and the hundreds of satellite groups funded by all of them

He is an investor in the Chicago Climate Exchange, which is a carbon trading scam that was also set up by Obama, when he served on the board of the Joyce Foundation.
(Al Gore's company, and Goldman Sachs are some of the other investors in this potential 10-trillion dollar per year business)

Let's see, he was one of the first to buy banks that his comrades caused to fail.
(see Chuck Schumer, and IndyMac)

He is responsible for breaking the Bank Of England, and causing the recession from which Japan has yet to recover.

Soros is also admittedly responsible for financing the overthrow of the governments of Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, Yugoslavia, and the Czech republic.

He has a pretty strong foothold here, right now.

That's off the top of my head.
And that's just Soros.

Posted by: MrMeaner | June 26, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Expecting a flaming left-winger to impartially write about conservatives is exactly like asking Perez Hilton to write impartially about Jerry Falwell. I'm a conservative and I could not write about liberals and maintain a fair balance, because I detest everything for which they stand and I believe they are leading this country into ruin.

Posted by: jsutton1240 | June 26, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

I don’t think you need to be a conservative to cover the conservative movement but I do think you need to not hate them.

And at least my mom taught me that wishing someone dead was hate.

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

Scientician: "Here's a protip, don't call everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman "Stalin" and then criticize them for being "self-unaware." The cognitive dissonance you're performing is painful to watch, you might cause yourself an anyeurism trying to contain that level of hypocrisy."

LOL!

Big time lol!

Really, Scientician, don't take the trolls and astroturfers so seriously. Further, you will never convince a single conservative of how stupid their perspectives are no matter how bright a light you shine on their ignorance. It is like trying to convince a Yankees fan that the Red Sox rock or vice versa... all too distressingly similar. Most conservatives view the political realm no differently than they do sports. It isn't something that they apply reason to.

Posted by: Geezle | June 26, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

The WaPo has no reputation among conservatives. The best that can be said is that it is not as bad as the NY Time -- but that is not saying much.. If the NY Times died tomorrow, the entire country would benefit, if for no other reason than that fewer national security secrets would be leaked. But then, perhaps, the WaPo would take on the role of the most treasonous of major newspapers.

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

This has to be the four billionth time that someone learned that the internet is not a private intimate conversation.

Posted by: Delongl | June 26, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

You never had the respect of conservatives, and you haven't had the respect of liberals for a long time now.

But the real loss is that you don't have the respect of anyone who values truthful and fearless journalism. And you never will again unless a miracle happens and you somehow get over your painful, unrequited crush on the conservatives you believe don't love you anymore.

Posted by: booksandcats | June 26, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

So hire yet another neo-con. Who cares? The WaPo gets closer to bankruptcy every day. Shut it down and spare yourselves the self-inflicted humiliation.

Posted by: SGlover910 | June 26, 2010 1:21 AM | Report abuse

The Rat shouldn't of nibbled the cheese... SNAP! Down goes the Post in flames and are exposed as the Progressives that they are... Now the other Rats scurry about trying to find cover... What a bunch of LOSERS! Conservatives will always struggle with doing the "right thing" but, at least they will try.

Posted by: ElOregonian | June 26, 2010 1:25 AM | Report abuse

This is the Ironclad Rule of the Internet: There is no such thing as "privacy" on the internet. Doesn't matter how many firewalls or passwords you have to go thru. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Posted by: joelwright1 | June 26, 2010 1:28 AM | Report abuse

What nonsense.

You have supporters of state sanctioned torture on the Op Ed page of the Post - and you are worried about verbal insults to Drudge, and Gingrich and Limbaugh?

Your values are totally upside down.

Posted by: varan | June 26, 2010 1:30 AM | Report abuse


Major brands always give out their popular brand samples (in a way it is similar to coupons) I alway use qualityhealth to get mine http://bit.ly/bhZA0u enjoy your free samples

Posted by: nancyorva26 | June 26, 2010 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Mr Meaner,

I listed 15 right wing billionaires who swamp any money Soros gives to the left. I certainly hope you're getting some of that graft. Nothing sadder than a right winger who isn't getting paid to espouse such nonsense. At least the wingnut welfare queens get rich embarrassing themselves as intellectual bankruptcies.

But as usual, conservatives see Soros and ACORN under every rock and miss the giant beam in their own eyes.

(Geezle: Thanks.)

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Scientician,

The reason you think Conservatives are harmful to everyone is that you have ingested some caricature of Conservatives from Left-wing sources.

And if you bothered to read, which you've proven is a strain for many liberals like yourself, you would have understood that I didn't "compare" the WaPo and the Times; I contrasted them. (You can find the definition of "contrast" at Dictionary.com.)

If the Times is losing money, let 'em go belly up; VIVA el mercardo gratis! Wait, am I talking about the Washington Times... or the New York Times? Hmm... oh well, same difference.

And if you wanna talk about megalomaniacs, well, I couldn't care less about Rev. Moon, but at least Conservatives didn't give him and Oscar, a Grammy, a Nobel Prize and any number of other honors he didn't deserve. (Gore couldn't even earn a law degree, and his old man was pulling strings for that weirdo his whole life!)

I won't bother to restate my point because you're clearly not bright enough to get it, besides, I'm sure you want to get back to NPR so they can tell you what to think about the issues of the day.

Hey, Conservatives! Aren't you glad these liberal schmoes aren't on OUR side?!

Posted by: atomiccmg | June 26, 2010 2:02 AM | Report abuse

How is it that only 20% of all Americans are liberals and 80% are conservatives and moderates?

No wonder the Post fired this liberal nutjob pretending to be a conservative reporter.

How is it that the most liberal senator was elected as President? Answer: most news channels and reporters are liberals.

Moreover, most high school and college teachers are liberals; and all unions are liberals.

End result: America is run by the 20% to rule the 80%. Maybe the 80% will vote out the 20% in November.

Posted by: Chuck8764 | June 26, 2010 2:02 AM | Report abuse

This episode has merely shown that epistemic closure is as much a problem on the left as it is on the right.

Posted by: Veritas-9 | June 26, 2010 2:02 AM | Report abuse

I'm trying to think when the WaPo last had "a standing among conservatives" and I've been reading it since 1970. Pretty much the only reason I give it any credibility these days is for the Sports Section.

Posted by: ExPatYankee | June 26, 2010 2:06 AM | Report abuse

OFFLMFAO - DON'T JUST BLAME THIS GUY FOR CONSERVATIVES THINKING YOU STINK POST........

YOUR BASHING OF ANYTHING CONSERVATIVE FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS IS WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO THIS PLACE, AND THAT PIG SALLY QUINN DOESN'T HELP YOUR CASE MUCH, THE ARROGANCE IS HORRIFIC IN THAT IDIOT MARRY THE BOSS BABE.......

YOU CARRIED THE LEFTWING EXTREMISTS WATER EVERY CHANCE YOU GOT........THE IMPEACHED STAIN WHO USED A JEWISH INTERN WAS STILL 'BRILLIANT', WTF............

OILYBAMA SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY YOU AND MANY OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS...........YOU DID NO RESEARCH, YOU HELPED SWOON THIS BAG OF FACIST IN OFFICE..........

YOUR MINDSET IS LIBERAL LOVING AT THE PAPER AND IT SHOWS..............

CLOSE NOW BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T YOU WILL BLEED OUT...........

WE ARE NOT GOING TO PROP UP OR ALLOW THIS HUGO CHAVEZ FACIST MAKE PEOPLE LIKE DRUDGE PAY FOR YOUR LIES...........CLOSE DOWN AND RETIRE,

LIARS DON'T GET ANOTHER CHANCE AS AMERICA IS BEING RUINED..........YOU ARE TOAST........

Posted by: CATHERINE10000 | June 26, 2010 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Bloggers, by their very nature, cannot be defined as reporters, journalists or news professionals unless that is their full-time profession. Amateur news hounds and subject-matter specialists that write blogs are informed citizens whose work should be further scrutinized. The remainder are offering mixed news and commentary or comentary alone. As a blogger I base my work on facts, carefully checked against other sources -- but do not independently confirm each and every fact as I rely on published work. I offer commentary. Blogging is a sport that should be undertaken and read at your own risk -- somewhat like letters to the editor.

Posted by: onecitizenspeaking | June 26, 2010 2:47 AM | Report abuse

Gee... The Washington Post actually hires reporters biased against conservatives? I never would have suspected... why, ...THAT should make front page headlines for sure! What's really kind of sad and touching, the Ombudsman is writing like as if this is some surprising and rare anomaly. The only difference with this Weigel guy is that you got to read his comments... most reporters and editors say this stuff in private 100 times a day. They put out a piece of biased reporting and then insist that they're even handed and unbiased. Quite frankly I'd rather these guys keep their jobs but be honest and open about their bias. A friend of mine who is black told me once that he could deal with an open racist... he knew where they were coming from. It was the ones that tried to hide their racism that were the real problem.

Posted by: jigs | June 26, 2010 3:00 AM | Report abuse

Just exactly how much standing did you think the Post had with conservatives to begin with? I'll give you a hint, not much....

Posted by: uacatfan | June 26, 2010 3:03 AM | Report abuse

Apparently Mr. Weigl is among the growing list of journalism majors who do not become objective, unbiased reporters once they go to work. When I see this kind of journalism, I can afford to boycott the likes of the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Time. etc. I will not buy these publications for any price, and if they cease publication, I will consider it a great day for America.

Posted by: stevetoth | June 26, 2010 3:10 AM | Report abuse

i agree, ezra klein is the real nightmare. these younger writers (i won't call them journalists) just have no dignity or integrity at all. it is not a liberal or conservative issue.

Posted by: ilikemudflats | June 26, 2010 3:11 AM | Report abuse

I am amused by the libtards that comment here about how the Post would be better off not giving conservatives a voice. Such as this from liebercreep:

*****Besides, you have already run out Dan Froomkin and you have Krauthammer, Will, and Gerson spouting off their lies and distorions every week not to mention Howard Kurtz's selective attacks on liberals while writing puff pieces on right wing reactionaries like Michelle Malkin.

What you are calling for is the death of news. You tell the truth and shed light on what matters, you don't try to cater to an ideological audience. But if you think the WaPo should be like the NYPost then I pity you.*****

No, Sir. What you are calling for is the death of the news. With so many competitors the newspaper industry, as we know it, is on the path to extinction. With so many other outlets for the news today's papers must reach across ideological lines quite unlike their forebears had to.

You, and so many other commenters on this thread, expressly reject the idea that other's have valid viewpoints.

If you think the job of the media is to trash everyone who disagrees with you, then liebercreep, you are in the wrong country at the wrong era. That country would be 60 years ago and it's name would be Russia.

See, there, they knew how to handle newsies who didn't cover the Party Line. Today the Party Line is distributed through a listserv.

Posted by: QuillyMammoth | June 26, 2010 3:39 AM | Report abuse

Why is this news? We Conservatives knew all along that Weigel was a hack fraud.

The WA PO "Reporting" "Objectively" about Conservatives/Conservatism?

Please............

The WA PO and everyone who works there HATES conservatives either covertly or overtly.

Do you really think we expect anything but left wing biased from this fishwrap?

The WA PO is the MSNBC of print and we Conservatives only peruse it for either out and out entertainment or to get the daily talking points of our enemy to be able to fight against them effectively.

Posted by: OppositeDay | June 26, 2010 3:39 AM | Report abuse

Hmm, it seems most of the problem lies in not in whether or not a reporter is "liberal", but in that there's no difference in the mind of conservatives between someone being (quote) an "ideological liberal" and someone merely badmouthing certain conservative figures.

It doesn't occur to any commenter -- not one, as far as I can tell -- that you might not like Matt Drudge, or Rush Limbaugh, or Ron Paul, but that that _wouldn't_ necessarily make you a "liberal"? Maybe you just don't like people you perceive as dishonest? Maybe you don't have much good to say about people on the self-professed extremes of any movement?

Weigel's problem isn't that he was outed as "liberal". He's not, and you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence of it. He's a lot closer to a centrist or old-school, non-crackpot libertarian. But anything to the left of a Tea Party is now anathema to conservatives (including their own senators, like the ousted Bennett, and even including their own now-struggling ex-presidential candidate.) So what the heck, he might as well be a flaming liberal, because the kind of conservatives that complain on newspaper websites aren't really of the sort to parse out any more subtle distinctions.

No, Weigel's doom was that he broke the most sacred of conservative commandments: he said something bad about _a_ conservative, so he shouldn't be allowed to cover _any_ conservatives, anywhere, under any circumstances. That's the demand being made, and one which the Posts's own ombudsman quite happily asserts to be reasonable.

So, how does the Post plan on catering to that? And can liberals, Democrats and moderates get the same treatment, please? I'd like any reporter who ever said anything bad about any Democrat, ever, to be forever barred from reporting on all Democrats, period. Oh, and fired. We can start with Dana Milbank, move on to Howard Kurtz, and remove pretty much the entire editorial lineup, right? It doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative -- the question is, did they ever say _anything_ insulting about _any_ liberal, whether publicly or privately?

I look forward to this happening. I'm certain that it will, because otherwise the Post would really "lose standing" among all non-conservatives. Surely, each political subgroup should be allowed to demand that they only be covered by voices in lockstep agreement with their own opinions. If that isn't journalism, I don't know what is.

Posted by: HunterDK | June 26, 2010 4:24 AM | Report abuse

Why does every "apology" from this paper seem so backhanded? "We sincerely regret that our journalists insulted you in public. Our conservative readers should have never known about these private emails." You might as well be apologizing to the liberals. "We're sorry the cons found out about our hatred for them. We will be most diligent in hiding our disdain for them in the future." Please - spare us your fake apology. We all know you care not one iota for conservative readership. The problem with you and with many mainstream media types is that the American people no longer trust you to bring the news - what we get is biased opinion. The bias can be as direct as your constant promotion of Democrat candidates come election time, or as indirect as your unwillingness to investigate Barack Obama's darker past during the past presidential election. You are not news - you are ideologues in print, and for years, it has been apparent to millions of Americans that your bent runs way to the left. So - you have two choices before you...report the news alone, and leave the opinions at the door or complete the transition to a full fledged opinion rag which bears no difference from Daily Kos or HuffPo. At least we know where they stand, and there are no guessing games as to their intent. Real news is dead - when you are unwilling to go after one side, you cease being journalists. With the current government, you are merely a mouthpiece for the state. You have taken the constitutional right to a free press and turned it into something of which Joe Goebbels would have been very proud.

As for your fake apology, stuff it...your credibility is looooonnng gone.

Posted by: ihatethepost1 | June 26, 2010 4:42 AM | Report abuse

Post loses credibility among conservatives? Bwahahahaha! Can't lose what you never had.

WaPo = HufPo = CrapO

Posted by: johnhiggins1990 | June 26, 2010 4:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm reading some of the other comments here, and I am continually amazed that liberals simply don't get the simplest way to defeat ideologues from gaining the upper hand in the national conversation. The power rests with the media. When they choose to print the objective news - and the news alone - they retain credibility with most people simply because most people aren't rabid ideologues. The goal of a paper should not be to try and balance opinions from left and right. It should be to avoid opinion at all. Call me a purist, but does it really matter if a liberal or conservative politician is trying to gouge the American people? Liberals have the same problems in other areas as well - all people are assigned to groups (black, white, asian, hispanic, gay, straight, left, right), and all groups must be equally represented. This is an approach that has failed time and time again, except in creating dissension. They are just people, and the more distinctions you make, the more you have to do to keep them happy. The media has the same problem. In their attempts to appease liberals or conservatives, they further the decay of the national conversation by promoting opinions instead of facts. Instead, the media needs to stay above the fray in order to maintain credibility with all. If you try to please everyone, you will please no one. Learn this lesson and save your business model. Learn it not, and it WILL implode...only a matter of time.

Posted by: ihatethepost1 | June 26, 2010 4:56 AM | Report abuse

"Weigel’s exit, and the events that prompted it, have further damaged The Post among conservatives who believe it is not properly attuned to their ideology or activities. Ironically, Weigel was hired to address precisely those concerns."

Not really. Conservatives see the Post for exactly what it is, a liberal newspaper supporting liberal ideas ans excoriating conservatives at every opportunity. The Post, like the NY and LA Times and most other large city papers, puts every conservative misdeed or implication of a misdeed front page and above the fold while hiding or blatantly ignoring liberal misdeeds of all degrees. No, the Post's hiring of a clearly partisan blogger to report on conservatives, amongst its clearly partisan reporting staff did not hurt the Post's reputation among conservatives; it merely reinforced our opinion. Now go on back to protecting your man-god. That BS hope and change of his isn't selling anymore.

Posted by: clayusmcret1 | June 26, 2010 5:13 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives? And the problem would be? Judging by their politics one would wonder if they read.

Posted by: Swingstater99

==========================

Sure we read. It's just that liberals have no standards.

Posted by: hofbrauhausde | June 26, 2010 5:17 AM | Report abuse

My impression is that people at the Post are only sorry that Weigel got caught.

Posted by: CoolTom | June 26, 2010 5:22 AM | Report abuse

WEIGEL a conservative? I had no idea he worked for WAPO, he's followed me on twitter for well over a year and I had him on my "Confused, Leftist Progressive" list. It is simply impossible for anyone with a brain, to have EVER believed this guy understood or believed in Conservatism. There is absolutely no chance that the Washington Post was surprised by such a revelation. Therefore he had to have been a Leftist plant from day one. The entire story is ridiculous! The Washington Post's farcical scheme was simply uncovered and Weigel has agreed to serve as the fall guy.

Posted by: Cris1 | June 26, 2010 5:25 AM | Report abuse


PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

The 2010 results are based on eight Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June, encompassing interviews with more than 8,000 U.S. adults. The 42% identifying as conservative represents a continuation of the slight but statistically significant edge conservatives achieved over moderates in 2009. Should that figure hold for all of 2010, it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup's history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992.

CONSERVATIVES OUTNUMBER LIBERALS TWO TO ONE. IT'S TIME TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.
VOTE OUT ALL DEMOCRATS AND ANYONE WHO VOTED WITH THEM IN NOVEMBER.

BYE BYE DEMOCRATS

Posted by: charlietuna666 | June 26, 2010 5:26 AM | Report abuse

Health care (transformation) is one of the best issues this current administration has done thus far. With this change individuals will have the opportunity to seek professional and quality health care services. Who would want to return to the days of the horse and buggy, b/w tv sets, manual typewriters, pac man, you get the point? That's about how old the health care system was in the USA. Each day the news is filled with social tragedies in which lives are taken at the hands of known acquaintences and/or family members. Our society is stricken with the institutions of white collar crime permeating throughout this great nation and greed which tends to strike at the very fabric of our country. If you are looking for affordable health insurance check out http://bit.ly/9sfoMb I hope everyone will soon recognize and use the resources made by this transformation to seek professional medical attention as the need arises rather than turning to illegal and criminal activities to resolve their issues.

Posted by: nancyorva26 | June 26, 2010 6:04 AM | Report abuse

The Post and the majority of all news organizations are "liberal". They do not report the news; they offer only liberal, slanted opinions. And since most Americans are "sheep", they believe what is reported...hence, Barrack H. Obama is now in office and destroying this Nation.

Posted by: senatorgoofy | June 26, 2010 6:06 AM | Report abuse

Vocal nonthinking 10%? Well, here is the latest Gallup poll.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

Posted by: Little_Brother | June 26, 2010 6:08 AM | Report abuse

WEIGEL'S GONE?

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Deep breath.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHA.

Ratf**ker.

Posted by: mstruth771 | June 26, 2010 6:19 AM | Report abuse

Let's see: one auto writer. One restaurant reviewer. One TV writer. Oh, and yes, one "conservative beat writer."

What's amusing here is that you weigh in, in stentorian tone, about the need to employ one or maybe two people to cover the politics of half of the U.S. population (because, evidently, without some 'conservative' affirmative action, the Post does not cover the politics of half of the U.S. populaton). Why, no one can say that the Post has ideological blind spots. It employs almost as many people to write about the politics of half of the U.S. population as it does local restaurants.

I have another suggestion, as you mull over whether or not to hire, one, or perhaps two, people to cover half of the U.S. population (i.e., to cover them without bias or condescension): why not hire someone who's polite? You know, like a gentleman? Someone who respects his subjects and his audience? Being an objective skeptic is different than this juvenile, caddish, rude, sneering, angry stuff that Weigel revealed himself to enjoy.

I know that it's hard to hire someone at the Post who doesn't think himself to be a very very special smarty-pants, but these people have trouble being reporters or writers about anything other than themselves. It's really always about themselves. I don't know why the Post thinks that people want to learn about the world according to Dave Weigel et al; it's not like the Dave Weigels of this world do anything, have done anything, or promise to do anything -- other than be visible, and visibly clever, I guess, in the condescension to their subjects and audience. But we're not talking about Hemingway or Dorothy Parker here. We're just talking about a guy who confuses trash talking and attitude with brash thought. It's not worth the price of admission. Your paper wouldn't have crashing subscription and revenue rates if it didn't think it could cover the politics of half of the U.S. population with one smart-mouthed, undisciplined, immature jester.

P.S. I like Sietsma very much. Why? His love of, and respect for, his subject matter. He's not an easy grade but he's not disrespectful of his subject, is he? It just astonishes me to watch the NY Times and Post self-immolate, blaming history when, really, it's just a failing product and evidently a failing company culture. Any business that rains contempt on its real and potential customers is going to get smaller, not bigger.

Posted by: IowaHawkeye | June 26, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

The really, really funny part of all this...in addition to Dave W. losing his job and exacerbating by a count of 1 the country's already outrageous unemployment problem...is that, with a straight face, the WaPo even presents the charade of any concern for fairness or objectivity.

The Ombudsman admitted in writing after the last presidential election that dated ideas like impartiality, fairness, neutrality, accurate reporting of facts, were thrown under the bus in the idealological quest to elect a so-called man of color.

So, WaPo, call of the charade and just admit what you are, a conservative hating ideologically-driven rag. The rest of us know it already.

Posted by: PaultheConsultantGuy | June 26, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

I thought I was reading a joke rag with the following comment:

“I don’t think you need to be a conservative to cover the conservative movement,” Narisetti told me late today. “But you do need to be impartial... in your views.”

Even the "straight news" parts of the Post are written through a liberal prism - virtually nothing about this paper is written from a neutral, straight news perspective. It goes way beyond the blogs.

Posted by: dricha8548 | June 26, 2010 6:51 AM | Report abuse

We Conservatives just want the real news and not the spin!

Give us the facts and we will be able to come to our own conclusions!

Major facts about Obama during the Election were left out or not reported!

Now we find out that we elected a Progressive, Socialist, Marxist, Radical, Liberal, Democrat that is unprepared for the job and the only skills he has is from being a Cumminity Organizer and Enforcer for ACORN!

What about his college papers and grades!

Were did he get the funding?

How about the many Radical Influences during his life?

Now look at the fix the country is in with no leadership or wrong leadership!

.

Posted by: Acornisascam | June 26, 2010 7:03 AM | Report abuse

The Post is obviously a liberal rag (whose audience, based on the comments here, have a 5 year old's political sophistication). The Post demonstrates this bias in their content and their reporter hires. It is NOT subtle. Hiring a liberal to impartially comment on conservatives is beyond stupid, but from a liberal slant makes perfect sense.

Posted by: TheDudeAbidesInDC | June 26, 2010 7:05 AM | Report abuse

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

Because, as we have noted repeatedly, the Post's standing among conservatives is among the most important things there is to protect. Hence,, George Will gets a "My inquiry shows that there was fact-checking at multiple levels" and his critics get a "There is a disturbing if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate" from Mr. Alexander, while Mr. Weigel gets a "strikingly poor judgment and revealed a bias that only underscored existing complaints from conservatives that he couldn’t impartially cover them".

Posted by: sembtex | June 26, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Several right-leaning blogs have posted lists of top conservative bloggers, any one of whom could be hired by the Post to fill this slot. This list below, for example, comes from redstate.com. Pick the blogger who you think is sharpest from a list like this. (This is a pretty sharp bunch.) Or upgrade Ramesh, for crying out loud. Here it is:

1. David Freddoso, Washington Examiner

2. Mary Katharine Ham, Weekly Standard

3. Amanda Carpenter, formerly Washington Times

4. Jim Geraghty, National Review

5. Ed Morrissey, HotAir

6. Jennifer Rubin, Commentary

7. Jim Antle, American Spectator

8. John McCormack, Weekly Standard

9. Caleb Howe, RedState

10. Matt Lewis, Politics Daily

Posted by: yourstruly1991 | June 26, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

> "Instead of just a replacement, The Post might consider two: one conservative with a Klein-like ideological bent, and another who can cover the conservative movement in the role of a truly neutral reporter."

Reading some of the comments, I understand why the Post would never actually consider the unnamed possibility: actually hire someone who is favorably disposed to conservatism.

I think it would probably kill, or at least disfigure, the Post's good liberal customers to actually have to consider conservative ideas based on their merits.

The Post certainly wouldn't want that on its collective conscience.

Posted by: ReformedTrombonist | June 26, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

WaPo is so far left that to them, Hugo Chavez looks like a conservative. No wonder they blew it hiring this guy.

Posted by: rjr1 | June 26, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Do you really think the Washington Post had "standing" to lose among conservatives? For the most part it's only worth is to line the bottom of the bird cage.

Posted by: bullwinkle1 | June 26, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Come on! yOU ARE THE wp A lib chit RAG! The only thing you cover consevatives with is a used kotex!

Posted by: harpotoo | June 26, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Progressives (IE: Liberals) are very good at presentting themselves as something that they are not,,,,,,but in the end they can never help themselves into reveling their inner truth. It takes pratice to be able to lie/pretend/present to be something you're not. That's why consertatives are such bad liers whenever they try it. But I must give liberals credit though, they do know how to justify the end by any means, and will do anything to achive it. I mean """""'ANYTHING'""""". They are a cancer to America.

Posted by: jlburdge1 | June 26, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

GROW UP!

The Internet allows far too many people to duck responsibility. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Quit hiding what you believe; be responsible for it.

AND NEVER fall into the trap of name calling, libeling or eve LABELing. We all are too complex to treat so naievely as to assume we fit in a "class" by virtue of a tiny portion of what we believe.

It is amazing that people can recognize that discrimination by race, color and creed is wrong, but not recognize this is only shorthand for respecting people's individuality, including their differing views!

The ONLY true descriminator is reality; if you want to call it God's reality or just what happens to be, the fact is the same: reality teaches the only truth, often painfully for those who go astray.

Lie.... and you die. Hate.... and you'll meet he same fate.

Posted by: Karl_Quick | June 26, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

>>But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives.>>
and by it's general cluelessness, including this article, the Post loses its standing among liberals.

Once again Brad DeLong is right about the Post. It's not a serious news organization and shows no sign that it regards its business as informing readers.

Posted by: fuse | June 26, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Wiegels thirty readers are in an uproar. When you are supposed to be covering the conservative movement and all the Code Pinko's are furious at your you losing your job thats just a small indicator that you suck at your job.It didn't take a leak of this liberal hacks e-mails to see that he hated anyone who wasn't one of Barry Oilama's sycophants. The libs love this clown Weigel,what could be better a reporter who hates everything that you do.On the other hand this ombudsman misses by a mile what conservatives reaaly feel about the Compost, the rag should be more concerned with the lefty hacks who are slanting the news every day,day in and day out to try and help out the Compost's idol Barry OilBama. The Compost is a left wing rag and any conservative knows it.Where is all of this rags criticisms of OilBama's incessant golfing? Where is the criticism from these biased hacks of OilBama taking not one but two vacations in the first fifty days of Barry's contributors at BP's massive oil spill? Where is this fish wraps criticism of OilBama giving BP a Safety Award for the rig poisoning the gulf? Where is the criticism of OilBama for his sleazy Chicago style of politics? Why isn't this rag questioning if OilBama is a racist because it took him two weeks to get to the gulf? I could go on,and on but won't this paper will NEVER convince Conservatives it wants to treat them fairly until it stops acting like a bunch of teen age groupies and covers its preferred party the same way it trashed Bush for eight years.

Posted by: fe59 | June 26, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

"Klein addressed that danger this afternoon in a thoughtful blog post explaining why he is closing down Journolist, and why he is saddened that leaks from the listserv led to the resignation of Weigel, a “dear friend.” Klein wrote:"

Perhaps the problem is that you are hiring "dear friends" rather than journalists.

And, please just stop trying to appeal to Conservatives when you are True Believers of Liberalism.

Admit it, embrace it, love it ... and accept your declining membership.

"It's a far, far better thing I do today ...."

Posted by: jgfox39 | June 26, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

It's never pretty when one's actual, unfiltered thoughts are divulged on paper or a PC screen. One wonders what other inflammatory, defamatory writings are on the listserv of ol' Ezra? It can't be that his buddy Weigel was some kind of radical outlier.

Apparently fearing other "outings," Ezra is shutting down the list.

Although I am conservative, I was never disturbed by Weigel. My thought was the the Post, being basically an organ of the Democratic party, had decided to spew bad stuff about the conservative media, and hired this guy to do it. There was never the slightest doubt that he was a venom filled liberal. That is why I was surprised about his firing. What, exactly, was the sin?

With regard to his replacement, the Post appears to be trying to find a new general without exactly defining the mission (sound familiar?). Just tell us what the mission is when the replacement is announced....something like: "this column will provide an objective review...." or "no attempt at real objectivity will be made in this column..." etc.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | June 26, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

The problem that the Washington Post has had with its liberal bias has been ongoing for YEARS now. Why is it so hard to realize that when you hire overwhelmingly liberal editors, writers and staffers that your product is going to be consistently liberal?!! It really is not a concept like brain science which is hard to understand. Simply hire MORE BALANCED REPORTERS rather than leftist ideologues!!

Posted by: dccane1 | June 26, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

The WashPo is outsourcing all reporting and opinion about the conservatives to the DailyKos, a well known moderate news source.

Dana Milbank will coordinate from his orange hat and shooting vest.

Posted by: georgedixon1 | June 26, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

(to preface my remarks, I am 64 years young)
Everything used to be hunky-dory in the good ol’ USofA. The New York Times and the Washington Post were America’s papers of record, recording daily how Democrats were wonderful patriots, only wanting to help everyone, while Walter Cronkite – good ol’ uncle Wally - held forth five days a week with basically the same message and Republicans were the loyal opposition as long as they stayed in the minority and “knew their place”…then Newt Gingrich came along and threw the entire paradigm out the window. You silly-socialists just haven’t been the same since *grin*

Objectivity? IT NEVER EXISTED!

Posted by: sosueme1 | June 26, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

"The newspaper that wasn't afraid of Richard Nixon is nopw scared silly by a vocal and non thinking 10% of the people."

Thanks for this example, Lib. Spoken like a true Liberal. 100% wrong and without a clue, but you'll spew your religious dogma and never let the facts interfere with your opinion anyway. Yet more evidence that "liberalism" is a mental illness.

By EVERY survey conducted...those that call themselves "conservative" outnumber those that call themselves "liberal" in America BY AT LEAST 2 TO 1.

Posted by: srpatterso | June 26, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Read through the comments. It is the left that has almost nothing to offer but name calling.

Ah yes, the left. But then there is the media itself (also the left), 91% of whom brilliantly voted for Obama, and who believe that the rest of us are morons unable to run our own lives, although we have done an excellent job for two hundred years thanks very much, whereas they have historically come down on the wrong side of almost every single issue facing this country throughout the 20th and 21st Centuries. And have a great deal of blood on their hands (e.g. DDT, our precipitous withdrawal from Vietnam, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, who Time Magazine pictured on its cover and promoted as a legitimate leader, too naive to understand he was a murderer, Iran's current continuing buildup of its nuclear weapons which threaten all of us, not just Israel who the media seems very willing to sacrifice, the list is sadly, a long one)

Posted by: SameOldTiredThinking | June 26, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

When is the Post going to hire a conservative to write about the liberals? A blogger who can talk about how crazy liberals are threatening judges, how they are excusing Al Gore's boorish behavior, how they lie about health care.

Hire a conservative to blog about liberals.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | June 26, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

I find it really embarrassing for you folks talking about conservatives needing biased coverage. Liberals are the ones that started being bias, and cons had to follow suit because the MSM LIES to people. Weigel wrote about the Congressman assaulting a student and can be quoted as saying the Congressman pulled him into a hug!!!!! A HUG. I'm sorry, that's downright ridiculous, especially since the video is posted and guess what, Weigel, I can interpret what happened myself. Ooo ooooo what about the Morning Joe MSNBC anchor who IS working with the administration on talking points for the oil spill but can still be called a journalist when that is her masquerade for her true job- liberal adviser. The video showing her admit it even has her colleagues arguing that what SHE says isn't true.

Also, the Internet isn't private for all of you living in a fantasyland. It never was and never will be. It was created to share ideas- the opposite of keeping them private. Speak face to face if you expect any semblance of privacy.

Also, it isn't like the person who outer Weigel for the human being he is isn't moving in next door to cover his every move, like some liberal writers do to conservatives.

The truth will set you free. I think American journalists are the scum of the earth, lib or con, because THEY skew the truth to the point that we ALL live in a false reality with no real knowledge of what goes on in this country or the next.

I don't know about you, but I'm sure as heck sick and tired of seeing breaking news on our country's politics in the UK's Telegraph...

Posted by: Sharingnews | June 26, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Libs are the last to know,the Compost is a propaganda rag yet it's moronic reporters and editors try so hard to convince themselves that they are rock solid reporters who are so professional no one can even tell they hate anything conservative. If Dubya was in charge of all the disasters OilBama is flubbing this piece of crap paper would be having a heyday ripping him apart.

P.S. Dear little Malia, Daddy hasn't plugged the hole yet ,but he enjoying some great concerts and getting closer to shooting Par on the golf course.

Posted by: fe59 | June 26, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Oh, sure. Let's not worry about the Post's standing among liberals. The media overall is brow-beaten by conservatives and the Post is no different. Dave Weigel never pretended to be a conservative, but he was always fair to his subjects. One good thing is I won't have to wade through the hate-mongering that passes for commenting here, anymore.

Posted by: evreport | June 26, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

How about the Post begin making up for it's fall off the radical deep end in a joint media effort to get Obama elected, by covering the background of the president; something that was shockingly not done during the election.

How about you get Mr. Obama to release his college records, his birth records, his medical records and all the other official documented history about himself that he sequestered. The Washington Post would have never tolerated such secrecy from a presidential candidate prior to this radical phase.

Does the Washington Post still comprehend the danger of Marxist radicals to constitutional freedom and our Republic? Are you still for protecting our constitution against corporate and government abuse? Would you protect it against infringement by a President, no matter which party? This is the neutral starting point for reporting in the United States.

Radicals in both parties think they have out grown and overcome the rule of law in the name of terrorism and globalism. The Post should let them know otherwise. In this way you earn the respect of conservatives and moderates - the vast majority of the public.

Posted by: sj121387 | June 26, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

WaPo's failure to cover news -- factual news -- has led folks to European/Australian media, Drudge, and yes -- FOX. They should go look in the mirror!! Even the NYT is beginning to see the errors of their ways.

Remember, WaPo was the firm who fawned over John Edwards, Al Gore, and Obama -- the leaders of the future. THEY SURE KNOW HOW TO PICK THEM DON'T THEY? (Still can't get over the "SEX CRAZED POODLE")

Posted by: wheeljc | June 26, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

WaPo publishes left wing propagada instead of news. I wish every truth loving patriot will cancel their suscription. I have done so after 20 years.

Posted by: Mosby1 | June 26, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

I have no problem with the a left winger, like Weigel, posting for the Compost. Disparate views add to the dialogue. His (and the Post's, and, more broadly, the LSM's) problem is the abject absence of integrity, which one should expect to be the cornerstone of a news organization. Left wingers in the media, with damn few exceptions, try to wrap themselves in a mantle of thoughtful, intellectual objectivity. Nothing, as demonstrated by Weigel, et. al., could be further from the truth. Add their penchant for printing opinion as news to the mix and one gets a disturbing, and accurate picture of America's news media. Most right wingers are clearly out and proud, rarely, if ever, posing as unbiased commentators! One knows what one will get from Coulter, Malkin and ElRushbo. They clearly proclaim their agenda..take it or leave it! Their success shows that more and more Americans are buying their program (see Gallup). The financial nightmare wrought by the LSM is a result of thoughtful folks rejecting their hypocracy.
ps I noticed a typo in this piece.."only underscored existing complaints from conservatives that he couldn’t impartially cover them." This should read... "...WE couldn't impartially..."

Posted by: hughglass | June 26, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

This is so absurd. The editors and nearly all of the columnists and reporters at WAPO are liberals, so of course they produce a predominantly (to put it mildly) liberal product.

Journalism schools were co-opted in the 60's by the left. Gone are the reporters who saw their job as getting the facts (and nothing but the facts) and then to tell the story in a way that would sell newspapers.

The college boys and girls were told that promoting the left's agenda was their job, so now we have "framing" the story or "shaping" the story and sadly, "being" the story. And somehow the facts (and wisdom, a sense of perspective, even the larger context) are simply gone, as well as, most disturbingly, a lot of factual information which is distorted and twisted to fit the overarching political agenda.

The product is understandably a real turn off for many readers and thus the lack of trust, interest and readership. (After all, when every story in which a reader has some personal knowledge about or interest in, is a frank distortion, a reader will lose confidence in the source.)

Posted by: SameOldTiredThinking | June 26, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

How many of these comments are by liberals? Are you so blind that you can't see it? You are your own evidence of the liberal bias of the Washington Post - if there are a lot more liberals than conservatives reading and commenting, then it tells you something about the paper itself. Open your eyes to see what's right in front of you.

Posted by: matt53 | June 26, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Dave Weigel's resignation only confirms that "BIG MEDIA" is slanted left. Today's journalist does not have a balanced viewpoint. Opinion is fine as long as you declare your stance beforehand. We out here in fly-over country can sniff out an opinion piece disguised as "news" whether in the newspapers, TV, or online. Start reporting the news factually and without opinion...and maybe the readers will believe in you again.

Posted by: billandchrissy | June 26, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

The Post can hire two people as replacements or not as they wish. Perhaps hiring a clear conservative would attract conservatives and increase readership. If so, it might make business sense. However, that is purely a business question.

What is more important is that someone who can actually analyze conservatism dispassionately needs to be hired. They can be sympathetic to the point of view or not. It really doesn't matter. However, an inability to understand conservatism will condemn the entire exercise to futility. The line about covering conservatism as if visiting the zoo is apt. If a reporter feels conservatism is to foreign to understand, they will not be capable of covering it well. It will be neither good journalism nor good business.

Posted by: warrenwilliam | June 26, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

I have always considered the Washington Post, Washington's version of the New York Times .... and usually don't read it. On the other hand, the Washington Times, in my opinion is more objective and is worth a look.

Posted by: adheeb911 | June 26, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

I don't give a rat's rectum about WAPO's treatment of conservatives, I just wish they would tell the truth about the Progressives. Fat Effing chance!!

Posted by: Anachron | June 26, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Mr. O:

No offense intended, but exactly when did the WaPoop have any standing with conservatives? Maybe you meant to say “inside the beltway, RINO conservatives,” which is an oxymoron. I'll grant you that one or two columnists, who are more likely than not paid exorbitantly as the price for their appearing in your pages, are conservative. But translating that into “WaPoop has standing among conservatives” is like saying a bowlful of turds becomes punch when a little orange juice is added.

Posted by: JohnnySunshine1 | June 26, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Until the Washington Post can actually hire someone that is able to write UNBIASED news, it is NOT going to happen.

The problem IS NOT finding an unbiased, or {shudder the thought} conservative journalist, it is whether one would ever want to work at such a juvenile and "back-stabbing" environment.

I have a neighbor that works for you, and he compares it to junior high on steroids.

Not a place I would want to work.

Posted by: sdent60 | June 26, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Narisetti (a big turd at WaPoop) states, "I don’t think you need to be a conservative to cover the conservative movement.”

Well then Mr. N., how many impartial conservatives do you have covering the progressive movement? I thought so.

You could license that sound of crickets chirping to Disney and rescue your paper from certain financial doom. Do you actually believe what you say?

Posted by: JohnnySunshine1 | June 26, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

I think the real reason why the Post decided to cover the conservative movement was because it was sick of being blindsided by stories that originated in the conservative blogs - things like the ACORN sting and the Van Jones 9/11 truther story.

The problem for Weigel was that no one in the conservative movement would talk to him anymore - you can't call a bunch of people who believe in limited government racist bigoted thugs and expect them to return your phone call anymore. Belonging to a closed left-wing advocacy listserv pretty much confirms everyone's suspicions that Weigel was more interested in undermining the movement than covering it. So, without inside contacts anymore, what good is the guy? Hire some intern to cut and paste Drudge stories for minimum wage and be done with it.

Oh, and FYI liberals: If you believe in limited government only in the cases of gay marriage, abortion, and FISA, you are not a Libertarian. Geez. If you want to cover the conservative movement, great, but at least learn the basics.

Posted by: sold2u | June 26, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Narisetti (a big turd at WaPoop) states, "I don’t think you need to be a conservative to cover the conservative movement.”

Well then Mr. N., how many impartial conservatives do you have covering the progressive movement? I thought so.

You could license that sound of crickets chirping to Disney and rescue your paper from certain financial doom. Do you actually believe what you say?

Posted by: JohnnySunshine1 | June 26, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

It is impossible to lose something you never had to begin with. The Washington Post is an establishment rag and a propaganda manifesto for QUISLINGS be they Left or pseudo "Right!" How can you parrots even pretend that you ever had any conservative credibility? Even the Linsey Grahmnesty and Juan McAmnesty-type Republicans put no stock in the Post!

Is it going to take another 50+ years of Bilderberg meetings before you despicable bstrds decide to even mention it let alone give it any coverage. Oh, sorry, I forgot... Your treasonous, globalists bosses have been in attendence ab initio but still you collectivist puppets simply pretend it does not exist. You may as well put Kissenger and Zibignew on the payroll for all the objectivity you have.

If anyone is to be "set on fire" lets hope it is the Post senior mgmt that is used for kindling for every damn one of the globalist Methuselahs that you scumbags routinely run interference for.

YOU WANT CREDIBILITY??? START BY EXPOSING YOUR CFR BRETHEREN! HOW ABOUT SOME OBJECTIVE ATTENTION TO THE PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE CHICANERY? YOU DESPICABLE PARASITES CONTINUE TO APOLOGIZE FOR "THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND!" HOW IN THE HELL CAN YOU EVEN LOOK (LISTEN) TO THAT RIDICULOUS IDIOT "HELECOPTER BEN" AND NOT EXCORIATE THE TRAITOR? AND SPEAKING OF METHUSELAH... WHAT THE HELL IS PAUL VOLKLER STILL DOING LURKING AROUND THE "CHANGE" ADMINISTRATION? HOW ABOUT SOME HONEST REPORTING OF THESE CHICAGO THUGS AND THEIR USURPER TELEPROMPTING PUPPET-IN-CHIEF THAT YOU RATS CONTINUE TO DEIFY?

GIVE IT UP. IF I SAID I MAINTAINED A SEETHING HATRED FOR THE ENTIRE LOT OF YOU IF WOULD BE A COLOSSAL UNDERSTATEMENT!

You "people" think the AMERICAN CITIZENRY is angry? YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET! WE WILL NOT BE SATISFIED UNTIL EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR OBTUSE AND ALOOF BELTWAY HEADS ARE FIRMLY IMPALED WITH STICKS AND ADORN I-495 LIKE MILE MARKERS ON THE ROAD TO HELL!

And if you think this sounds harsh, I am actually holding back. If I said what I really feel I would no doubt be visited by your storm trooper Secret Service!

Posted by: waycoolsnoopy1 | June 26, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Powerboater69:

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

How can you lose something you never had?

-------------------------------------------

My thoughts exactly.


Posted by: guest1 | June 26, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Mr. Alexander and Mr. Weigel both illustrate as much understanding of the modern world as an African Bushman who never left the Kalahari and never used a tool more sophisticated than a spear. There is no such thing as a "private listserve" BY DESIGN. Listserve messages BY DESIGN are broadcast from servers which use email, which is by its own design is intrinsically forwardable, as the mode of broadcast. So by definition, listserve broadcasts are public broadcasts. A couple of other mythical computer entities which don't exist are "private email messages" and "private or confidential blogs". Anything that can show up on a computer screen of a machine with internet connection ability can be forwarded or re-broadcast. Period. But that is besides the point - The Washington Post simply did not do the slightest due diligence in hiring Weigel. The people who suggested him for the job should also be canned because they either (a) knew he was unfit but advocated his hiring or, (b) did not know anything about him but advocated his hiring. Either way, they should be canned for incompetence.

Posted by: tyronej | June 26, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

90% of the existing POST reporters have the same views. Most keep them quiet or have not been exposed because many of these liberal blogger sites ONLY allow their kind in. The comPOST never has had an objective reporter covering its politics or blogs section. Name me one conservative that has been hired to cover Liberal politics ANYwhere on-line or at any Newspaper? The post is pathetic and is on its last leg- thankfully more and more subscribers will finally abondon this wretched paper.

Posted by: espnfan | June 26, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

The new reality of blog reporting has blurred the old rules.

This won't happen, but I'd like to see a complete firewall - similar to the one between advertising and the newsroom - that prevents print reporters from also being bloggers. I understand that newspapers could - and many try - to solve the problem in a different way, by attempting to enforce print standards on reporters who blog.

But blogs are just a different animal. And trying to hold bloggers to the same standards as print reporting you end up with a blog that doesn't work, or a blogger who breaks the rules.

My idea won't work because of economic realities. Most newspapers want their reporters to blog. And many - if not most - reporters also want to blog.

I worry that newspapers are losing a huge advantage - of reporters being seen as fair witnesses, objective observers. That's - to me - an enormous selling point, a real point of difference that could be exploited. And lord knows the newspaper business needs a few advantages these days.

Posted by: williamg | June 26, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

The most thing in this whole episode is that the Post actually thought it was a winning business model to hire somebody like Weigel who in his now public e-mails thinks that conservatives are ratf---ers, to actually report on conservatives. The Post actually believed that he could report on the conservative movement fairly! That's INSANE. It's like the Post hiring Pat Buchanan to cover a bar mitzvah!

Posted by: WashingtonDame | June 26, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Couple points: the post doesn’t have any standing with conservatives. It never did. The hiring of and continued tolerance of the likes of Wiegal supports that. The loathing of conservatives and their positions in post news reporting as well as the editorials is clear. Your goal of finding someone “who can cover the conservative movement in the role of a truly neutral reporter” is laudable. The truth is there is no such thing as a “neutral reporter.” Everyone brings their bias to the table. If you want to cover conservatives, you need to stop loathing them first. Start accepting them with an understanding that conservative positions as the most popular political positions in the United States. When the make-up of your conservative staff equals your liberal staff, you may gain/have some standing. Until that time, the post will continue to be a punch line to a joke when describing liberal bias in the main stream media.

Posted by: subroc | June 26, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Just thought I would shed a little light on the way a conservative thinks. I am a conservative because I like it when people are responsible for themselves. I as a fiscal conservative don't want my taxes going for extranious expenses by the defense department or all the other bloated departments of the Federal Bureaucracy. I would like to see government stay out of my life to the extent it can and I would like to be free to worship the God of my choice or not without being harrassed. I would like to raise my children as I see fit. I would like them to understand that somethings are right and some things are wrong. That it is not all relative,there really are absolutes that need to be in place. I prefer to have a debate on the merits of an idea instead of having to stoop to personal attacks because you are too stupid or ignorant to develop your argument in a researched and coherant manner as I see here. Unfortunately on both sides of the arguments. I come here myself to see what people think and I find that with some exception they don't really think too much it is more about feeling. Which means it the discussion becomes hyperbolic and ridiculous in a very short order. This man had to go he was an embarrassment to the Post and was totally misassigned and the person who hired him for this post should be fired as having no legitimate judgement in such matters.

Posted by: jimp64 | June 26, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post will never have a "standing" among those of us who are conservatives. There is simply too much liberal bias in its so-called news articles. That is not to say that we never read it. There are some areas where the Washington Post's news articles can be informative and on which most of us feel we can rely. But, the paper's liberal bias comes through in many, many areas. Sally Quinn's elitest attempt at a hatchet job on Sarah Palin a few years ago is just one example.

Whether Weigel resigned or not is sort of irrelevant. I don't expect any nuanced treatment of the conservative movement from the Washington Post. I read some of his silly Washington Post blogs on the conservatives, and they really weren't particularly good. There was no depth there, nor any understanding of the conservative movement.

However, it seems to me that the Washington Post is missing an opportunity to explore a wide-spread and important political phenomenon in this country--conservatism. If the Washington Post is going to spend money to hire someone to do this reporting, commentary, or whatever you want to call it, why not hire someone who will go out into the highways and byways and find out what the conservative movement encompasses. It is far more, and far more diverse, than a few conservative intellectuals inside the beltway.

The opportunity is there for the Washington Post to do some truly meaningful reporting--but does its liberal bias preclude this?

Posted by: theobservor | June 26, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

“I don’t think you need to be a conservative to cover the conservative movement,” Narisetti told me late today. “But you do need to be impartial... in your views.”

Well...DUH!
Reporting news is supposed to be about fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship.

Unfortunately, todays journal students seem to be increasingly taught to "spin" instead of "report".

Posted by: AWTH | June 26, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

WaPo needs to stay on Obama's good side if they want to be able to get a government bailout. Ultimately, only the news outlets that get a government bailout and government ownership will survive. The only thing keeping them afloat right now is Kaplan, and when the Depression returns the market for test prep will drop like a rock in the Gulf of Mexico.

Posted by: andrewp111 | June 26, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post is Infested by liberal from top to bottom.Weigel is the same guy who wrote the article titled Who TMZ'd Rep. Bob Etheridge?Democrat congressman grabbed the kid by the neck and wouldn't let go.Weigel defended the congressman saying it was a hug and blamed the kids LOL.When I found out that he's supposed to be a conservative writing about conservatism I just shook my head.Liberals are to stupid to realize they cant pull a fast one on the people.So many people were calling him out as a pretender in his blog.Give it up Post.you and Newsweek are goin bankrupt soon.

Posted by: Totoro | June 26, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

You know, i was going to write something thoughtful and poignant about the journalism's ethical and honesty deficit. The i re-read this quote:

“I don’t think you need to be a conservative to cover the conservative movement,” Narisetti told me late today. “But you do need to be impartial... in your views.”

I then realized the WP and Journalism in general, just doesn't get it and unless there is a top to bottom wholesale change in the way you do things, you will continue to repeat it. Example: When you have and editor that genuinely agrees with the point of view with the reporter, there is bias. It is inescapable, and we 'the public' see it and know it. This is the reason Judges withdraw themselves from certain cases, because they cannot be objective. I suggest the WP and Journalism do the same.

another thing, i would do is buy some anti-plagiarism software, and vet the reporters work and ideas against what is "out there" already, because i see an incredible amount of 'reporting' that seems a lot like DNC talking points. We do not mind citations, but when they take them as their own ideas it is sad. They even use the same words and phrases. Make your reporters do their own work, that is what they get paid for.

Posted by: MEinVA2 | June 26, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

amazing how Dim the lib poosters on this site are. to them there truly is only ONE side to every issue. theirs!
no debate, no compromise, just nasty name calling if you don't agree with every little statement and policy they adore!

But they continue with what they and their wonderkids Weigel, Klein etc are best at, NAME CALLING!! good job Libs!!

Posted by: morphy | June 26, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

>Alas, it took only one listserv participant >to bundle up Weigel’s archived comments and >start leaking them outside the group.

AA

Me thinks you doth protest too much. Is it really a bad thing that this inner child was exposed? Now if someone assiduously practices never writing what they wouldn't want anyone to read, presumably they could still harbor prejudices, but the discipline to undertake such practice is a modest degre of evidence that they might at least look at those they were covering in a disciplined or professional way even if rose-colored.

I view the incident as fortunate, not for evidence that the Post is biased, but for evidence that it would act to eliminate bias.

Perhaps we can remain skeptical that a serious broadbased effort is underway to prevent personal political preferences from coloring reporting in the Post, but in its own very small way, this is progress. But I think the standard suggested, of asking whether embarrassing extant writings might disqualify a candidate, is possibly symptomatic of whether a strong bias or advocacy instinct inspires a reporter's journalism. But there will be asymptomatic cases as well. I don't envy an ombudsman wending their way through the demographic biases of the journalistic workplace while being reasonably concerned about establishing conservative affirmative-action programs - something that equally concerns conservatives.

Best regards,

BB

Posted by: occidentaltourist | June 26, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

In expecting writers (or more specifically, "some writers") not to come to the job with any ideology or opinion of their own was WaPo's great error. In my humble, anyway, it isn't what a writer says among friends (& at least one backstabber, obviously) that matters, but what s/he says in his/her pieces... By furthering the notion that one's every private utterance is fodder by which to judge your authors, you've done a great disservice to journalism.

Weigel's a good writer who did a great job here, and as a result of the foolish thinking and cowardice that forced you folks to let him go, I'll be spending less time here and more time at Dave's next place of employment. I didn't always agree with him, to be sure, but I respected him far more than I do the people who had a hand in removing him from WaPo, and those who continue to sell it as a good thing for WaPo, or for journalism as a whole.

Posted by: repsac3 | June 26, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

I think I'm going to disagree with the prevailing tenor of remarks a bit. I think that Dave Weigel's removal makes the post just that much closer to The Onion, and that much more entertaining to read. True, they do still have a few thoughtful and readable writers, but I'm sure the Hiatts-That-Be are working diligently to remove them too, and finish converting the Post into the Voice of the Bush Administration Redux.

By the way, with regard to Weigel's position as a beat reporter covering the reactionary movement: Does the oh-so even-handed and impartial Post have a corresponding beat reporter/columnist/blogger covering the progressive movement?

Posted by: wmdoor | June 26, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

By the way, I am a conservative who can talk liberal policy wonk language with the best of them. Can I get a job covering the Left?

Posted by: sold2u | June 26, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

Honestly.....what standing? The Post has been a liberal fantasy rag for the better part of my life. You can't take anything you read in that paper seriously until you fact check it against at least 3 other sources.

It's ridden its "ideolgocal bent" right into the ground. Circulation is bleeding, advertiser's are fleeing - and nobody (except of course for liberal loons) is reading anymore.

This papaer so detests Capitalism that it is willingly circling the bowl into bankruptcy.

Hilarious!

Posted by: Tim_CA | June 26, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The Post didn't hire Weigel to cater to conservative readers. The Post has few if any conservative readers left. Weigel was hired in a feeble attempt to perpetuate the meme that the MSM is staffed by neutral and objective reporters. The Post, like all MSM outlets, is staffed almost entirely by Ivy League snots with little real world experience and a lot of liberal brainwashing. The fact that the Post was unable to identify and hire a real conservative makes that apparent.

Posted by: Freeborn1 | June 26, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I really don't think the WAPO lost any "conservative" readers. They never had many to begin with. Let's face it....most of the people who read this rag are Obama cheerleaders and democrat water-carriers.
On occasion, I will check out the on line stuff just to get a laugh at all the lies they tell and to see all the Obamamites talk about that tingle they feel going down their legs.

Posted by: dandyandy | June 26, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

About 30% of Americans consider themselves conservative, vs 20% liberal and 40% moderate.

And yet 100% of the WaPo reporters are liberal. Hmmm... real headscratcher why you're out of touch. Of course, the same 100% ideological purity holds true at the NYT, CNN, NBC, etc.

(I know, I know: they all have that one so-called conservative who spends most of his time apologizing for conservatism. So make it 99% if it makes you feel better.)

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | June 26, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

....the Washington Post management group is now comprehensively proven completely incompetent, biased, unfair and stupid. (Not that any conservative ever believed that they were competent, fair, unbiased ---or smart).

Decades of bashing anything that was faintly conservative, warped news presentation favoring miscreant, corrupt liberals , leaking of dis-information, slanted editorials aimed at denigrating conservatives and conservative principles, etc. etc. etc have made any reasonable citizen wary of the Washington Post as a news source.

Posted by: Yeeeech | June 26, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I forgot to mention the most important job requirement for a prospective Post correspondent on the progressive movement: He or she must be vulnerable to the publication of private communications out of context.

Posted by: wmdoor | June 26, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Alexander misses perhaps the most important point. Readers aren't looking for gossip columnists restyled as "bloggers" to cover the conservative "movement" or the liberal "movement": we're looking for the news events of the day. Unfortunately, the bulk of the Post has become less substantive. For instance, throughout the debate on healthcare "reform" there was far more attention paid to the machinations of passing the bill than what it actually contained. To our detriment. If the Post is to survive, it needs to rise to the level of news that is independent of political persuasian. That may be too tall an order.

Posted by: SavingGrace | June 26, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't bother me that the WaPo is a paper staffed with mostly impassioned liberals. It doesn't bother me that they defend and support their agendas in opinion pieces and editorials.

What does bother me is the blatant way liberal bias creeps into reporting. WaPo news is little more than cheer leading for Democrats. This is done by spin, misrepresentation, etc. but most often by omission.

It is no longer debatable that NTY, WaPo, LAT, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. are left leaning organizations who allow their personal opinions to color the news.

To be sure, Fox, the Washington Examiner, etc. are right leaning as well.

But I find far fewer misrepresentations in the conservative media than in the liberal media. And I find conservatives to be much harder on conservatives than liberals are on liberals.

My advice to WaPo is that if you want credibility, then be credible. Let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, you are merely the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh, only he admits he actively supports the conservative agenda and WaPo pretends it's unbiased.

I find that only by be being informed about both sides of issues can I come to a rational conclusion. That comes from having taken debate in college. I found how easy it was to make a strong argument for either the affirmative or the negative positions (we had to do both for each resolution). But when scoring debate other teams, it was much more difficult because both arguments could be very convincing. When facts were presented in an honest debate, it wasn't so clear who was right or wrong. That's a lesson everyone should learn in life.

Leave the bias out. Report the facts as they are. Document what the predicted outcomes might be. And let the reader come to his own conclusions.

There is no doubt in my mind that virtually every reporter at WaPo knew in their hearts that the Obamacare costs estimates were as phony as three dollar bills. An so did the people as evidenced by the opposition.

But WaPo decided to cheer the cooked numbers the CBO was forced to publish based on completely unrealistic economic assumptions provided by the Democrats.

Where were you on that story? Were you really so blind? I seriously doubt it. Now health care is headed for a disastrous train wreck, but your reporters are probably still enjoying the euphoria of their successful support of Obamacare.

Bad reporting guys but you got what you so passionately wanted. So ask yourself, was your goal to provide readers with the truth or was it to ensure that Obamacare passed?

Your circulation numbers are probably trying to tell you something. Just be honest and your efforts will be rewarded.

Posted by: fmb501 | June 26, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I don't know why any conservative even buys this newspaper. The WaPo has abandoned their 1st amendment rights by becoming nothing but a shill for the DNC. Let their supporters funds this paper's nonsense.

Posted by: 0460 | June 26, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative. Quite frankly I've been repulsed to the middle. I try to look at issues without a sense of bias. This headline is about as disingenuous as they come. Since when did the Post have conservative standing? That's like saying the Times has liberal standing -- Ha! To me - those of you at opposite ends of the continuum are bigots. Of course in this crowd - y'all are far to intellectually evolved to understand how someone could say that.

Posted by: Michael333 | June 26, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Is it any wonder that many people now regard "The Daily Show" as the most reliable source of news in America?

Posted by: Desertstraw | June 26, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't the WaPo just come out and admit that you're a liberal Democratic newspaper and your journalists are expected to include Obama cheerleading in their reporting?

Wouldn't the honesty be refreshing? Would you really lose any readers?

I mean, seriously: are there ANY conservative WaPo subscribers who just haven't figured out how liberal you are?

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | June 26, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Ben Bradlee would never have hired such an incompetent scribbler.

Posted by: hank_v | June 26, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander, here's more grist for the mill. The story of former Vice President Al Gore's police investigation in Oregon was on page A4. A former VP was being investigated for a sex crime and your paper buries it on page 4????

Posted by: 0460 | June 26, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

So another leftist "journalist" is found to be a lying sack of crap who pretends to be something he is not.

Reading the stupidity of this man articles on conservatives and conservatism was an embarrassment. It was obvious that he had no clue about the subject matter.

Now we know why, he was a raving leftist tool, so the Post should have fired him for lacking the intelligence to research and investigate the very people he should have been interviewing and making contacts with instead of being a hating little child.

No wonder the readers of the Post are such small minded limited-knowledge simpletons.

Posted by: LogicalSC | June 26, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Surely you jest.

Conservatives never thought the WaPo was anything but a liberal rag like most Obama propagandapapers.

Conservatives only come to WaPo to bash liberals who are doing a damn good job of destroying the country they hate. Why I will never know and don't care to.

Posted by: cvicic1959 | June 26, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

FoxNews is highly regarded by conservatives for the lies they tell. Does the Post really want to just be the Washington Times?

Posted by: david6 | June 26, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Why would any respectable care for a moment what conservatives think or believe? This faction is long overdue to be put in its place and ignored for its extremism. They offer and have no solutions. They believe selfishness, stinginess, intolerance, and hate are virtues to be cherished, nurtured, and propagandized. Mr. Weigel was a courageous victim of those with lesser values and sensitivity.

Posted by: jbcausa | June 26, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

No . . . The true question is whether the Post and other "real" news organizations have adequately defined "fair and balanced."

Posted by: OwlWorks | June 26, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Just when did Pravda on the Potomac have good standing among conservatives? This is ridiculous. Everyone knows this paper, like many of the same ilk, have done nothing but carry water for the Democrat Party, and most recently the incompetent empty suit Obama.

Posted by: KJS1953 | June 26, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander, you've missed the larger point here. As Hot Air poster Karl points out:

Weigel used JournoList for exactly the purpose its critics suspected it would be used, i.e., to attempt to shape media coverage for the benefit of the Left. And he did it more than once."

... Weigel was explicitly urging his fellow J-Listers to engage in what Weigel’s buddies and fellow travelers like to call “epistemic closure,” to operate as a closed media ecosystem that excludes competing political narratives."

Posted by: PaulinNJ | June 26, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

The Post hasn't just lost standing with conservatives. We liberals think you suck too.

Posted by: BettyCracker | June 26, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Everyone knows almost all the Washinton Post writers and bloggers are owned and operated by the left wirn of the Democratic Party, and at least for a moment, the Post has been honest enough to admit it, and rid themselves of one of these "Taliban Obamites". The Post is still overwhelmed with others that are as much a socialist idealogue as Weigal....but for some reason they contiue writing outsode of the Opinion page.

No matter, the world knows who the Post caters to and supports, but for one brief moment they actually acted like an objective newpaper by ridding themselve of Weigel.

Posted by: Realist201 | June 26, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks the Post is in the least
interested in reporting conservative views
lives in a dream world.

Posted by: Emmettwjr1 | June 26, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

The collective frothings of the leftwing lunatics posting here just demonstrate that your paper is reaping what it has sown. You can be as MSNBC/NY Times as you want to be (and contiunue marketeting to this ever-shrinking demographic), but don't think anyone believes it when you try to pass off your current product as unbiased news.

Weigel was not the problem. He was just one symptom of the bigger issue. You can't produce objective, bias-free news reporting by "balancing" a huge left-leaning organization with a small handful of conservativer columnists anymnore than you can get a balanced picture of the news by watching the broadcast networks, CNN, and MSNBC (on one hand) and Fox (on the other).

Start with the reporters and editors responsible for the "news" content. The day that this doesn't read like a thinly described left-wing blog is the day you have done your job as Ombudsman.

Posted by: JMB66 | June 26, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

I appreciated this Omblog report.

My objective view is that the Wash Post is in a difficult business position.

Its main readership has a liberal viewpoint, but the paper also wants to maintain at least some of its reputation for "objectivity" and for offering differing points of view (for example, Bill Kristol).

When the Post caters to its liberal audience -- by hiring a liberal journalist to cover conservatives -- its reputation for objectivity -- at least what remains of it -- is reduced.

However, when the Washington Post responds to the curtain being ripped away to show just how biased and hateful its liberal reporter is, it fires him; which understandably angers the paper's liberal readership which shares the reporters bias.

The Washington Post really needs to find its way forward in this new media world.

As for me, I am a conservative, and I find the schzoid nature of the Washington Post not just confusing but annoying and uncomfortable.

-- On the one hand the Post favorably compares the local government decisions of an economic nature made by Fairfax Country when compared to Montgomery County while it actively tries to bring down any prominent local Republican in a way the Post would never attempt to do to a local Democrat.

Like it or not the Washington Post is an institution and a brand and people should know what they are getting when they read something from the Washington Post, and the fact is that today they do not.

While I value the Post's reporting on local, sports, style and other matters that do not lend themselves to partisan debate, I would gladly rely on another source for this information if I found it to be a more overall trustworthy source.

Posted by: Bronxnative | June 26, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse


Thank you, Andy Alexander, for this thoughtful column about the Washington Post's commitment to understanding and reporting on conservative views.

I have one suggestion: When assessing candidates to replace Weigel, please think carefully about the temperament needed to report fully and fairly on the full spectrum of political convictions. Weigel's emails show he cannot fathom that people of good will can disagree about policy choices, and I'm afraid that attitude made him unsuited to the job the Post hired him to do.

Posted by: junomoneta88 | June 26, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

You have drawn the wrong lesson.

Capitulation to extreme views will not improve the quality of the WP and yet you make the case that it will—respectfully, you are wrong.

I think the biggest hit to the Washington Post wasn't your standing with Conservatives—that is and always will be low. The bigger hit is your standing with your readers who have trouble understanding why Weigle's private emails were a firing offense but the grotesque exaggerations of facts and fabrication of lies by the likes of Kristol, Thiessen, Will, and others are tolerated. The contributors to your PostPartisan section regularly display private bias that colors the contributor’s writing and reporting far more than anything Weigle has ever written for the WP. Then there is the pro Georgetown cocktail party status quo bias that Milbank, Broder and others have shown over the years. And the Opinion page is one of the most slanted and bias pages in America—but that is OK because the bias is on the printed page. Weigle had private thoughts and for that he had to go.

What is troubling is that when the Conservative noise machine says jump the only response from the WP is "how high". Weigle said some things in a private email that was intentionally leaked to get him fired. It worked. Shame on you for caving to the mob.

I've been to a many a gathering in DC with WP staff and have heard things said that would make Wiegle blush. Your staff has biases on the issues of the day—left, right and center. This does not effect their reporting because they are professionals. The same was and is true about Weigle, but you guys threw him under the bus because “conservatives” wanted blood.

Now that the Right knows they can hunt and kill your writers and editors for their private thoughts it is open season on the WP staff. I expect exposing the private biases of your staff will now become a new inside the beltway obsession with conservative blogs like Daily Caller keeping track of how many people they can get fired..

And you endorse that.

I weep for the WP. It will be a sad day when this foolishness finally kills what was a great American newspaper. What ever happened to standing up for your staff?

If H.L Mencken worked at today's WP, he would be fired for his views and that is a tragedy.

Posted by: dengre | June 26, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

All the harsh rhetoric and sniping by both sides towards each other is meaningless, except as a therapeudic excercise for the sniper. Anyone who wants a true "fair and balanced" presentation of news really needs to read/listen to both conservative and liberal (and in-between) in order to get the facts needed to form one's own opinion. There are exaggerations on both sides, but there are also kernels of truth. Don't automatically take everything at face value; do your own research. As for Weigle; he was wrong in being so blatantly partisan and deserved to be sacked. Those who report news need to be able to look at things objectively and report it in an unbiased way; those who only offer opinion pieces are free to express those opinions; people need to recognize them as being just that and not hard news.

Posted by: Lilycat1 | June 26, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

To feign concern at this point is to venture into some world of neo-surrealism the likes of which Alice never imagined. For what it's worth, I am absolutely certain you did vet Weigel quite carefully -- no doubt!

Posted by: wizard61 | June 26, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

A lot of you liberals don't seem to understand, so I'll translate it for you:

Remember when Fox News (I know, I know: you'd NEVER watch Faux News) had Hannity and Colmes? Colmes was that one hapless token liberal.

Imagine if Alan Colmes had admitted secretly having a Ronald Reagan crush, thought Al Gore's global warming religion was just a get-rich-quick scheme, and wanted Paul Krugman to set himself on fire?

Well, Weigel is that Alan Colmes. Sure, Weigel wasn't much, but at least we thought he was playing fair. And he was the ONLY one at the WaPo who was.

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | June 26, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

What I feel is unexpressed here, after all of these comments, is that Weigel was truly
a miserable writer, without a shred of talent. His intellect was pulp.

Posted by: velvetbob | June 26, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"Weigel’s exit, and the events that prompted it, have further damaged The Post among conservatives who believe it is not properly attuned to their ideology or activities. Ironically, Weigel was hired to address precisely those concerns."

Please substitute the word "Tellingly" for "Ironically," as it is more accurate.

Posted by: porterhall | June 26, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

What about all the liberal lies and distortions on page 1 every day? WaPo has been confusing news and opinion for years. So what's new? Nada!!

Posted by: panastos | June 26, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

While I do appreciate this article, I am still a bit salty about the last paragraph. Does it matter that someone sent emails from a "private list-serv"? (which I find utterly comical to begin with).

Stop trying to some how mitigate the fact that WAPO hired some nasty little cuss who had no sense of impartiality. I agree that you can be a repub or a dem covering liberal or conservative issues, because that's what a journalist should be about. We all have opinions, but 'just the facts ma'am' is dying on the vine...and in my opinion leading to so much angst on both the left and the right.

That said, Hope that ratf***er has learned a valuable lesson.

Posted by: zap123 | June 26, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The fundamental problem with liberal/democrats in general and liberal journalists specifically - is that they are unable to separate opinion from fact.

And when confronted with facts, the facts are ignored.

Journalism should include no more or less than what the title implies - recording and reporting, like the numerical facts on an adding machine tape.

If journalists had done their job of reporting, and not suppressing, facts, Hillary Clinton would be president today.

Posted by: hihi22 | June 26, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Pretty silly, conservatives aren't that thin skinned. Give the man the job back. "Set himself on fire" ?!? Who the hell cares. It's unlikely the blogger had any standing with the "conservative movement" to begin with, and thus lost nothing.

Posted by: vb_guy | June 26, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

And liberals complain about Fox- liberal media outlets are models for true believers of essentially totalitarian bent. Liberalism is their religion and they tolerate no contrary views.

Posted by: mhr614 | June 26, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

There was a time when news was reported and readers made up their own minds concerning the content. Now all news is presented with either a right wing or a left wing slant and therefore becomes politicized.

Many years ago, men and women in small villages throughout Europe probably were better able to digest sparse news entering their universe than we are today with our news channels, Internet and rags.

The media empire has become a sewer dominated by loud and hateful people and offer little, very little in excellence in reporting, not hardly worth reading or listening to. One could do better by spending their time whittling and spiting tobacco juice.

Posted by: edfo | June 26, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Please clarify your comment about FoxNews' lies. Are you talking about their news reporting? If so, you're just plain wrong and I challenge you to provide an example. Or are you talking about someone expressing his/her opinion?

Posted by: old_and_wise | June 26, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

edfo, I am not sure the news has ever been reported without bias.

Posted by: subroc | June 26, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"In the meantime, Post managers would be wise to remind all staffers that personal opinions, expressed privately on listservs or through social media, can prove damaging if made public."

Funny how you need to be concerned about people learning your true beliefs - guess those beliefs are not as mainstream as you think they are?

Mr Alexander sir, you are a macaca.

Posted by: beesknees | June 26, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Mr Weigel's liberal slant was well known before he took the job. Did not the Post editors bother to read his work before they hired him? OMG ! He is a liberal says the Post, sounds like the Police Major in Casablanca who was shocked, shocked ! to find gambling in Rick's.
Outside of the opinion page rational people always assume the Post reporters are leftist. Why else would they be in that line of work ? Some are better at hiding their assumptions than others, but they are all cookie cutter liberals from the Columbia School of Journalism or it's equivalent . Besides itself, who does the post think they are fooling with this firing?

Posted by: devluddite | June 26, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

The real scandal here was the mere existence of JournoList. It was a coven of nat6ionally known leftist newswriters agreeing in private as to how to rig each and every newscycle so as to benefit the socialist agenda.

By coordinating "the narrative" they were able to control the national debate. "Well, if 90% of journalists are saying the same thing, it must be true."

Posted by: TheMSMControlsUs | June 26, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

Awwwwww, isn't that sweet. Look on the bright side, posties. You've still got your left wing, overly active, can't-grasp-reality imaginations! "Standing among conservatives." LOL!

Posted by: Max17 | June 26, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Diesel_Skin:

"Imagine if Alan Colmes had admitted secretly having a Ronald Reagan crush, thought Al Gore's global warming religion was just a get-rich-quick scheme, and wanted Paul Krugman to set himself on fire?"

Yeah, nice try. The Washington Post employs Marc Theissen, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, George Will, Michael Gerson and regularly hosts guest Op-eds from an unending parade of belligerent pro-war neo-cons and think tankers including Bill Kristol and just this week, Henry Kissinger.

Besides all them, Weigel's job was not to be the "Colmes" of Fox News, but it is nice to see a right winger admit Fox news is anything but fair or balanced, and we should remember after Colmes left, they did not even bother to replace him.

So yeah, another winning analogy from the right. By your own standard the WaPo is far more balanced than Fox News.

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Weigel's crime? Analog thinking in a binary world.

Posted by: benmasel | June 26, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey, if you need a right-wing blogger, I'm your man. Google me.


ex animo

davidfarrar

Posted by: davidfarrar1 | June 26, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Related parody: "Just Because I Serial Kill Republicans Doesn't Mean I Can't Report Objectively on Politics" http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/06/just-because-i-serial-kill-republicans.html

Posted by: JerryVaughn | June 26, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Why is there a seperate "Opinion" page at the Compost? The entire rag is Leftist propaganda..

Posted by: wewintheylose | June 26, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Look, the Compost, and every single writer on their staff, is as Leftist as Che Guevara. Why they bother to have a separate Opinion page is a mystery..

Posted by: wewintheylose | June 26, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Headline is a joke. What "standing" among conservatives? Never had any you Leftist hacks.

The "fourth estate" is as corrupt as the politicians you protect.

Kiss your business model goodbye losers

Posted by: soma_king | June 26, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"What I feel is unexpressed here, after all of these comments, is that Weigel was truly
a miserable writer, without a shred of talent. His intellect was pulp.

Posted by: velvetbob"

Without a doubt. Weigel wasn't qualified to write classified ads much less cover actual news.

Posted by: trueholygoat | June 26, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Some of you don't seem to know the difference between reporting and op-eds or opinion shows.

If someone purports to be a reporter, then they should do that honestly and accurately even though the topics they choose will always reflect their personal sense of what is newsworthy. Shep Smith's evening news on Fox News is just news, with no opinion (unless you count his fondness for bear stories); you can't say that for the other national TV news shows.

On the other hand, expressing your opinion is called free speech and the more the merrier - unless you wish someone dead or harmed (as this guy did). He crossed the line.

BTW, a study a couple of years ago by one of the California Universities found Drudge to be the most balanced news source and the Fox News NEWS shows, very balanced.

Posted by: old_and_wise | June 26, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

You don't even mention the most egregious example of his bias: his attempt to spin the YouTube video of Rep. Etheridge infamously manhandling a young man who had the temerity to ask him a question on a DC sidewalk. In Weigel's words, assault and battery became "a hug."

In Weigel's mind, and no doubt on "journolist," the most pressing question was who was the questioner rather than what was going to happen to the thuggish congressman.

The videographers chose to remain anonymous, no doubt because they feared the character assassination that would follow once their identities were known to people like Weigel.

Now, I don't think journalists need to be without political bias, as long as it is clear that they are writing opinion, and not news. I do think, however, that in the interest of fairness, the Post needs to hire a conservative counterpart to Ezra Klein, and not someone who casually calls conservatives "ratf*ckers."

Posted by: Peejay | June 26, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

old_and_wise:

"Please clarify your comment about FoxNews' lies. Are you talking about their news reporting? If so, you're just plain wrong and I challenge you to provide an example."

Oh that's easy. Did you know Fox News fought for, and won a court ruling that confirmed their right to lie in news coverage?

http://bit.ly/SiYwL

QUOTE

Here’s the rundown: On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

[...]

In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

UNQUOTE

You can read the court's actual ruling here:
http://bit.ly/26J9OF


Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The echo chamber that the liberal press lives in is truly amazing. The Post really never had any legitamacy with the middle or the right. To think otherwise is the height of arrogance.
Arrogance...good book title...oh ok thanks Goldberg.
Bernie likened liberal group-thought to a fish in water. The fish doesn't realize he's wet and doesn't understand dry.

Posted by: furious | June 26, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Two words: epistemic closure

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/25/the-overlooked-story-from-the-weigel-kerfuffle/

Posted by: soma_king | June 26, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"Weigel’s exit, and the events that prompted it, have further damaged The Post among conservatives who believe it is not properly attuned to their ideology or activities. Ironically, Weigel was hired to address precisely those concerns."

The Omsbudsman has failed to address the poor judgement of the managing editor. The orignal statement about Weigel amounted to "get over it"! The resignation was only accepted after the heat went up.
What kind of editor doesn't know who is writing for them. What composed the job interview for Weigel in that position in the first place? Were any of his other opinion pieces ever read by the editor. What was the motive for putting him there in the first place? These are journalists and editors that seem to find asking questions abhorrent. Which leads to the ultimate question? What kind of orginization is the Washington Post running over there. I think the reders deserve an in depth answwer and not a resignation and then no explaination. If the Washington Post is a left wing propaganda newspaper they need to identify themselves as such or we are going to make that decision for them.

Posted by: kalamere | June 26, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, nice try. The Washington Post employs Marc Theissen, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, George Will, Michael Gerson and regularly hosts guest Op-eds from an unending parade of belligerent pro-war neo-cons and think tankers including Bill Kristol and just this week, Henry Kissinger.


So you're admitting that Weigel was in an opinion role -- a left-wing opinion role -- and not a journalistic role?

Wow, stunning. I don't think you realize how stupid you sound.

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | June 26, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The Compost may have lost standing among RINO's, but among true conservatives the paper is nothing more than the Keith Olbermann Show of print..

Posted by: wewintheylose | June 26, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting how many liberals posting here want ideological purity in their news? Terrifying, isn't it? Actual Americans who demand propaganda.

And the WaPo, who'd be completely bankrupt if it wasn't for that highly-profitable sham diploma mill called Kaplan, happily prints that left-wing propaganda for you.

Enjoy it while it lasts... this kind of one-sided journalism can't last forever.

It's funny how you liberals bash Fox News but can't see that it's the extreme bias of the WaPo and the rest of the media that open the door to newer fairer kinds of media.

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | June 26, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

We need a brave whistleblower, an American hero, to give the public a list of the 400 left-wing users of Journolist. We need to know who is part of the liberal conspiracy to skew reporting to favor democrats. This should be full disclosure whenever a reporter opens their mouth.

Out the maggots so we know. Let us have transparency. Let these "reporters" who love to publish leaks get a taste of their own medicine.

Journolist Leaker please help us unmask the cabal of radical leftism!

Posted by: Cornell1984 | June 26, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Dave Weigel is not a conservative. Dave Weigel is not a libertarian. Dave Weigel is a liberal. He supported Obamacare and fretted over things Sarah Palin said which could damage public support for it. Weigel supports gay marriage. Weigel conspired with fellow liberals on Journolist to construct a narrative helpful to our current president's liberal agenda. He has no credibility within the conservative sphere and never did. He was hired because he provided a convenient platform for attacks on the right that would appeal to the mostly liberal readers of the WaPo.

I have a suggestion for the WaPo. Hire an actual conservative. There seems to be no qualms about the WaPo having dozens of ardent liberals writing for your paper and commenting on all kinds of issues, including the liberal sphere. This ethical dilemma the ombudsman seems to having over just how neutral Weigel was seems laughable to me.

Posted by: TheLastBrainLeft | June 26, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Scientician:
I read the link, but my cursory reading of it indicates that it doesn't support your argument. 1) That wasn't Fox News - it was a local Florida Fox affiliate. 2) The ruling had nothing to do with whether or not the material was accurate; the court ruled that basically she filed under a non-existent law.

Posted by: old_and_wise | June 26, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

To all you libs complainning about the so called reporter beign forced out. The likes of Will and others are in the WaPo to give opinions just like Klein is on the liberal side. This liberal shill that was forced out was supposed to be a reporter not an opinion writer. This is what you "less than enlightenned" liberals dont understand. That is why the HuffPost is treated as hard news by most of you. So thanks for continuing on your path of self destruction. The majority has awakened and your days in power are numbered

Posted by: vasco44 | June 26, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

So the "fair and balanced" approach of the Post would be to have a liberal commenting about the left, and a liberal and a neutral commenting about the right? The problem may go deeper than Weigel.

Posted by: bbowen7 | June 26, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry about the Post's standing with conservatives. We've had your number for a long time and know you are left of center. I very seldom read the Post anymore.

Posted by: Jeanette3 | June 26, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Weigel's e-mails were private, and not for public display. The conservative pundits who pollute the media have been distorting facts and figures for the sole purpose of electing Republicans so they can regain access to Congress and the White House.
The Post losing standing among conservatives is like an Israeli losing standing with Hezbollah. There was nothing to lose. Instead of being so namby pamby and timid,tell the right wing to stick it,if they don't like Weigel,don't read him.
Having private e-mails disclosed is like having private mail printed,it is unethical and repugnant,in other words,emblematic of conservative mehtods and tactics.

Posted by: SAMMYSHOW | June 26, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The bigger loss is not losing standing among conservatives - the Post never had that anyway. The bigger loss was losing standing among any fair thinking person (ok, does that mean a conservative?) - the Post clearly hired an extreme liberal to pose as a conservative to cover conservative issues, and then claims it was "shocked, shocked" to find this out. And now to prevent any future chances at "outing" progressives, Ezra Klein is shutting down his web site. Time to create a new secret society where libs can hide with anonymity.

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | June 26, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Scientician: You have horribly misrepresented the facts in question. The lawsuit involved a local FOX affiliate, not FOX NEWS itself. Local news broadcasts are not under the control of the FOX News Channel. There is no connection between Ms. Akre and FOX News.

Posted by: TheLastBrainLeft | June 26, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I think Wiggle is just the tip of the iceberg over at the post. Obviously a news reporter is human and can have views of their own, but the idea is to be TRULY impartial in the eyes of the reader. Today impartiality is alibi. The mission of today's liberal press is to fool the reader/viewer into thinking they are impartial, all the while advocating, if only subtlety. In some cases its just a word, or sometimes it may be a gesture, but either way you get the game.

The effect is polarization on a large scale between news outlets. Its already happened. But that ultimately leads to polarization of the people, which is terrible, and has also already happened too. The other effect is that it makes almost impossible to know the truth and that is whats really important.

Posted by: tom56 | June 26, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

What standing? How is he really different than that which is implied by any normal day's writings of the post? The post hasn't been and does not even pretend to be objective.

Posted by: rwbill | June 26, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

You have nothing to worry about Andrew. The WaPo never had any standing. Except maybe the go to paper for fish wrap...

Posted by: caper29 | June 26, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of damn crybabies! Morons.org or DailyKos not enough for you?

Here's your newspaper:

http://www.nytimes.com/

Now please quite down.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | June 26, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

What everyone seems to forget - or ignore - is that Weigel wasn't taken out by a conservative - someone on JournoList leaked those emails. It was one of Weigel's buddies who stabbed him in the back. Who knows why? I like the Ron Paul theory - Weigel has defended Ron Paul before, which marked him as a heretic on Journolist. (Remember, the right looks for converts, the left looks for heretics.) He tried so hard to fit in ("ZOMG! It's so awful having to cover these icky, icky conservatives!"), but they just weren't buying it. The Juicebox Mafia polices its own.

When will the left learn to leave Matt Drudge alone? Seriously - just don't look at him. Don't think about him, don't go near him. Drudge is the Roadrunner, the left is the coyote. And here they are, over the cliff once again.

Posted by: stubbylibrarian | June 26, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Your absurdly over-the-top coverage of macacagate ended your credibility among conservatives. Not that you had much before that.

The WaPo is one of the established leaders of the liberal media. Now that conservatives have their own media, you are irrelevant to them. There are twice as many conservatives as liberals, so your business model won't work. What a shame!

Posted by: eoniii | June 26, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"1) That wasn't Fox News - it was a local Florida Fox affiliate. 2) The ruling had nothing to do with whether or not the material was accurate; the court ruled that basically she filed under a non-existent law."

After I hit submit I said to myself, I bet they'll try and hide behind it being a "local Fox affiliate."

Well if Fox HQ wasn't on board, they could strip the franchise from the affiliate. They could issue a statement saying they didn't agree with their franchisee's legal position. None of that happened.

In fact, if you read about the history of the case, the affiliate was taking orders from Fox HQ all along, and it was Fox News corporate lawyers who were trying to meddle in the content of the story after Monsanto lawyers contacted them.

And the Appeals court didn't rule on the accuracy of the case because Fox News did not even try to claim what they wanted the journalists to broadcast was accurate. They let that part of the plaintiff's case stand uncontested. Judges only rule on the contested parts of a case. If I the plaintiff say X happened, and you the defendant do not contest X, then the Judge just assumes X happened and rules based on that. Fox's chosen defence was not that the story they wanted to broadcast was true, but that the plaintiff had no cause to sue for being fired for being ordered to lie since no law requires them to tell the truth in news.

The legal fact remains that two award winning journalists were fired from Fox for trying to tell the truth about a large corporation putting unsafe additives into milk.

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Sure a lot of Mr. Weigel's compatriots standing up for him in the remarks section, they are all using non de plumes however so you can't tell if they are among the cabal. The MSM is 95% Democrat, far left Democrat, really far left, borders on being Department 6 of the old KGB in fact. No one is really surprised, everyone already knows it, its why most have stopped reading or watching the propaganda organs of the DNC. Its a terrible thing when you get ratted out by someone you trusted, I feel sorry for Mr. Weigel however, he'll never know just what 'friend' did the deed.

Posted by: rnord | June 26, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives.

that's what you care about

offending conservatives ???

when you write the truth about a bunch of liars and hypocrites, you're gonna offend the liars and hypocrites

good to know that the wapoop cares more about conservatives that they fo about reporting news

propaganda artists

and not very good propaganda artists

Posted by: nada85484 | June 26, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Thelastbrainleft:

"Scientician: You have horribly misrepresented the facts in question. The lawsuit involved a local FOX affiliate, not FOX NEWS itself. Local news broadcasts are not under the control of the FOX News Channel. There is no connection between Ms. Akre and FOX News. "

I replied to this above in some sense, but this is even dumber than I first thought. Fox News licenses the name "Fox" to a channel in Florida. Do you think they don't insist on some level of editorial control over that brand name? Do you understand how franchising works? Could your local McDonald's could just start selling tacos or make its own deal with Pepsi for the fountains? Could they fight in court for the right to sell rotten beef to the public with permission from McDonalds HQ? Of course not.

Fox News has significant power over its local affiliates. It's hysterical that you're so ignorant with the function of modern corporations to think they would ever lend out their brand name to small partners without complete control over how they are used.

This is confirmed in the details of the case where Ms. Akre spent months faxing back and forth with Fox lawyers in New York over edits to the story they wanted to broadcast. So much for your "no connection" false claim.

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

You lost me when you admitted that you were biased during the last Presidential elections.

(The ombudsman article "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage")

Posted by: jilly999 | June 26, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Fire the editors who "vetted" this moron

"He interviewed with a variety of top editors, his writings were reviewed and his references were checked." Of course these people would consider him "fair and balanced," they are wild leftists themselves.

Fire them all. Only then can the Post hope to overcome it's well deserved current reputation as a group of inbred arrogant elitists and an arm of the far left Progressives.

Posted by: willrob | June 26, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Scientician, you are a liar. FOX News and local FOX affiliates are not centrally controlled. Yes, Newscorp represented WTVT in the lawsuit, as they are obligated to do, but the entire affair concerned only a local affiliate. FOX haters have been perverting the facts of this case for nearly a decade. It's stunning that you all seem to be using the same tired, old talking points.

Posted by: TheLastBrainLeft | June 26, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The journalists were NOT fired from Fox. I believe you will find that hiring and firing is at the sole discretion of the management of the local station - at least that is the case in the instances I have knowledge of.

Also there is a huge difference in deciding what to report vs what not to report and reporting false information. News organizations every day decide what to report and what not to report. There can be many reasons for not airing a story, and I don't know whether the station made the correct decision re reporting on this or not (nor do I suspect do you). However, choosing not to report something is not the same as telling a lie, so you need to be more careful with your accusations of lying. So, I'm still waiting for the example of Fox News broadcasting a known and verifiable lie in their news reports.

Posted by: old_and_wise | June 26, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"But the bigger loss is The Post’s standing among conservatives."

Wrong: it confirms The Post's standing among conservatives -- as an unrelentingly left wing and anti-conservative rag.

(The Sports section ain't bad.)

Posted by: hoyatiger | June 26, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"The MSM is 95% Democrat, far left Democrat, really far left, borders on being Department 6 of the old KGB in fact. "

This is why the Post can never please the modern right. They're crazy. They really can't tell the difference between Bill Clinton and Joseph Stalin. Between a 3% extra tax on the super rich and "commanding the heights of production" or liquidating your enemies.

Notice not one left winger has called any of these people fascists or equated them to right wing extremists from history like Hitler or Franco or Mussolini or Pinochet (though the American conservatives of those eras admired these men tremendously).

I can tell the difference between the Night of Broken Glass and trying to end the estate tax. I can argue against the latter without equating it to the former.

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I do not see a problem here. Conservatives know that WaPo is a leftist paper. Why even try to apease conservatives. As a conservative I have no problem with this. I do find it halarious how leftist who have 3 major networks, 2 major cable outlets along with just about every major print media get so worked up over little Fox news. You want it all. But please try and comprehend that you comprise but 20% of the idealogical divide. Try and remember this, because for every 2 of you agreeing, there are 4 of us laughing at you! And another 4 scratching their heads.

Posted by: keithbo61 | June 26, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Scientician, you are a liar. FOX News and local FOX affiliates are not centrally controlled. Yes, Newscorp represented WTVT in the lawsuit, as they are obligated to do, but the entire affair concerned only a local affiliate."

Oh how the goal posts shift. Now they're at the 30 yard line for a touchdown. Yes, Newscorp's lawyers represented WTVT in court, but they *had* to! They were powerless to tell their affiliate to only broadcast truth! Poor corporate giant, beat up by this dishonest little station from florida. Why whatever could they do about it?

If any of this was true, Fox news could have taken away the franchise. WTVT is still a fox affiliate. Fox news was not displeased by what happened.

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh, puhleeze...conservatives know WaPo is a leftist paper; why pretend otherwise? And, conservatives already knew the stripes of this particular blogger (is this a NEWSpaper or a newspaper losing ciruculation who thinks printing bloggers' opinions is going to somehow save it?), so this comes as ZERO surprise. Really, I fail to see the issue here...I read the paper for what LOCAL news it does choose to print (since the local TV news basically reports on murder and Metro mayhem)and to read Carolyn Hax's column in the Style section.

I wouldn't depend on the WaPo for news if my life depended on it. It lost credibility as a balanced source of news a long time ago.

Posted by: susanscuba | June 26, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The WaPo is losing standing among everyone but rabid liberals. This will continue until they prove to the public they are truly an unbiased newspaper. They have carried as much water for Obama as all the other liberal rags. If the WaPo ceased to exist tomorrow then the country would be better off for it. The WaPo like the NYT, LAT etc. have transcended from reporting the news to becoming political arms for the liberal elite. They no longer qualify as news organization to the overwhelming majority of the public. They are in fact hurting the country by not vetting candidates like Obama properly and honestly. If this continues then the WaPo and most other liberal newspapers will cease to exist and the country will be better off when they are gone.

Posted by: MikeJ9116 | June 26, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

It's sad that so many posting here see nothing wrong with the pitiful and revolting bile spewing of this foul creature who got fired. Until we have journalists who can write honorably about the state of affairs in our troubled nation, regardless of political affiliation, the quality of discourse will continue its long decline into the gutter.

Posted by: beck2448 | June 26, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Scientician: Unless you have read the contract, you don't know whether FOX could have taken away the local affiliate's right to stream Fox's programs over this incident or not.

Posted by: old_and_wise | June 26, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

old_and_wise:

"Also there is a huge difference in deciding what to report vs what not to report and reporting false information."

That isn't what happened. Fox News lawyers were working with Monsanto lawyers to edit the story the journalists were to broadcast. They were fired for refusing to read that modified-to-the-point-of-being-lies version of the story. This isn't a question of simply not reporting a story, but of trying to order journalists to knowingly say things that are not true on the air. These weren't the franchisee's lawyers either, they were Newscorp lawyers in New York.

And spare me the line that the affiliate makes hiring and firing decisions at sole discretion. They're a franchisee and Fox can take away the franchise at will. They always have power over the affiliates. No one franchises a powerful brand name without insisting on plenty of control over it. McDonalds HQ can get any cashier fired from a mcdonalds for failing a mystery shopper test. Like Fox news is going to let people use their name on broadcast television without any control.

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

No worry - you still have Kristol, Gerson, Thiessan, and let's not forget Will and Broder.

At least Weigel didn't use the Rightwing excuses - "It was a joke!" and "free speech" and "bunch of whiners."

And if you really have lost standing among Conservatives, that's a good thing. The Post has become way too conservative and should go back to it's roots of being a great newspaper and not pandering to conservatives.

Posted by: FauxReal | June 26, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The Post can't lose standing with conservatives that it didn't have for decades. It remains a 3rd rate "news" organization the a blatently leftist political agenda. Conservatives go to more credible sources to get news.

Posted by: ecartr5 | June 26, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

This appears to be a he said/she said case.
"the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned because ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute,..."
If this is the reason you flat out stated that Fox News lies, you need to find something a whole lot definitive than this.

That's all from me today - got to go work.

Posted by: old_and_wise | June 26, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Weigel, purporting to be neutral and with some conservative perspective, seemingly must have lied to get his job in the first place. Of course, his being "libertarian, with an occasional leftist slant" made him the Left's acceptable version of a Conservative -- without principle, without core values, not presenting any viable opposition.

It turned out he was just the same as the rest of the Progressive Left, posting pseudo-intellectual sanctimosity while, when speaking as his true self, he was spewing hate and disdain. (And of course, while calling Conservatives the "haters".)

No one will miss this forgettable person. His Progressive fans will follow him to see if he comes up with a new and clever insult for Conservatives. But the rest of us actually interested in different perspectives and how they are arrived at are happy to read and participate elsewhere.

Posted by: Austin10 | June 26, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Reporting news is supposed to be about fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship.

Unfortunately, todays journal students seem to be increasingly taught to "spin" instead of "report".

Posted by: AWTH

========================================

what kind of idiot are you ???

there is no part of journalism that involves "being fair"

there are no "opposing sides" to facts

a story about corruption is going to be viewed as unfair by the corrupt person

or, in the case of the teabagger terrorists, a story about idiots is going to be viewed as "unfair" by the idiots

journalism is supposed to offend somebody

the truth isn't bi-partisan

when you write the truth somebody is going to look bad

if you try to make everybody look good, or present both sides of an argument as equal, you are lying about one side or the other

conservatives are upset because reality has a liberal bias

tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. trickle down economics is a failure. abstinence lectures are NOT the best way to prevent teen pregnancy, and deregulation was not the boon to business we were told it would be

oh yeah, and fighting terrorists in Iraq is not the best way to prevent terrorist attacks over here

those are all failed republican policies

there is no fair way to debate them

conservative ideas don't work

reporting $arah paylin's idiotic answers to questions is not "gotcha journalism"

facts are facts, $arah paylin is an idiot

there is no "bi-partisan" way to say that

journalism is about calling an idiot an idiot

who cares if you offend $arah paylin

she's an idiot

just tell the truth, and let the idiots throw their temper tantrums

$arah paylin doesn't read anyway

do you think her supporters are going to read the wapoop if the wapoop says she's smart ???

so why bother trying to please everybody

the idiots and crooks are always going to be displeased when you point out tmhat they are idiots and crooks

that is why us intelligent people pay you

(well, I used to pay you, before you hired lil debbie snack cakes)

Posted by: nada85484 | June 26, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

First I would hope the ComPost would WANT to lose the standing it has with conservatives. That would entail leaving their opinion on the OpEd page and not in articles above the fold. I've read an example of comments herein and it is a hoot. Caught red handed I read generalized personal attacks against conservatives and ad hominem slur and slander with not a shred of support for their argument.

The ComPost is a rag and a conduit for liberal and progressive propaganda. Admit it. You've been caught yet again. Noooooow do you wonder why the new print plant was closed almost as soon as it opened? You can have a slant, just keep it on the OpEd pages.

Posted by: theduck6 | June 26, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The Post is highly biased against anyone who is not from the far Left. I canceled my 28 year-old subscription months ago; now I take the Wall Street Journal, and I am very happy with my decision. Of course, I still read the Post, the NY Slimes, et al., I just don't support them.

And how many from the ignorant Left (but I repeat myself) regularly read the WSJ, watch Fox, or listen to conservative talk radio regularly? Oh, but they don't have anything to learn from those sources, right?

Harvard Ph.D.

Posted by: volatile | June 26, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The problem isn't Weigel, or conservatives, the problem is the WaPo is losing $millions$. One solution is that everyone there works for the mininum wage, which has its good points. Another solution would be to expand the reader base, and so advertising revenue. I know it makes the ideologically pure liberals cringe, but in the business world, those are "customers", and, in the real world, it means having a WaPo tomorrow, or not.

This time, it failed, a consevative-hating bigot at that. The jury is still out as to whether the WaPo can hire someone with credibility on the conservative side (the list runs into the 100's, for god's sake), make money (you know, like Fox News. you know, profitable. sounds weird, I understand), and actually stick around.

Posted by: pashley1411 | June 26, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

old_and_wise:

"Scientician: Unless you have read the contract, you don't know whether FOX could have taken away the local affiliate's right to stream Fox's programs over this incident or not."

I bet you all the gay pornography in the sock drawers of all the leaders of the Christian right that Fox news can yank the franchise from any affiliate at will.

Would you let someone run around town using your name without control over what they did?

Posted by: Scientician | June 26, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse


David Weigel graduated from the American Community School in London, England; a left wing international boarding school where globalism and multi-culturalism are foundational concepts. Activities and field trips include unique trips like the Model United Nations in Beijing. Students also participate in many local and international community activities including Habitat for Humanity and Mission Antarctica.

After receiving a socialist brainwashing from this institution, he studied Journalism and Political Science at another far left cesspool, Rahm Emanuel’s alma mater in Chicago, Northwestern.

In the final analysis, he is a naïve 20-something who believes in moral relativism. With no moral compass, he is unable to distinguish right from wrong. His writings exhibit a pedagogical vacuousness that mirrors the modern socialist society in England.

David Weigel is unable to comprehend conservative concepts and values; therefore he is unfit to write about them. Until he grows up and gets a proper education, he should stick to writing about things he understands.

Posted by: bill7021 | June 26, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

42% of the country now identify as conservative versus 20-something percent who say they're libs.

The WaPo might consider respectfully, fairly covering conservatism.

Newsweek is toast. Perhaps objectivity and respect towards conservatives would slow the otherwise inevitable demise of the WaPo.

Posted by: susangorgo | June 26, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hmm. There were more to lose? That's interesting, seeing as how the Washington Post and most of the rest of the mainstream media have given conservatives the back of their hand for decades.

I'm surprised any conservative would read the Washington Post for news [maybe they crack it open for the gossip].

Posted by: DualTurbos | June 26, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Speaking as a Ron Paul supporter, or Paultard to Weigel, we knew he had a chip on his shoulder against the Pauls from his writing. That was no secret. But I have a problem with private snark in private emails costing a journalist his job. We aren't shy and when we think he is being a tool, we say so. (You're a tool, David.)

I am worried more about how 'PC' journalists have to be, neutering diversity of opinion, than I am about the occassional slam in my direction. The list serve only bothers me to the extent it is true (as Frum, whom I NEVER read but read today says it is) that it served as an independent editor of groupthink beyond that of the publication employing the journalist. I think there is all too much groupthing already, and a listserv that served that purpose is a reason not to bother reading anyone on that list serve, or at least ONLY one, if there is only one opinion to be had there.

I think WaPo is wrong on the firing. I think David was a chump for belonging to a group think list serve, if that is true.

Whatever. I at least READ Weigel, something tells me you will hire someone safe and boring to replace him, or a Cheneyite, there being a lot at loose ends these days, with their opinion no longer being ascendant. It is WaPos own fault if they replace Weigel with someone no one wants to read.

Posted by: sailingaway1 | June 26, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse


Who are the "...non thinking 10% of the people" referred to? If you intend to refer to conservatives, they outnumber liberals in this country two to one. Only 20% of the people are liberal; 42% are conservative.

Posted by: old_and_wise |


================================

42% refer to themselves as conservative

if you really were wise, you would know that self identification in an opinion poll is highly unreliable

overwhelming majorities of Americans support the core liberal positions on the most important political questions today

the very idea of America, and constitutional government is a LIBERAL idea

liberals support progress in the human condition

emancipation, universal suffrage, human equality, basic rights and freedoms

those are all LIBERAL ideas

but most Americans don't realize that

Posted by: nada85484 | June 26, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

One good question to ask prospective employees is: "Do you belong to any radical far-left listservs created by partisan ideologues who are deliberately trying to shape the news and create negative memes of conservatives"?

Everyone knows that Weigel was Ezra Klein's anti-conservative sock puppet. Klein's the one who took someone he knew for a fact to be virulently anti-conservative and recommended him for a job covering conservatives to his bosses at the Washington Post. Yet, for some reason no one is discussing how this whole sorry episode damages Klein's reputation. He tried to pull a fast one on everybody and he would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that darn pesky Tucker Carlson. LMAO!

Now, as a remedy, why doesn't the Washington Post publish all 400 members of Klein's listserv, since anyone with half a functioning brain knows that all 400 of them speak and feel exactly the same about conservatives as Weigel does? I think Americans deserve to know which so-called journalists, who represent themselves as neutral, belonged to an anti-conservative, secretive, oppo research echo chamber. A fraud has been perpetrated on all Americans for the past three years, and we deserve to know which anti-conservative stories and memes where hatched by Klein's listserv and which members of the televised and print media furthered Klein's yellow JournOlism.

Posted by: OxyCon | June 26, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

All in all, I think the news reporting in the Post has gotten better.

Speaking as someone who once had a column in a major metropolitan newspaper, in my 50s I have become tired of reading critics, pundits, opinions, etc., including those I agree with.

Meanwhile, what we used to call "journeyman" reporting has gotten harder and harder to find, especially in the big, "sexy" papers like the WSJ, Post, NYT.

Just give me the facts, please.

Posted by: peartree | June 26, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

There are many hilarious things on display here in both the article and the comments. The funniest thing may be that the Post thinks it is fooling anyone. "Oops! We just found out one of our writers is a leftist! How could that have happened, darn it?" It's funny how when this happens, it never turns out to be a secret conservative masquerading as a liberal. It always turns out to be a liberal... amazing. Your mistakes all fall one way, like flipping a coin a thousand times and having it always come up heads.

Almost as funny, though, is to see the liberal commenters here pretend that they are intelligent. I admit that some of the liberal comments are fair and thoughtful, but most of the time they show no propensity for actual critical thought. What you see instead is a hurried effort to throw up roadblocks every time one of their beliefs is challenged. Typically they dismiss any conservative idea outright as the product of people who are either stupid or liars.

There is no argument here, only a grand parade of excuses for not arguing, and this has been the chief characteristic of liberalism for decades now. "There's no reasoning with these people," one poster said, throwing his hands up. In fact, there are few people here who even try to reason. Most of them are content to look in their bag of argument avoidance tricks and pull out another excuse for why they won't argue.

Posted by: mrdarklight | June 26, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry.Conservatives never paid much attention to the Post anyway and sacrificing sheep and goats to the God Head Obama in 2008 pretty well sealed that one permanently.Simply a more pretentious (if thats possible) version of the Puffington Host

Posted by: diana11777 | June 26, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Scientician,
First of all, the report that you've distorted here, never even aired.
http://tinyurl.com/356pevo

Second, that lawsuit had nothing to do with news coverage.
The jury was charged with deciding whether Aker was fired as a result of threatening to file a complaint to the FCC. That's all.

http://tinyurl.com/yhk3la4

Aker and Wilson were fired because they were rabid moonbats who wanted to air a report that was biased against the use of a particular bovine hormone manufactured by Monsanto. That is...without proof, they set out to declare on behalf of science, that this hormone was dangerous. My guess is they used the same type of logic demonstrated by progressives here.
They "believed" the hormone to be dangerous, therefore it was.
And any attempt to stand in their way is an affront to the perfection of their judgment and character.


Monsanto did what any one would do, and said that the report was biased and would do damage to their company.

Fox decided not to air the report, and the moonbats reporters got angry.

A typical progressive response. If you don't get your way...sue.

Posted by: MrMeaner | June 26, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The Post isn't sorry for the ugly things Klein and Wiegel said, just sorry they got caught.

Posted by: carlbatey | June 26, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

i guarantee you the WAPO could not do anything to change the opinion conservatives have of the paper.

Posted by: sdcolin | June 26, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The Post's greatest loss is conservative readership? Really? I would have said that the greatest loss came when someone whose posts people actually READ decided to resign because of another tempest in a teapot.

Andy, before you apologize to anyone, maybe you should take the time to understand what it means that the offending comments from Weigel came not in his blog in his professional stead as a journalist, but in e-mails. We can all go on and on about how e-mails should never be considered private and they'll be leaked and that Weigel should have never made those comments in the first place, but in reality, this isn't about someone making offensive comments and being biased. It's really about some whiny, jealous "journalists" leaking someone's e-mails in yet another series of hit pieces.

It's really no wonder that I rarely even read the online version of the Post anymore; first you got rid of Dan Froomkin, and now this nonsense. At least neither of them put on the zombie caps and stumbled around mumbling "one of us...one of us" when reporting on the conservative movement. In this day and age of conservatives attempting to bully anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview or who doesn't sugarcoat reporting of the movement and the stands it takes, that's wholly refreshing, offensive comments notwithstanding.

Posted by: brimadison | June 26, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The real problem is when a columnists private beliefs are completely inconsistent with their public posture. Here you have a person who is privately a leftist pretending to be objective about conservatism - an Alinsky style level of duplicity. In terms of the WaPo telling staffers that their private positions could be damaging if surfaced -NO - their HYPOCRISY can be damaging if surfaced. All conservatives are asking for is that the reporters be up front about their biases.

Posted by: student1776 | June 26, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Dave Weigel graduated from some foreign place. Some other people who have gone there have taken participated in the Model UN and done crazy liberal things like build houses for poor people. Therefore, Dave Weigel is a flaming liberal.

After properly indoctrinated by those limey bastards from another country, he went to Chicago, which is not real America because some liberals also once lived there.

This enables us to say that he has no moral compass, and is probably a vampire (a bad one, not a sparkly Twilight one.) Also, here is a sudden smattering of large words so that I sound intellectual, even though I just spent two paragraphs bashing overly educated folks.

Because Dave Weigel said bad things about Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge, who must never be questioned by anyone, not even our most conservative legislators, he is clearly a radical leftist who cannot possibly report on the things he was reporting on. We therefore demand that we receive newspaper coverage only from reporters that share all aspects of our ideology, and Weigel needs to be properly re-educated in a not at all creepy and Orwellian-sounding way.

Posted by: HunterDK | June 26, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

So I'm reading a Drudge Report headline and it says "POST Ombudsman: Paper loses standing among conservatives...", and I think 'interesting, I wonder what paper the POST thinks is losing conservatives" ... so I click, and get here, only to read that it's talking about itself! The POST thinks it HAS a standing among conservatives? Wow. Will wonders never cease.

Posted by: Syzygy7 | June 26, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm seriously wondering at this point who _isn't_ considered a "radical leftist" these days. I mean, if you can no longer tell the difference between a Weigel middle-libertarian type and Hillary Che Soros McAcorn, maybe we need more gradations in the ol' political chart.

It would even be possible to agree with Weigel's firing over the private messages without claiming that he is a flaming closet "leftist". At least, it should be.

But apparently it's not, because all it takes to be a "leftist" is... well, criticizing prominent conservatives. It's not enough to merely dislike the guy or question his neutrality -- no, no, he must secretly be a "leftist" now.

Well, good luck to the Post in figuring out what action will properly gain them "standing" among conservatives when a whole comment thread is dedicated to the proposition that pretty much everyone in the newspaper is a "leftist" anyway.

Posted by: HunterDK | June 26, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It really says something greater about conservatives when someone who is supposed to offer opinion (that's what blogging is all about - opinion) on conservatives doesn't have anything good to say about conservatives. But this is what the world has become. It's now a world where "death panels" and "killing granny" are mistaken for thoughful critic.

Posted by: Frazil | June 26, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

So the Washington Post admits that Weigel's liberal, anti-conservative bias is clear in his blog. They should have fired him before the emails were leaked, but obviously, the Washington Post likes that bias in their articles and blogs; they just don't seem to like their biased reporters admitting it so blatantly. It is clear they hired Weigel to trash the people he and the Washington Post hate. According to the Ombudsman, the new hiring practice that the Post is kicking around is not to be more careful to hire objective reporters but to make sure none of baised reporters they hire have admitted they are biased liberals on the Internet.

Posted by: jcam1 | June 26, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Where's the Al Gore story, leftist water carrying compost? Imagine for a second that was Todd Palin..

Posted by: wewintheylose | June 26, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander:

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The Post has no standing whatsoever with conservatives, or even with those who simply want "conservative" issues covered evenhandedly.
The fact that Weigel was hired to begin with after supposed careful vetting makes it pretty clear there was no standing to lose in the first place.
That all said, I can understand why you gave him a whirl. As a writer for Reason, Weigel clearly showed an anti-authoritarian streak. I am a conservativeish libertarian and I have a problem with the authoritarian bent of politicians such as Guliani and Buchanan. too. But my antiauthoritarianism also covers the other side of the spectrum, people like Gore, Leahy, Clinton.
Still, you had no standing to lose. Consider maybe trying to BUILD some standing first.

Posted by: daskinner | June 26, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

It would be silly to assume that ANY source in the Main Stream Media could lose ANY more credibility with Conservatives than they have already by bedding down with Democrats.

Posted by: Contfrk | June 26, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse


Weigel writes: "This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire."

So, just who is it that has emotional problems? Only a mind that has been destroyed by liberalism could make such a sick comment.

Our country is currently vulnerable to attack by Muslim extremists because our intelligence services and our military have been rendered ineffective and dysfunctional by left wing political correctness.

Our country faces a far greater danger than terrorism, however.

Our Constitution, our freedoms, our economic well being, our entire way of life, is being threatened by liberalism. The left wing progressive movement in this country has been gaining momentum since Herbert Hoover and now threatens to permanently destroy America as we know it.

People like this little snot David Weasel would turn this country into another Cuba.

He is a card carrying member of the “enemy within” that must be defeated at all costs if we are to save this nation.

For those liberals who haven’t reached the final stages of this mental disorder, seek help before it is too late:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/097795630X

Posted by: bill7021 | June 26, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Dear Washington Post. Please make an effort to curry "standing" with bill7021, the commenter above. I'm dying to see how that works out for you.

Posted by: HunterDK | June 26, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"After receiving a socialist brainwashing from this institution, he studied Journalism and Political Science at another far left cesspool, Rahm Emanuel’s alma mater in Chicago, Northwestern."

Mr. Alexander should take note of the above reasoned argument and reflect upon the fruitlessness of WaPo's ceaseless efforts to oil the eternally squeaking Conservative wheel. Have you examined Mr. Weigel's actual work for bias, or merely reacted in a kneejerk, hysterical fashion to please a part of your audience that has everything to gain by staying permanently displeased?

I think the answer is obvious.

Posted by: MrsPolly | June 26, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Weigle's writings indicate the type of human he is. I'm glad I'm not that sort.

Posted by: peterruggles | June 26, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse


mrdarklight | June 26, 2010 2:54 PM wrote: “I admit that some of the liberal comments are fair and thoughtful, but most of the time they show no propensity for actual critical thought.”

That is exactly right, mrdarklight.

Intellectual discussions require the rigorous use of reason and logic with a good measure of common sense in order to formulate reasonable intellectual positions that are based on reality. Since liberals live in a touchy-feely, politically correct, diverse, multi-cultural universe of fantasy instead of reality, and they operate on emotions instead of logic, you might as well attempt a rational discussion with a tree as have a debate with a leftist.

Posted by: bill7021 | June 26, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Judging from all the venomous anti-conservative animus eminating from Weigel, WaPo and all the myopic loony leftist posters here who support them, perhaps it would be better if conservatives looked elsewhere for a fair reading of the "news."

The leftists are what they are, no matter how diligently they try to represent themselves as being something else. They are convinced of the infallible sanctity of their own opinions and will never be convinced otherwise.

That is why they must be defeated, politically, culturally and if necessary, physically. It is the only way to abort their poisoning of Western society,

Posted by: Rico00 | June 26, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I think that the owners of The Washington Post do not "get" the fact, that acording to a major american polster more than 50% of American are conservative. (Poll came out this week).

Why would these conservatives want to listen to rigid ideologue trash coming from Dave Weigel and similar columnists? Do you honestly think that I am going to buy a newspaper or waste time on a site with someone drawing a salary to promote the left and bash conservatives? YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR MIND !!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Bornin1947 | June 26, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Dear Washington Post. As the commenter above said, liberals need to be "defeated politically, culturally, and if necessary, physically."

Please make an effort to curry "standing" among conservatives who believe physical "defeat" of American non-conservatives may be necessary. May I humbly request the conservative movement be covered by a reporter who similarly advocates physical attacks against Americans with differing political opinions? Anything else will result in Matt Drudge readers not having respect for you.

Posted by: HunterDK | June 26, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are first and foremost liars. As soon as you grasp that concept, it explains easily why a liberal rag would hire a nutty leftist as their "conservative blogger". The Newspaper lies by hiring the loony leftist, and the loony leftist lies to all of us. It explains why Obama is such a blatant liar, why the lies of Global Warming are eaten daily with a fork by Lefty when proven factually incorrect. The great truth is liberalism cannot tell the truth from lies. That is why it has been corrupted from within by the lies of the labor unions and the Saul Alinsky radicals. That is why hiring a liar like Weigel doesn't bother Lefty, as the ends always justify the Means.

Posted by: steveb6 | June 26, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I come to this site to read the lefty BS of the day. The very rare time I read anything I actually agree with, I almost fall off my chair. Get over yourself.

Posted by: BadNews | June 26, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"Others complained that he was a liberal trying to write about conservatives he disdained."

How does this make Weigel any different than 90% of the "journalists" out there??

And who's buying Klein's reason for closing down Journolist? Could it be other impartial "journalists" have expressed similar opinions of Conservatives on Journolist? And how many WaPo "journalists" belong to Journolist?

Posted by: systrac3 | June 26, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to imagine that liberals can't understand why Weigel should have been fired (or, never have been hired). Readers of these opinion journalists should be able to expect that they honestly represent themselves and be objective about the subjects they cover. Liberals expect that their political interests are being covered by someone liberal. Why should anyone question that a conservative should have a true conservative covering their POV, as opposed to a closet liberal who secretly has contempt for their views? And his contempt frequently evidenced itself in his writing. Liberals on this blog have wondered why WaPo even cares about what conservatives think... Probably because twice as many people self-identify as conservative as do so liberal, a ratio which is dramatically increasing and which will continue to do so through November, when there will be a convulsion in Washington of biblical proportion. Democrats will find themselves held in such utter disrepute that they are cast out in record numbers. Then the lengthy process of undoing all of the Reid-Pelosi-Obama damage can be undertaken.

Posted by: gfm2010 | June 26, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

No one I know expects the Post to be honest about Republicans or conservatives. It just doesn't happen. I don't have a beef with that but I do with those who claim to be fair but obviously are not. That is the POST. Maybe in
their eyes they believe they are but real conservatives know BS when we read it. That is OK though. Honest readers will read a variety of sources so it is more about the reader doing his job than the POST doing theirs.

Posted by: JLFuller | June 26, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Your newspaper doesn't have any standing among liberals either.

Posted by: tggault | June 26, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

WaPo,

Here's a clue from a conservative:

Start covering Democrats and the Obama White House with the same skepticism and disdain that you show towards conservatives and you might get some of us back.

I can tolerate "tough" coverage if it includes all sides, all parties, all agendas. This mean getting away from the DC/NYC bubble of Liberal Democrat thinking and exposing yourselves to other points of view.

Posted by: Axion | June 26, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander is one of the bright spots at the Washington Post. He answers just about every complaint I have had with the Post reporting.

Posted by: hz9604 | June 26, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

The very idea of a blogger who "kept an eye on" conservatism reveals the bias of the newspaper. Where is the blogger that "keeps an eye" on liberalism? Does he exist here? If not, why not? Does the editorial board not believe that liberals need to be monitored?

Conservatives are instead viewed as something foreign that should be studied and reported on. His whole column's reason for existence, and the apparent lack of anything for the other side, is some evidence for its bias.

Posted by: mrdarklight | June 26, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

What standing does WaPo have with conservatives? I was unaware that the Washington Post had much standing with anyone but liberals.

The Weigel kerfuffle merely illustrates yet again what conservatives, many libertarians and moderates already knew about WaPo...it's a liberal paper written by and for...other liberals.

What the Journolist really drives home is how monolithic journalists are in their liberal bias.

Trusting journalists and the outlets that employ them just became even harder for the average American.

Posted by: atlashrugg | June 26, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Alas, Weigel has lost his job. But the bigger problem is The Post’s lack of and credible standing among independents and conservatives, which is a direct result of the bias from the editourial staff to the majority of it's reporters and clear majority of it columnists.

Posted by: ZebZ | June 26, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't really have an issue with reporters having a political view. I just wish it would be stated up front so we the readers can judge for ourselves the merits of the reporting. So imagine a reporter using "this liberal reporter" in the context of the article. Taking this further, Wapo might find that doing favorable articles on one side of the political spectrum written by the other. That is a conservative columnist reports on something he views as good amongst liberals and vice versa. I find that when I read articles supporting conservative views in the NYTimes and Wapo for example (and I don't mean editorials from commentators)it carries considerable weight. If the lefties are reporting it favorably, then you know it is true. Ditto for the Washington Times reporting favorably on liberal issues. When the "other side" is supporting your policies, you know there is some "there" there.

Posted by: wwwPoliticalCentrist | June 26, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

OK, I can take a joke as well as the next guy. Just when was it that the post had any "standing" among conservatives?

Posted by: faltschuler | June 26, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Once again, I see nobody addressing Weigel's WORK. I doubt very much if most of the conservatives here read a single article of his.

Are they aware that he mounted a defense of Rand Paul which liberals took very ill? Of course not.

One thing is clear, however; everybody agrees that the WaPo's credibility with conservatives is nil. Perhaps the ombudsman should simply examine the writer's work for actual bias rather than trying to controll "perceptions" at the expense of reality.

Posted by: MrsPolly | June 26, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Alas, Weigel has lost his job. But the bigger problem is The Post’s lack of and credible standing among independents and conservatives, which is a direct result of the bias from the editourial staff to the majority of it's reporters and clear majority of it columnists.

Posted by: ZebZ | June 26, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

First of all, the words "Post" and "journalism" are mutually exclusive and should not be used in the same sentence.

Second, Mr. Alexander wrote: "Weigel’s exit, and the events that prompted it, have further damaged The Post among conservatives who believe it is not properly attuned to their ideology or activities."

The real problem, sir, is that the Post is not properly attuned to telling the truth.

Posted by: snoris | June 26, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

What I don't understand, is why the Washington Post has an ombudsman to begin with???...I guess it is the same rationale, as why they have a "conservative" (Weigel) to cover conservatives...The Washington Post is a joke....

Posted by: alan19 | June 26, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Weigel showed poor judgment in his private life with some of his comments and certainly deserved discipline if not getting fired. However to fire him for his private behavior while the Washington Post knowingly publishes the lies of George Will strongly argues the WaPo is not capable of committing journalism.

What Mr. Will and other dishonest columnists do is far more egregious than Mr. Weigel's private behavior.

Posted by: michael_heath | June 26, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Most of these comments are just hilarious. A liberal, masquerading as a neutral observer writes stories that put conservatives in the most unfavorable light is defended by other liberals who don't care that he was being blatantly dishonest. Even the Post can't bring itself to really condemn his dishonesty but then what else is there to expect from a far left publication that won't admit it is far left.

Posted by: tostlund | June 26, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

F U C K WA PO

Posted by: jd763 | June 26, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

F U C K WA PO and ITS MOTHER F U C K I N G REPORTERS AND BLOGGERS

Posted by: jd763 | June 26, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

The Post will never be a newspaper again, it is an opinion paper carefully selecting the angles and editing incidents to best influence people to vote Democrat. The best plan is to just declare yourselves a Democrat paper and shed the embarrasing pretense of objectivity.

If the Post had made the slightest effort to vet Obama rather than just cast him in favorable lights and glowing halos, perhaps there would be hope that credibility could be restored. Journolists and this current nonsense make the bias appear so invasive that it cannot be rooted out.

Sorry.

Posted by: caramia999 | June 26, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

The Post didn't lose anything; what it did do is confirm the suspicion of every conservative about the "liberal media," which is that they collude to further the interests of the Democratic party.

Tell me, Mr. Alexander, why is Ezra Klein still employed after this episode? He proudly admits to starting a liberal journalists-only listserv that served as a platform for them to collude in manipulating the political narrative.

Are there other WaPo writers who were part of JournoList? Did they push or shut down certain stories, as Weigel's email suggests, in order to help or hurt the Democratic Party? Is that acceptable to you as an ombudsman? Shouldn't your priority be to investigate the JournoList participants at WaPo and find out if they wrote stories conforming with other JournoList collaborators?

Posted by: sungkim | June 26, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Andrew,

Face it, you have a liberal editor and your newsroom is liberal. When did you last hire a conservative (excepting a few columnists)? And that is the problem.

If you want coverage of the consevative movement, hold your nose and hire (choke, choke) a conservative.

Look at Ed Morrissey (formerly of Captain's Quarters), now with Hot Air. He writes well researched articles on subjects liberals won't touch. You probably couldn't get Patrick Frey (Patterico) a lawyer and a California prosecutor, but it would be worth a try. If not try DRJ who writes for the same blog. She is an outstandingly versitile writer and a conservative.

Set yourself apart from the the New York Times and offer some variety from a political perspective. It could pay dividends.

Posted by: corkyboyd1 | June 26, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"The MSM is 95% Democrat, far left Democrat, really far left, borders on being Department 6 of the old KGB in fact. "

This is why the Post can never please the modern right. They're crazy. They really can't tell the difference between Bill Clinton and Joseph Stalin. Between a 3% extra tax on the super rich and "commanding the heights of production" or liquidating your enemies.

Scientician: Have you ever heard of soft and hard tactics in warfare? Do you know the difference? Hard tactics are what we are doing in Afghanistan- real physical pain in order to distort the outcome of a set of events. Soft tactics have to do with culture, economics, and sovreignty. China can be quoted as attempting (and succeeding) in using soft tactics to weaken
America (overloaning to bankrupt us, feeding our children, dogs and people poisonous products, etc.).

When a group of elitists that have no clue about what it is actually like making $23,000 as a married couple create laws that constantly erode the financial foundation of struggling Americans through taxation and knowingly bankrupting the country with these laws that go against what the people want, logical people wonder if they aren't using soft tactics to influence the outcome of a certain set of events. The oil leak is a fine example where they use hard tactics (physical pain) to inact soft tactics (cap and trade, job loss I.e. Drilling moratoriums, and culture corruption-Cajun way of life) that erode the Constitutional American way of life.

I think you are concerned about side issues and not really what is at stake in the real world. You're arguing Fox fought for the right to lie in Journalism when indeed all media outlets enjoy that freedom now. Had it not been Fox, I think chances are good another outlet could have had a similar case.

Also, please do not have such a short memory: Nancy Pelosi has called the Tea Party Nazis- for wanting individual freedoms!

Please go learn about warfare tactics and stop being a useful Tool.

Posted by: Sharingnews | June 26, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

It must require a loon of the first water to ever refer to the Post as having even a
trace amout of Conservative slant! Perhaps it was meant as a joke!

Posted by: lightnin001 | June 26, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but your whole argument goes to hell in two words: Marc Theissen.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 26, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

It's ironic that the "liberal/progressives/socialists" are so upset that one of their own is outed by their favorite method of taking out conservatives via "leaked information". Too bad, if Weigel had been what he said he was, there would have been no problem.

Instead, the howling and flagellating over the WaPo's firing of Weigel for the obvious conflicts between "private" ideas and his public personae regarding how he described conservatives simply is an intellectual conflict of interest.

It breaks my heart (not) that Weigel is out, but this just enhances his creds for a left-winger blog job. Lying and liberal when it comes to conservative thought and people are like conjoined at the hip babies. You either just accept it as the way things are or try to stay in the closet and slip your work under the door hoping no one opens it while you're at the computer. It's odd that Drudge is castigated for linking to news yet it would appear a lot of liberals read Drudge. Another example of hypocrisy by the left.

Posted by: PfcHunter | June 26, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

There's nothing wrong with the Post, NYT, or LAT representing the views of the Far Left as they've always done, if they choose. For them to state that they have done otherwise, however, would make people question either their honesty or their intelligence!

Posted by: lightnin001 | June 26, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

There's nothing wrong with the Post, NYT, or LAT representing the views of the Far Left as they've always done, if they choose. For them to state that they have done otherwise, however, would make people question either their honesty or their intelligence!

Posted by: lightnin001 | June 26, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

I am very tired of the right wing persecution complex. All of the media is not liberally biased. Just not. But that will not stop the right wing from claiming that anything that is not a "fair and balanced" mouth piece of the GOP or talk radio is liberally biased. It does not matter how much the WaPo panders to the right wing (just look at the editorial page) it will still be considered a liberal rag by most conservatives. It just can't move right wing enough to change that.

Posted by: jswallow | June 26, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

jswallow actually opines that WaPo panders to the right. As evidence, he/she cites the so-called editorial page.

Because there appears an occasional piece illustrating even the slightest conservative viewpoint, that is too much for the Far Left. They expect "normal" to mean that every conservative idea is ridiculed, misrepresented, minimized, or outright lied about. Anything else constitutes "Far Right" bias.

These people can't really be blamed. They have been raised on an almost universal diet of egregiously slanted news coverage and schooled in an education system that is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the Communist teachers unions. (They are themselves the "education" arm of the Democrat party). So they truly don't know any better.

That is what is so daunting about the challenges facing conservatives. Liberals have their millions of teachers repressing the truth, docile minions in the press dutifully reporting the talking points while studiously ignoring any news stories that might tend to shine light on the thuggish practices of their leftist benefactors, and elected representatives who will stop at nothing to attain and retain power (witness Pelosi, Reid and Obama).

The conservatives have talk radio. So naturally, Obama and his cohorts in Congress are working behind the scenes to reimpose the "fairness doctrine," which would give an undeserved edge to liberals who cannot attract an audience themselves (witness Air America). Thus there is nothing "fair" about the fairness doctrine; it is designed solely to benefit the Democrats because they cannot compete viably in the arena of ideas. Their natural response is to try to cheat.

But every time the Democrats manage to win a major election, they just cannot stop themselves from going too far, indulging in every excess, wildly giving vent to their mania about spending other peoples' money. And that is what does them in... The current Congress has engaged in an absolute orgy of spending, a frenzied series of actions dedicated to setting themselves and their cronies up for the next several decades when they will be out of power...

The problem is, having no ethics, morals or particular concern about the well-being of regular Americans, they will fecklessly change the political dynamic by granting amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens in a frantic attempt to tip the electoral scales back in their favor in November. And they just might succeed.

If they do, that is the end of America as you and I know it. A permanent electoral majority as a result of being able to give away taxpayer money to more than 50% of the voting population. American government will have been effectively overthrown. The 2010 elections are the most important in the history of the Republic.

The Democrats must be overwhelmingly and resoundingly cast out. Anyone who values freedom will do the right thing. But the robots who have been brainwashed from birth to vote liberal will not go out without a hellish fight.

Posted by: gfm2010 | June 26, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

"Weigel’s e-mails showed strikingly poor judgment and revealed a bias that only underscored existing complaints from conservatives that he couldn’t impartially cover them. "

-------------------------------

And yet you can't point to a single example in his actual, you know, coverage.

Posted by: zuzu2 | June 26, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander, I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, but you failed to cite a single example of how Weigel's private beliefs distorted his reporting.

Also, how you are going to find a political reporter who has no opnions on politics.

Posted by: AlanSF | June 26, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Unless the Post drops its leftist bent and becomes a 'newspaper', reporting the news free of political bias and offering balanced op/ed, it will continue rapidly down the path of the dinosaur in this center-right country.

Posted by: KPosty | June 26, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

From the conservative dictionary:

Neutral (adjective): Ideologically aligned with and reflexively and absolutely supportive of every aspect of Conservatism and of all people who are themselves aligned with that ideology.

Clearly, Weigel did not satisfy this definition of neutral and should never have been allowed to report on the conservative movement.

Posted by: atlasfugged | June 27, 2010 1:49 AM | Report abuse

I knew this guy was a fraud from the first few words out of his blog. It was like putting a homosexual, pedophile in charge of a boys school, gym, locker room.

This is bound to happen when a big city, liberal, old-line, newspaper like the WaPo tries to cater to conservatives.

Like oil and water to use a current example.

Posted by: battleground51 | June 27, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

The real problem is that liberals have a conceited notion that whatever they think is somehow golden and non-debatable. Liberals believe that anyone who would dare challenge them on ideology is either stupid, ignorant or evil. This is not deniable by anyone who is not blinded by ideological bias thick and impenetrable.

Liberals are so thick that they do not realize, or do not care, that their vision of America is so repulsive to the majority of Americans that many Americans will start listening to right-wing ideologues as the only alternative to the diluted, Marxist theology of Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Frank/Shumer, etc.

The Democrat party IS NOW the party of EuroSocialism. It's a fact.

America is a center right country and the proof is that even with a huge majority in Congress and ownership of the White House, the socialists have been largely stymied in their attempts at Hugo Chavez style social "democracy".

If America was a leftist country, we would have been socialist years ago.

Posted by: battleground51 | June 27, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

So how is the Post's endeavor to shore up its cred with conservatives by firing reporters who privately express differing opinions doing this morning?

" They have been raised on an almost universal diet of egregiously slanted news coverage and schooled in an education system that is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the Communist teachers unions."

"I knew this guy was a fraud from the first few words out of his blog. It was like putting a homosexual, pedophile in charge of a boys school, gym, locker room."

" Liberals believe that anyone who would dare challenge them on ideology is either stupid, ignorant or evil. This is not deniable by anyone who is not blinded by ideological bias thick and impenetrable."

"First of all, the words "Post" and "journalism" are mutually exclusive and should not be used in the same sentence."

Well, Mr. Alexander, that certainly went well!

Posted by: MrsPolly | June 27, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

So let me get this straight: if a *liberal* writer were to privately express his or her disdain toward, or contempt for, certain *liberals*--for example, if I were fortunate to have a paying job writing about *liberal* concerns at a large newspaper and they got hold of my private emails saying what sorts of large, unwieldy objects Ralph Nader ought to shove up his nether regions--this would create wholesale damage to the newspaper's standing among *liberals*?

Furthermore, does the Post not realize that Dave Weigel was merely expressing--in private, for crying out loud--the same contempt for certain conservatives that many conservatives I know personally, and am even related to or married to, express ALL THE TIME, AND IN PUBLIC??? Conservatives are not a monolithic group, any more than liberals are.

The Washington Post, in firing Dave Weigel (or "accepting his resignation", whatever, same thing) has now firmly established, in plain view of all and sundry, that it is a bought-and-paid-for organ of the extreme right wing of the Republican party, and as such, will neither recognize nor permit any dissent or deviations of opinion within the Corpus Conserative.

Nay, their writers, unless clearly labeled with the L-word, must all toe the neocon line, and since neocon goals can only be met when enough religious rubes are on board, they must also worship at the altar of Sister Sarah of the Naughty Monkey Ravish-me Pumps, Birther of Several and Mother to None.

Posted by: litbrit | June 27, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Going back to Spiro T. Agnew, it has been a strategy of the hard right in this country to whine about "liberal media bias" in order to discredit honest coverage of its extreme policies and practices. Across the media industry, the whining has been immensely effective in muting and distorting honest coverage of the right-wing agenda. Nonetheless, even a paper like the Washington Post, which has drifted increasingly rightward in recent years, is still subject to endless tantrums by conservatives, not because of any real leftward bias at the paper (quite the contrary, in fact), but because the reactionary movement in this country is sustained by a mob psychology of rage and martyrdom, a bottomless sense of paranoia and self-pity. The power of the right to keep its followers pumped up depends to a very real extent upon this endless mantra of liberal bias--you could turn the paper over in toto to Limbaugh, Palin and Beck along with Gerson and Kristol, and the right would still find some evidence of "leftism" to keep the base inflamed. It is a tactic that has worked for them to a frightening extent, and they're not about to abandon it now. Weigel was a terrific reporter who was the target of a right-wing hit job; the Post, not surprisingly, capitulated without a murmur. Weigel, a gifted journalist despite his failure to have been a paid employee of the RNC or the Bush administration, deserves a better employer, and I'm sure he'll find one.

Posted by: myself3 | June 27, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander: While the Post's firing of a competent journalist for his private, off-the-record remarks was disgusting enough, it can't compare with this sniveling, groveling, whiny apology to the conservative movement. If your paper has fallen so far that they now hold as a goal "securing standing" with that corrupt mob of lunatics, you should just close up shop right now, because you have no place in the world of serious journalism.

Posted by: joesantos | June 27, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Why does the Post care about the whining of people who gave us $12 trillion in debt, mired us in two overseas conflicts, and broke our economy with their tax cuts for tycoons and deregulation?

It's bad enough that the WaPost helped enable some of this sorry state of affairs.

You've got a lot to be ashamed of, but hurting conservatives' tender feelings isn't on the list.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 27, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

No, Mr Alexander, the issue was NOT "sarcastic and scornful comments". The issue was false pretences and misrepresentation, a species of fraud. Weigel presented himself, with the Post's willful connivance, as a "conservative" and as an "objective" reporter on the conservative movement. But he was neither, as evidenced irrefutably by his membership in Journo-list, run by the very Ezra Klein who recommended Weigel to you. For what is Journo-List but a closed, private forum for leftists only, a place for liberal journalists and Democrat operatives to gather and get their talking points straight, to discuss how to skew the news to the left? Journo-Lists's very existence is an affront to journalistic integrity, and yet the Post actually hired as its token "conservative" blogger a denizen of that hive of scum and villainy.

Posted by: Bohemond | June 27, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

"He looked at the conservative movement as if he was visiting a zoo. We’re more than that."
.
Prove it. All the conservative movement has revealed to the world is a vacuous menagerie containing the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Steve King and Rand Paul...a zoo sounds like a pretty good description.

Posted by: skrekk | June 27, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"He looked at the conservative movement as if he was visiting a zoo. We’re more than that."
.
Prove it. All the conservative movement has revealed to the world is a vacuous menagerie containing the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Steve King and Rand Paul...a zoo sounds like a pretty good description.

Posted by: skrekk | June 27, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Why does the Post care about the whining of people who gave us $12 trillion in debt, mired us in two overseas conflicts, and broke our economy with their tax cuts for tycoons and deregulation?"

_____________________

What makes your comment so dismaying is that you're probably a grownup, maybe someone who holds a real job, maybe even someone's parent. You manage to hold a job and raise a family and generally get through life without a basic understanding of cause and effect, actions and consequences, or the difference between big and little, small and large, lesser and greater, more and fewer. A couple of years from now, when Geitner is still claiming to see "green shoots" but unemployment and inflation have risen even further, and the housing market and stock market have hit the bottom and are staying put, when your taxes have skyrocketed, and, if you're still employed, your employer has dropped your health care coverage and you're now enrolled in a government-backed insurance exchange and you have to wait 9 months to see your primary care doctor --- even then, you'll be whining about how it's all the Republicans' fault.

Posted by: stubbylibrarian | June 27, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Why does Klein still have his job? He know about all these emails. He siad and did nothing. Instead, he got together for years with other leftists (probably most of your reporters) deciding how to present their leftist agenda as "objective" news. The fact that Klein and the rest of these phony reporters still have their jobs shows there is ZERO journalistic integrity at the Post. Of course anyone reading your paper day to day allready knew that.

Posted by: MrRealistic | June 27, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander - Did they cut off your balls after you got the ombudsman's job or did you already come pre-packaged that way and that's why you got the job?

Also. You guys employ Marc Thiessen. Jesus. It's hard to imagine that the Post has any standards at all...

Posted by: tblogg | June 27, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, MrRealistic, it's the collusion aspect that bugs me the most.

I defy anyone on the left to say, with a straight face and even a modicum of integrity, that if they found out all the Fox News and WSJ reporters (can anyone name any other news outfits with a pronounced conservative bent? me neither) participated in a closed email list wherein they discussed how to frame news stories to benefit the Republican Party, and how to limit the exposure of news stories that embarrassed the Republican Party, and how to push the public narrative in one direction or the other, they would defend the privacy rights of listserv participants?

Yeah, I know. I'm laughing too.

Posted by: stubbylibrarian | June 27, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

You just don't get it; wingnuts will never accept this paper as a legit source of news and information. Why you and the NyT try to appeal to these people is beyond me. They hate you, don't you get it? You're part of the so-called 'liberal media' and that means to these idiots that you're biased no matter what, therefore cannot be trusted on any single issue.
Wingnuts get their news from Fox, WSJ, and talk radio and wacko bloggers and that's it. Nothing else. They operate like a little cult and can only get their 'news' from approved right wing outlets where facts and logic don't matter.

But go ahead and bend over backwards to try and appeal to these people. Why don't you hire James O'Keefe to replace Weigel while you're at it.

Posted by: BirchMan | June 27, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

For a long time now, the Post has considered anyone right of Castro to be a mouth breathing, knuckle dragging redneck. Anyone who does not support illegal aliens are racist right wingers. Anyone who does not support gay marriage is a shallow minded bigot, etc.

Yet, the Post wants to act as if opposing points of views have been welcomed. That's simply nonsense.


Also, the Dems have controlled Congress since 2007, so all spending in that time has been their responsibility. And, before that, the GOP never had anywhere near the majority the libs have now, so again it took both parties to spend the money.

Now, with the libs in control of both Congress and the WH, the spending has really ramped up.

Posted by: irish031 | June 27, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I've been reading the Post online for several years now and with great sadness have watched it degenerate into -- well, this column is a good example. I've seldom seen a more clueless, smug, pompous and just plain wrong piece of writing outside the WingNutDaily.

The lessons learned from this debacle are pretty plain: 1) the Post can no longer tell the difference between private opinions and actual journalism, and 2) when the right wing says "Jump," the editors of the Post take off even before they ask "How high?"

And now you know why I don't pay that much attention to the Post any more.

Posted by: HunteratRandom | June 27, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

You Post pander-bears should stop currying "standing among conservatives." The Post has bi-partisan'ed itself and become unreadable and nauseous.

Posted by: mvbrown | June 27, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I will toast when all newspapers in this country shutdown. We no longer have reporters. We have W H O R E S.

Posted by: jd763 | June 27, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I find it hilarious that you claim the Weigel incident "ha[s] further damaged The Post among conservatives who believe it is not properly attuned to their ideology or activities". Just what standing do you think the Post has in this group?

Right wingers, as the comments on this article show, view the Post as a left ring mouthpiece. If tomorrow you fire Ezra Klein, Dionne, and Milbank and replace them with Malkin, Coulter, and Ari Fleischer, conservatives will still attack the Post for its liberal bias. When the Post briefly hired Ben Domenech, a total paint-by-numbers right wing ideologue without an original thought to his name, the one column he wrote in his brief tenure was about the liberal bias of the Post and the mainstream media.

What the right wants is Fox News - wall to wall conservative agitprop. Every article, every headline, every phrase carefully chosen for maximum right wing spin and nothing less.

You have consistently proven to the right that every time they shout 'liberal bias' you scramble to give them everything you can give them while still maintaining some slight pretense to be performing actual journalism. The idea that this will somehow discourage them from continuing to shout 'liberal bias' is truly strange.

It's truly mysterious to me that the Post allows itself to be manipulated so easily. Even assuming that the Post's editors really are that stupid, an assumption that becomes increasingly plausible, I still don't believe they're really that spineless. After all, you find it quite easy to stand up for yourselves when you're criticized from the left.

Posted by: AlexMeiklejohn | June 27, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

You manage to hold a job ... even then, you'll be whining about how it's all the Republicans' fault.

Posted by: stubbylibrarian | June 27, 2010 12:31 PM
================================

That's pretty rich, even for a teabagger. You wouldn't recognize cause and effect even as you crash into it on the highway.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 27, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Could we get a new ombudsman here, please? An ombudsman should be looking after the interests of the readers, as far as I understand the meaning of the word. Here we have an ombudsman for conservative whiners who want the newspaper to suck up to them and promote their cause.

I get the Post delivered at home every day, and by this point, I've pretty much given up reading evrything but the funnies and the baseball coverage. If I want news, I have to get it from the internet, where there are people more interested in what's going on in the world than they are in looking "balanced" or "neutral".

I do look at the editorial page most days; I like Eugene Robinson, and a few others, and I even read Krauthammer and the execrable Thiessen sometimes, if only to astound myself by how depraved people can be. But the rest of the paper is going into the toilet.

I think Charmides put it best: you're never going to find people whoa re "neutral". People are people, and we all believe things, and what we believe affects what we see and how we understand the world. Let your reporters report what they learn, whether it makes conservatives look good or bad. Let them write what liberals are doing, whether they look good or bad. Have your reporters let us know what they believe and how they vote, and we, the readers, are surely smart enough to work out for ourselves how much credence to give to one reporter or another.

Now I believe that if you do this, conservatives will be unhappy, since I believe that the truth about how conservatives behave makes them look bad. I happen to believe that conservatives, especially the influential ones, are often amoral, greedy and sociopathic. I think that a good look at the careers of people like Limbaugh, Gingrich, Boehner, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and a thousand other conservatives will bear that out. If a report on Limbaugh's boorishness and bigotry, for example, makes Limbaugh look bad (which it will), and if it upsets him (which it will), then that's just tough noogies for Limbaugh. If he wants better coverage, then he can begin behaving like a decent person.

Likewise, a good look at the teabaggers will make them out to be a bunch of racist sociopaths. Not all of them are, to be sure, but there are enough among them that that's how they come off as a group. Writing truthfully about them, though, is bound to upset them, as they'll look like a bunch of, well, racists and sociopaths. That is, though, and I don't know to make you understand it, NOT YOUR PROBLEM. Your job, the job of everybody at the Post, is NOT to soothe the tender feelings of Limbaugh, teabaggers, et al., but rather to tell your readers what they are doing and why. That will never go over with conservatives, to which I can only say to conservatives: Too damned bad. You want better coverage? Try being better people.

And to you, I can only say: Don't worry about conservatives feelings, just tell us what they're doing.

Posted by: zarzamora | June 27, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

That's pretty rich, even for a teabagger. You wouldn't recognize cause and effect even as you crash into it on the highway.

ifthethunderdontgetya
__________________________

Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even if they're not capable of articulating or defending it. If "I know I am but what are you?" is the extent of your rhetorical skill, that's your problem, not mine.

I couldn't care less about illegal immigration, I support gay marriage, and I'm a staunch opponent of the drug war - I want full and complete legalization yesterday. I thought Obama might at least be better than Bush on the drug war and civil liberties, but no.

My disgust with the left has everything to do with the fact that they don't seem to understand that the laws of economics, like those of motion, gravity, and unintended consequences, operate no matter who's in charge or what their intentions might be.

Explaining economic reality to people whose political philosophy amounts to "yuck, teabaggers! boo!!" is like trying to explain evolution to creationists. I can only assume that everyone in here who thinks the Tea Party people represent a grave threat to the republic are very poor, very wealthy, or living off Mom and Dad or the rest of us. Or working for a government entity, which is probably 3/4 of the posters in here.

Even if Obama could fart rainbows, as a rapidly diminishing but still dismally large number of people seem to think, it wouldn't make his economic policies any less destructive, and it wouldn't make people any happier about what's going to happen to their taxes and their health care in the next couple years.

Y'all need to start taking Xanax right now. November is going to suck for you, and the future in general is going to suck for all of us. Some of us, tho, handle reality better than others.

Posted by: stubbylibrarian | June 27, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and as to why Mr. Alexander is apologizing to conservatives...1) he's a professional journalist and, presumedly, he has ethics. He's embarrassed by Weigel's behavior, as is any WaPo journalist over the age of 30, and 2) he'd like to keep his job, which he might not do if the paper goes through another round of layoffs, which they probably will at some point. The WaPo is a business. Businesses have to make money. The paper is losing readers and therefore money, as are most papers. The WaPo can't afford to tell conservatives to suck it - they need every reader they can hold on to.

People on the right and in the middle outnumber people on the left, maybe by a lot. Poll after poll shows more people self-identifying as conservative or conservative-leaning.

If November's as bad for the Dems as it looks like it will be, expect to see the WaPo getting even more concerned about its reputation among conservatives.

Posted by: stubbylibrarian | June 27, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse


You WaPo hacks spend more of your time discusssing how to censor readers' comments than you do trying to maintain even a thin veneer of illusion of journalistic integrity. No, the focus is on cunning ways to censor conservative opinion without appearing to do so.

Where were you when Weigel was spewing his anti-conservative vitriol disguised as a conservative, Mr. Ombudsman. Nowhere, that's where you were.

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 28, 2010 5:53 AM | Report abuse


Really nice you're blog. you're blog posting is very helpful for me. I am really very happy to read ur information. today i get a new web site
http://wwwedu093.blogspot.com
there have lot of information about step by step and very easy.

Posted by: taherdon | June 28, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

The Post is utterly useless at this point, but the notion that it espoused a liberal viewpoint or 'leaned left' is beyond ludicrous.

Frankly, we'd all be better off if y'all just set yourselves on fire.

See what I did there?

Posted by: rochrist | June 28, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The WPO has been right wing for years. Krauthammer, Diele, Will and other conservative opinions dominate your paper all too often at the expense of facts and truth. I can't tell the WPO from the Times these days. Firing this guy for this nonsense in my view is absolutely baseless. Why dont you fire Krauthammer with all his neocon diatribes. I hope the guy finds a great job with your competition. I know I am definitely not spending another dime on this predominately right wing propaganda.

Posted by: ruthella10 | June 28, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives will never like the Post. They are going to criticize the Post incessantly and not notice that your editorial pages have two "conservatives" for every "liberal" given a column, not to mention the fact that the unauthored Post editorials are penned by neo-con Fred Hiatt himself. (His latest gem? Obama should be tolerant of a general who publicly undermines his authority. One suspects that Hiatt would never have encouraged Bush to be similarly tolerant.)

For the past ten years, the Post has embraced every neo-con adventure in the Middle East, condemned the prosecution of Scooter Libby, endorsed cuts in Social Security, fired Dan Froomkin and, generally speaking, acted like a newspaper run by conservatives. And _still_ you have a cohort of "conservatives" who show up on a daily basis to lambaste the Post for being "too liberal" (criticisms that are, unsurprisingly, free of supporting arguments other than name-calling).

And the Post wants to make more efforts to kiss up to conservatives?

Why not stop caring about how the subjects of analysis care about your coverage and simply report what you see? After all, that is the excuse given by the Post whenever anybody left of center (much less "liberal") complains about coverage.

Would you ever see the Post say "the bigger loss is the Post's standing among liberals"?? Ironically, no, and I say ironically because the Post _used to_ actually have standing among liberals.

But that time passed at least 20 years ago.

Posted by: rick_desper | June 28, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives will never like the Post. They are going to criticize the Post incessantly and not notice that your editorial pages have two "conservatives" for every "liberal" given a column, not to mention the fact that the unauthored Post editorials are penned by neo-con Fred Hiatt himself. (His latest gem? Obama should be tolerant of a general who publicly undermines his authority. One suspects that Hiatt would never have encouraged Bush to be similarly tolerant.)

For the past ten years, the Post has embraced every neo-con adventure in the Middle East, condemned the prosecution of Scooter Libby, endorsed cuts in Social Security, fired Dan Froomkin and, generally speaking, acted like a newspaper run by conservatives. And _still_ you have a cohort of "conservatives" who show up on a daily basis to lambaste the Post for being "too liberal" (criticisms that are, unsurprisingly, free of supporting arguments other than name-calling).

And the Post wants to make more efforts to kiss up to conservatives?

Why not stop caring about how the subjects of analysis care about your coverage and simply report what you see? After all, that is the excuse given by the Post whenever anybody left of center (much less "liberal") complains about coverage.

Would you ever see the Post say "the bigger loss is the Post's standing among liberals"?? Ironically, no, and I say ironically because the Post _used to_ actually have standing among liberals.

But that time passed at least 20 years ago.

Posted by: rick_desper | June 28, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Are there no conservatives that go into the Journalistic Fields of the major news media, or is this just the result of a liberal biased collegiate and university departments of this educational subject? I know people speak of pendulous movement of ideas and attitudes from certain time periods, but how far in the opposite direction can you possibly go from the time of the founding of this great nation? These have been huge and stupifying 'Changes' promised and delivered, but can this country truly survive them? Only time will tell, but I fear it will be a very short time and irrevocable. History will direly miss the self-sufficient American, along with his generosity, made possible by that same self-sufficiency. This country will now have to search for the beaurocratic heart when in need, if their is such a thing. The 'Change' you may not have been promised, but what you are getting, for better or worse. And no one to speak out about them, what a shame.

Posted by: Randy131 | June 28, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

There is something inherently wrong with the ethic underlying this statement: "In the meantime, Post managers would be wise to remind all staffers that personal opinions, expressed privately on listservs or through social media, can prove damaging if made public." Basically you're saying, yes, you can have opinions (of course), but hide those opinions from your readers. Which leads to the bizarre logic that credibility derives not from transparency but a lack of transparency.

Posted by: rgingras | June 28, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Would you please PLEASE stop pretending that the Post is not conservative leaning? You never meet a conservative opinion that you won't publish. And of course the conservatives still 'aren't satisfied'. They play you and the rest of the MSM like a violin.

It also appears that every idiotic brain-dead conservative idea now finds its way into the Post's comments section. Seriously, just look at some of the ones here! When are you going to implement your new comments policies? There must be a few WaPO readers who actually know something useful about the issues.

Posted by: rocks11 | June 29, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Well, at least theres one sentence in this piece I can agree with -
"He looked at the conservative movement as if he was visiting a zoo.”
Sounds like an accurate description of today's Rush Limbaugh 'conservatives' to me.
As for the rest of it, did Wrong Way Corrigan ghost write it? Talk about drawing precisely the wrong conclusions. Sheesh. Maybe the Post can make up for its 'sins' by hiring Sarah Palin as a regular columnist to cover the 'movement'. You know, to complement the ravings of Charles Krauthammer from his balcony and the more subdued but no less vituperous maunderings of George Will.

Posted by: DoctorT1 | June 29, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

This is pretty incoherent. Surely you don't think that blank slates make good reporters?
Or maybe you think that reporters like Woodward who make millions from maintaining access by laudatory coverage of politicians are somehow "unbiased," or that reporters who go to parties with their subjects are "unbiased?"
The real problem isn't Weigel. It's assuming there's unbiased objective coverage by the reporters at the Post, that they already occupy some journalistically ethical high ground. Come on. Also, ideology or (more clearly) political leanings are hardly the only form of bias-- "I have drinks with that senator... John McCain invited me to his ranch... George Bush gave me a nickname!" Personal ties are much, much more likely to result in hedging your coverage than a political leaning, and you sure don't seem to have problems with Post reporters being friends with those they cover.

But see, that's something you can't really deal with, because it would mean addressing establishment journalism, and especially that elephant in your living room, Bob Woodward.

Posted by: lister1 | June 29, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Dave Weigel isn't easy to pigeonhole politically, but you seem willing to do so here. He was openly conservative when he started his career, but has seen the feet of clay of those on "his side" and now questions them. I'm sure there are liberal journalists who have reacted similarly to such circumstance.

The idea that only an unquestioning supporter can cover the right is of course a mockery of "real journalism", something which hasn't been practiced at the Post since Reagan.

Being "unbiased" is simply accepting the GOP meme about every issue. The work of Lori Montgomery is the epitome of that failed approach.

It seems only right that this incident has shaken conservative confidence in the intellectual honesty of the Post. Those of us on the left voted no confidence in the Post of Hiatt and Will and Kristol and Krauthammer and Broder and Theissen a long time ago.

Posted by: howie14 | June 29, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

"If this WAPO were in existence in the early 1970's, I never would have had to resign." -

Richard Nixon, from the grave

Posted by: lokidog | June 29, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

F...the Post After more than 10 years of reading I'll never look online or in print again. How does Klein still have a job. Good Luck

Posted by: jimpenny2 | June 29, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Release Journolist and we'll call it even. I'm sure you have it. You can even make a claim on Andrew Breitbart's offer of an award. I't going to come out anyway, and you might need the money if your name is on it.

Posted by: old91A10 | June 29, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

WHY is the Post hiring people based on their personal views? That's the mystery. It should be a conflict of interest to assign a reporter to cover something with which that reporter is in lock-step agreement -- just like when news reporters are TAKEN OFF beats when they get too close to what they're writing about. Why don't normal newsroom ethics apply to the Post's web site?

Posted by: Kathy8 | June 30, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company