 |
|
In all honesty, I'm torn. Partly I'm tired of this jihad, and was tired of it two days ago. Partly, I feel a smidgen of compassion for Pomfret not knowing what to do, who did express regrets if the piece offended (in an email), and for whom I never had anything but respect until I deduced he was responsible for the Allen piece Sunday. But mostly, I am still fuming that the Post as an institution is now hiding behind Charlotte Allen's knickers, and stubbornly continues to refuse to answer tremendous reader demand (more than a thousand comments, several hundred blog posts) for an explanation and an apology for running the piece. It's cowardly. It makes their and my profession look bad. It's unnecessary.
Instead, comically, truly, they're hauling out Charlotte Allen (who can be faulted for writing the tripe -- but not for publishing it!) to take the first bullets during a chat today which I honestly don't see why anyone should dignify, except possibly to interrogate her about how the interactions with the Post went down exactly as her essay thesis got clarified.
WP commenter "j in paris" gets the next word:
Well said.Is anybody awake in the Washington Post? Have Aliens stolen your brains? It was offensive enough to imagine you published this drivel. It was shocking to see Outlook Editor Pomfret pretend the article was in good fun. It has been lunatic to see the Post trivialize the thousand-plus letters that demanded accountability for this craven misogyny by inviting readers to vote on whether it should have been published. It was appalling to see the paper publish as the lead Letter to the Editor one that *agreed* with this tripe when so many hundreds (thousands) had appeared that disagreed. And now? ...They've invited this ... Charlotte Allen ... to answer questions about her views. What's next? David Duke getting invited to have a forum to discuss racism? Iranian President Amadinejad to debate the Holocaust? Fred Phelps to chitchat about why homophobia works for him? It's time--no two days ago it was already time--to put an end to this farce. Cancel this forum. Get the editor on here to account for the stupidity that led to this travesty. ...
The Post's efforts to pretend this whole affair just "made readers angry" and would warrant a nice, cathartic chat are pathetic. Accountability? There was no editorial agency here? While Allen is responsible for what she wrote, the real issue is the Post taking responsibility for publishing it. Something they have so far refused to do, or even explain.
(And man. Didn't there used to be something called media critics? Doesn't the Post have a few? This wouldn't be an issue of interest for them? We've got one pro...)
Update: A well placed, top tier, MSM journalist colleague writes:
Someone should demand of Downie an answer to the following question: Is he willing to issue a clear statement to the effect that it is not acceptable to publish opinion articles that demean women on his pages. And if he's not, how does he feel about articles that demean black, Jews, Catholics, etc. Are we back in the dark ages? This all makes me sick. As far as the public reading the Post Web site is concerned, there was apparently nothing troubling about Allen's piece as far as the Post's editors are concerned. They have not apologized or explained or anything -- on their own Web site. In fact, they've offered her a further soapbox to make offensive comments without any kind of official context or rebuttal. She may be laughing this off, but readers aren't. Not to mention that her denial that the piece was satirical makes Pomfret a liar. Thanks for letting me vent.
Thanks to the Poynter Institute's Jim Romenesko, Mediabistro's Patrick Gavin, New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen, my colleague and sometimes collaborator Jeet Heer, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, China Matters, Sadly, No, Echidne, DailyKos, Jessica Valenti, Atrios (who got 677 comments on it in two hours), the Prospect's Scott Lemieux, Slate, Crooks & Liars, Rick Perlstein, Bastard Logic, Supreme Irony, Jocie Fong, the Huffington Post, and many others who have written in for the links, letters and discussion. "Thanks," writes A.W. "I've been printing out your posts for my 92 year old mother. .... I just want you to know we've been enjoying talking about them."
And for the few friends and colleagues who have written to say, why not let an idiotic piece die a faster death, respectfully, you miss the point: it's not about the piece, it's about the Post, and the standards they hold and don't hold themselves to, about whether they can be made to hold themselves accountable, including to their readers, thousands of whom have written them to demand to understand why they ran such a piece and what their standards are for attacking which groups on their pages. As Jay Rosen wrote me, "The authority and credibility of the Post is an important thing, a national asset in a sense (this is my view, anyway) and should not be squandered this way. The Post may one day soon need to offend some of its loyal readers about something important. This isn't an act of truth-telling. It trivializes the courage that publishers sometimes need." In other words, if the utterly brilliant and not at all dim Dana Priest gets subpoenaed on black sites, don't you think Downie is going to want some of that authority and credibility he's squandering in his cowardly non reaction to his paper's as yet unexplained Charlotte "women are dumb" Allen Sunday section front page cover story, no matter how many feminist opeds Pomfret now tries desparately to publish to pretend he's initiated an important and provocative debate?
Any more Posties want to weigh in? I will honor any request for confidence.
Thursday Update: Am told "the issue" didn't really reach Downie's desk until yesterday. And that it was the Post website, not Pomfret, that was responsible for the series of offensive titles on the site for 24 hours.
Am also told the Post is worried about the exposure of Allen's deeply racially offensive writings on Hurricane Katrina, highlighted by Jessica Valenti. Allen: "I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans..."
Those aren't knickers I would want to hide behind.
