MyDD's post was one of the creepiest thing I've ever seen a blogger write. He genuinely appears to believe that people who disagree with him should be utterly shut out of the media, "not-people" who will not be used as sources, given space, or have their opinions published.

With this post, he reveals himself as either a Leninist or a Fascist - and really, once we're in that realm you can flip a coin between them.

Meanwhile, Sean-Paul, let me offer you a small clue that will answer your question: the Post wants to have some level of balance among its columnists and bloggers because declaring war on at least half of your readership is pretty incredibly stupid for a media organization. If one aspires to be a major paper in a political town where most of the people put there by the voters are conservative... then gee, what a surprise, maybe they'd like some folks who can see things from that side of the fence on staff. Might help you, oh, I don't know - convey a better understanding of what the hell's going on.

Dialogue only works if both sides are there, and the Washington Post believe themselves to be in that business. It's pretty clear what business MyDD believes himself to be in. And I'm more than disappointed that you'd join him.

---
Joe Katzman
Winds of Change.NET
"Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory"

His statement is an acknowledgement that what he did was wrong ... it's a contrite apology.

Let it rest and the vitriol will die down.

As for the Washington Post, they surely took this lesson seriously. The next person albeit Conservative or Liberal, they approve for hire will have their credentials carefully checked. I highly doubt they will repeat the same mistake. It damaged their credibility as a source of news by admitting they were looking for a Conservative blogger, rather than someone who was just highly proficient for the job. Hiring people on the basis of political affiliation is something owners like CanWest does. (They're a chain of newspapers in Canada...you may not be familiar with them)? The owners have fired editors and reporters that don't tow their line.

The right versus left thingy that appears in so many political discussions, especially in the blogsphere, lacks validity and relevance for most people who often value elements of both, but who probably are more comfortable on boards that embrace similar values. The exception to that are the extremists at both ends of the political spectrum who lack tolerance.

Dude, if that's your standard for "declaring war," then they declared war on us all a long time ago. That's called you disagree with one reporter's take/ story, deal with it and be done. Gonna happen.

No, what I'm referring to is the need for a poker hand of voices from various points on the political spectrum, one respectful and mindful of the composition of its audience so that key audiences do not see themselves being systematically shut out. WaPo was obviously getting feedback from its public (and considering where they are, no surprise), and decided to do something about it. Very smart move for a paper whose mainstay is political coverage. So it's something that went beyond Froomkin. Way beyond.

I'll add that your post didn't criticze the hiring of Ben per se either (though my colleague A.L. did on Winds, for precisely the reason you mentioned). S-P, you criticized the idea of hiring ANYONE who would "appease the Right." Let's not have moving of the goalposts here.

I suggest to you that this attitude was wrong when you wrote it, and still is.

As for the larger remedy you ask about, it's to close the journalism schools (f---n waste those are, completely wrong idea), take the stuff about diversity seriously, and make sure newsrooms and op-ed pages are stocked with a range of people from around the country, and with a range of political views and life experiences.

That wouldn't fix the media entirely, but it would be an important start. Way, way too many surveys from Pew and others quantify the fact that this is not happening now - and it's affecting public trust outside the bubble.

Note that all these suggestions aren't good in and of themselves (well, maybe closing the j-schools is), but a means to ensure that the media, within itself, is willing to confront, argue, and question to keep each other honest and make sure caricature of others' positions becomes a dangerous sport. The bit about the "Bush makes me puke" memo is a good example - it's not so much that one head honcho feels this way, as it is the fact that he felt safe saying it in email to multiple colleagues, knowing that they'd all agree. If the guy in question was Kerry instead, that kind of incident would still be worrying for the same reasons.

The alternative? Declare yourself an openly partisan outlet with a political party affiliation, be honest about that, and write off the rest of the audience openly and publicly. Like WWE Wrestling, it's easier to watch when they're honest about the show, and you no longer feel that your intelligence is being insulted by being transparently lied to.

---
Joe Katzman
Winds of Change.NET
"Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory"

It's quite another thing to apologize for multiple transgressions.

If Ben Domenech falls into the "young and foolish" category, what then should we think of all the Red Staters who are so eager to welcome him back? Is honesty just a pesky nuisance for these people?

Regardless, Ben Domenech's plagiarism reveals a flaw in his character, which, now revealed, he should examine with great care. Will he reach inward and find elusive wisdom, or shrink back and depend on angry rationalizations to comfort his striken ego?

Did the bad old liberals make you plagiarize P.J. O'Rourke, Ben?

Me, I would never do such a thing, because I keep in mind a saying my daddy made up: "To thine own self be true."

Thanks for that one, Dad!

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

Jimbo,

We should probably think that they're his friends, dude, who are willing to give a friend another chance and hope he learns something. I'd hope you'd do the same with yours. Just as I hope that Ben does some self-examination and finds wisdom.

My experience is that eventual wisdom and angry rationalizations aren't mutually exclusive, either. While some can avoid the anger/ rationalization stage entirely, for most folks the most realistic hope is that they don't stay there. We'll see.

I'll add that some anger here is justified, not rationalization (some, it seems, is rationalization). But threats of violence? Stuff about his family? That's just so very far over the line, and wrong. I'm not surprised the folks at Red State were angry about that. If someone had pulled that crap on you, I'd hope your friends would be angry too. Heck, I'd hope some of your *enemies* would be angry.

The justified anger doesn't cancel what Ben did. What he did, and the appalling responses he received, are two separate issues. Each deserving of condemnation.

But only one has, thus far, come with any penalty. Though a more karmic viewpoint might disagree, and note that such unbalanced hatred is often its own punishment.

---
Joe Katzman
Winds of Change.NET
"Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory"

to see people actually commending this guy for apologizing and quoting the bible about forgiveness.

ben would have never apologized had he not gotten caught and he was essentially apologizing for getting caught.

the commenders and bible quoters are only so quick because they are of the same political persuasion. is this incorrect? otherwise, they would be reeming him with flagpole....

that is politics.

well, regardless of such partisan contortions, the very bottom line is you simply cant trust the guy...

Escher, dialogue with one's opponent is not a smart goal for someone engaged in an ideological debate. Doesn't matter what side you stand on. Convincing your opponent is not the focus.

Dialogue is a very smart goal, however, if you're the Washington Post. Whose main purpose is to serve as a quality stage for folks to engage in such debates, and for other acts as well. Because their readers sit on both sides, and in the uncommitted middle too, and respecting those readers is a good idea.

I think we can see why you aren't running the WaPo.

And this...

"One of the primary purposes of the press in a liberal democracy is to speak truth to power. The balance you are talking about is merely allowing yet another mouthpiece for conservative philosophy a platform in a climate where conservatives already rule three branches of government."

...is simply a reiteration of MyDD's Leninist/fascist approach, which states that the press belongs to your ideological movement by inherent right, people who don't think like you don't deserve a voice, and if the plebes (who voted for all those folks in those branches of government) don't like it then too bad.

There are lots of countries with systems like this, where you could no doubt be happy. I'd invite you to move to one, but on the whole it's better to have you seething in impotent rage here, as opposed to having you in a sympatico political system that might actually give you power over other human beings.

---
Joe Katzman
Winds of Change.NET
"Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory"

What is it about this crowd? Lie after lie. It's like it has become the cultural norm for them.

statement from the Washington Post, “"We still want someone who's provocative."

Newspapers that hire people based on anything other than their ability to report with emphasis on that skill based on: education, experience in the field and/or samples of their acquired writing skills, are pandering to populists or some other ‘unspecified’ ideology.

Could be all the Washington Post is interested in is controversy and they don't really give two hoots about the direction it comes from, either the right or the left is acceptable as long as it increases their circulation? Wonder if there is a way to put that in their hiring contract? 'Either raise the circulation by x%, in x amount of time, or tender your resignation/expect to be fired?' Why don't they just hire a marketer and end the pretense they have any other goal in mind except increasing their revenue?

The crime is not getting caught. The crime is the crime.

In my case it was conservatives who "brought me down"--actually it was simply conservatives who caught me. I accepted responsibility for my actions and took immediate action to remedy the behavior. I did not lash out at Armchair General, Meryl Yourish, Dan Drezner and the gang in any way.

If you'll recall, I took YOUR advice on that. I didn't sulk in partisan rancor. And yes, they are his friends. But I would rather have friends like you who pointed me in the right directionmorally and ethically when I erred, than to have friends that defended me in my knee-jerk rage. This site would not have succeeded had I not taken your advice and that of others. That's the mark of true friendship.

You are certainly right about eventual wisdom and angry rationalizations. Lord know in my heart I was angry for a long, long time. But publicly, I took my lumps. Full stop.

And I am not telling Ben what he should do. I respect him enough to let him find his own path. And I know how he hurts. Oh, how he hurts.

But it's damn unfair to blame the nasty librul's for his failure. Period.

I didn't do it, neither should Ben.

^{The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men.}

~Plato

any mainstream, big time A-List type blogger like MyDD says, "the press is ours (the Left) by inherent right."

Please Joe, toss out the Leninist/fascist rhetoric. It is unbecoming of someone as smart as you. No on who reads this blog is a Leninist or a fascist.

^{The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men.}

~Plato

Thanks for outing yourself Joe. MyDD is Leninist/Fascist? Give me a break. In fact, while MyDD is an explicitly partisan site, they are one of the least ideological major sites on the Democratic side of the divide. They're much more interested in winning than in ideology, and such ideology as they have is neither Leninist or Fascist (MyDD isn't apologizing for violations of civil rights, for an Imperial presidency, nor is it calling for collectivization, etc...)

You just tried to come in here and tell us that black is white and white is black. That stuff may sell amongst your audience, since it's what they want to believe (we're good, libruls bad), but it doesn't sell elsewhere.