 |
|
Howell responds to a reader:
Maybe she could get Pomfret to take a lie detector test. The words coming out of his mouth defy belief. Again, not a trait usually prized by the journalism profession.1. I didn't like it. It was supposed to be "tongue in cheek," but I didn't get that at all.
2. No, women are no kind of dim.
3. I don't like it. I will write about it on Sunday. ...
Update: A MSM journalist colleague writes what occurred to me as well yesterday:
This is all so obvious. Any normal company recognizing they had offended their customers would have already taken such steps. That a media company in the very business of writing sentences was so slow on the uptake speaks volumes. And they had an outside paper float Pomfret's "it was failed satire" trial balloon to try it out. Give me a break. Is the Post tongue-tied? Having trouble loading the publishing software?And one other thing: There's a real-time way to determine the sincerity of their regret and disappointment. Once it became clear how offensively Allen's piece was "misinterpreted" there wasn't much the print paper could do -- but there was plenty that could have been done on the Web. A note could have been appended. And at the very least, the proud promo on the home page "Why Do Women Act So Dumb?" with that cheezy picture could either have been removed, or at least rewritten. Instead, it was there until noon -- and the story itself is still exactly as it was.
[The Post bosses] need to address this themselves, and now, on their own site, in real time. [...]
Not that I buy this "packaging" BS. They need to go on record saying not just "oh this was misinterpreted" but "we apologize and in no way condone the demeaning of women on our pages."...
More from FireDogLake, Rachel Sklar, Matt Yglesias, Jessica Valenti, Laura McGann, Steve Benen, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum, Atrios, Jane Hamsher, Ed Morrissey, Zuzu and here.
A friend points out that Kieran Healy at Crooked Timber predicted this sleight of hand yesterday: "Occupying a niche of this sort also gives you certain rhetorical advantages in generating controversy and responding to it. (See, a woman admits the truth! Or, how can I be anti-woman if I am one? And if you misjudge the reaction, you can claim the whole thing was a joke.)"
Update II: Another MSM former foreign correspondent colleague writes:
I think, too, that someone needs to get from Pomfret what the actual intent of the piece was: ok, he says tongue-in-cheek, but about what exactly? About women fainting for Obama? Can't be, not going on and on at such acreage. So what did he intend for Outlook to be saying on this subject of women and Obama, or the election, exactly? What was the point? Because this just was not very smart or informative or even very interesting. It was just offensive. (Much worse than "falling flat." ...