 |
|
Hilzoy speaks for me here: "Doesn't the Post have editors whose job is to prevent this sort of trainwreck?" The editor responsible for it has shown just remarkably poor editorial judgment. What in the world was the editor thinking? Does he need a roster of smart conservative women who have something to say about women and politics that doesn't denigrate the human race? More from Time, and Atrios, link.
Update: Here's how the Post dealt with another recent controversy, when an online contributor's essay offended some Jewish groups. The contributor lost his job at his home institute and the editors of the section apologized to readers, and then some. And that was apparently an online essay that had not even been edited by someone on the paper's payroll before it went up, as was this piece in the Post's Sunday print section front page. Can the Post Outlook editor promote the slurring of women (in the name of "voice") but not other groups as something that generates lots of discussion? Or can he commission articles to denigrate the intelligence of other racial groups as well in the same spirit of a lively and provocative debate? What's the Post standard on which groups can be legitimately denigrated on which page? Let's watch and find out. I bet the reaction will lean towards "tsk-tsk" in next week's ombudsman column and a hearty self congratulation from the Post to itself about generating such an important discussion about whether women are in fact dumb. At the very least, we can hope a few of the fine Post reporters who actually do journalism will professionally humiliate Outlook editor John Pomfret and whoever else in the chain of command is responsible for this piece internally at the Post in the way they deserve. That there is not already an apology on the Post site is pretty surprising.
Posted by Laura at March 2, 2008 10:59 AM