June 25, 2010

Burn, Davey, Burn — The Self-Immolation of David Weigel.

Consider poor, conflicted David Weigel. Hired by the Washington Post, he had the trappings of prestige and therefore he deserved the admiration of the cool young journalists of Washington, D.C. But his assignment was to cover the conservative movement, and that threatened to make him toxic, a man to be shunned. He needed a way to wriggle — to wiggle-Weigel — into the good graces of the cool kids. He had to show that he was covering conservatives, but he was not one of them.

He could try to do that subtly, and without deviating from the good-faith performance of his assigned task, perhaps by writing in a neutral, questioning style about what was going on with the righties these days and carefully raising doubts, undermining foundations, and strategically inserting a knife blade now and then. But would they get it? Didn't he need something a little more emphatic... and a little hipper?

So David started letting his need for lefty approval express itself on the email list, the Journolist, where the cool kids were being intimate and snarky. But those other kids were not tasked with covering conservatives. While they might have been embarrassed if the mean things they wrote in the email were ever leaked, they didn't have careers founded on their suitability for covering conservatives. The risk poor Dave took was of an entirely different nature. Why, Dave, why? Why did you risk the plum job?
“Honestly, it’s been tough to find fresh angles sometimes–how many times can I report that these [tea party] activists are joyfully signing up with the agenda of discredited right-winger X and discredited right-wing group Y?” Weigel lamented in one February email.

In other posts, Weigel describes conservatives as using the media to “violently, angrily divide America.” According to Weigel, their motives include “racism” and protecting “white privilege,” and for some of the top conservatives in D.C., a nihilistic thirst for power....

Of Matt Drudge, Weigel remarked, “It’s really a disgrace that an amoral shut-in like Drudge maintains the influence he does on the news cycle while gay-baiting, lying, and flubbing facts to this degree.”
He also said:
“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.”
Such nastiness doesn't hurt Matt of course. Matt drops another link, gets all the traffic, and moves on. Ironically, it is Dave who is undone. Having shown us his vivid hostility to the conservatives he was supposed to explain to us, we no longer have any reason to read him. Having destroyed the appearance of his capacity to enlighten us, he has lit the flame of his own self-immolation.

UPDATE: Weigel resigns.
Various readers suggest that the email-leaker was after Dave’s job. I think the WaPo should have a no-journolister rule for Weigel’s replacement, which would solve that problem, among others.
Indeed. One of the problems that might be somewhat solved is the cheeky smugness of the young journalists. The exclusive little club turned deadly for one of its members. And isn't funny how people who should be in the know still don't get modern technology. Tiger Woods brought down by texting, Dave Weigel by email, etc. etc.

AND: In smugger days:
David Weigel|6.14.10 @ 5:01PM|#

Well, I really enjoyed the two and a half years I spent here, and I'm constantly confused as to why mentions of my name lead to a lot of schoolyard insults. I really can't figure out why they do it -- lack of fulfillment seems like a good enough theory. After all, I'm here, and they're where I left them in 2008.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to return to my rewarding job and large circle of friends. I don't know how my ego will ever recover...
(Thanks to C3 for pointing to that.)

243 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 243 of 243
Roger J. said...

Harry--I look forward to your attempt to beat me like a rented mule--that was one of Dan Rather's texicanisms--Whatever that shit you put in your post is not a link--care to try again? And again, Harry--YOU said you would email me your creds if I gave you my email--I did and you havent. You are a liar and a coward

Joe said...


Sometimes when you find a dead deer along side the road, they might have died from Chronic Wasting Disease. If you eat that shit, it might affect your brain. I'm not saying that that's what happened, but sometimes I wonder.


U’uuum Allen do Opossums suffer from that, too? I’m just ask’n…….

Revenant said...

Revenant,

As Ann pointed out, the problem is that the WaPo's "conservative beat" is being covered by a guy who clearly despises all things and people conservative.

My point is that odds are his replacement will possess the same attitudes. We just won't have proof. So his replacement will be able to pose as impartial while providing uniformly biased coverage. It is better to have a person with known, provable biases that a person with secret biases. Ok, sure, it is better to have a person who ISN'T biased against conservatives covering the conservative beat, but good luck finding one of those. :)

Roger J. said...

Apologies to the commentariat for letting my personal squabble with HD House hijack the blog--I am sure harry will email me his creds and I will apologize forthwith if he has them

Lance said...

If that is the case, then don't do it anonomously. Have the stones to say "yeah Dave I leaked them because what you wrote was terrible".

I'm sure that's exactly what Nixon and the gang thought about Mark Felt.

Got a bit of a conundrum here, no? Which do we value more, the inviolability of "off the record," or the sanctity of anonymous sources?

Scott said...

My point is that odds are his replacement will possess the same attitudes.

Unless they hire Byron York. :)

Revenant said...

And I take it everyone here is right on board with the little tattle tale liberal who leaked the emails to Matt Drudge?

Sharing private correspondence is sleazy. Then again, it is the kind of sleazy behavior journalists routinely encourage and exploit, so there's a pleasant sort of irony in this.

Phil 314 said...

Well DC finally works so I could read the full article and citation.....

WOW, just wow.

The worst (no not the hang up with "ratf**kers"):

“I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats,” Weigel wrote.

Is that a blogger/pundit speaking or an operative for the DNC?

(David Wiegel becomes Sean Hannity.)

Scott said...

"Off the record," "not for attribution," "on background" are all deals with the devil. You get your information in exchange for a piece of your soul.

Phil 314 said...

And you'd think Scott Brown would be the kind of candidate he would like (i.e. fiscally conservative, socially moderate)

Kevin said...

Well reasoned opening…so IF Osama’s in the apartment the Millicents need to announce themselves so he can prepare the suicide vest? My point being, is NO they are NOT an absolute menace to officer safety, they CAN be.

You're not understanding the process.

1) The Feds provide money to a town to set up a SWAT team..

2) The highly trained SWAT team finds itself with little to do (for some reason Osama and his suicide vest haven't shown up in the town yet).

3) The SWAT team, worried that someone will notice that they aren't doing anything, start serving ordinary warrants, that used to be served by ordinary cops.

4) Instead of two cops showing up knocking on the front door to serve a ordinary warrant, you now have a bunch of black-clad people with automatic weapons kicking down doors, shooting dogs (and occasionally people), and generally terrifying everyone around.

5) Use of 1937 NKVD tactics does not improve the quality of life in the town. People become less inclined to assist the cops

Joe said...

No Kevein I understand the party Line...You and John are absolutists...No Knocks are INHERENTLY bad...I dispute that. Thank you.

And 1937 NKVD tactics was good, so I guess the use of 1939 German Wehrmacht Tactics made the Liberation of Kuwayt bad? You made less an argument than appeal to emotion there.

I'll say again 26/27 people ahve died in No Knocks, 1,200 in Hot Pursuits...which is the larger Public Safety Issue?

When you've got some data, not just anecdotes please get back to me. I believe more folks have died from lightning strikes than have died from No Knocks.

Look I don't argue that No Knocks or SWAT teams aren't over-used...I simply state they aren't the NKVD or "militarized policing" or Absolutely a menace to officers who serve them. That like many things they have a place, unlike you guys who believe they have NO place in the arsenal.

Blue@9 said...

The more I think about it, Weigel just wasn't very good at hiding his feelings. It's apparent that his bosses really thought he was a conservative, as did people at Reason. But he was actually pretty bad at hiding his politics. His name has popped up quite often in recent months for some controversial comments.

I'm guessing his personal views really started to bleed over into his writing and someone at Journolist decided to out him on his hypocrisy.

The other thing to note about his listserv emails is that he wasn't a liberal on policy matters--he was tribally liberal. He really hated conservatives and sought out reasons to hate them on a personal level. He used the listserv to strategize with other reporters on how to frame stories for the benefit of progressives.

Kevin said...

That like many things they have a place, unlike you guys who believe they have NO place in the arsenal.

Not at all - there are certainly instances where you want a SWAT team to make an arrest or serve a warrant. Unfortunately, when even fairly small towns have gotten Federal funding to set up SWAT teams, the bureaucratic imperative indicates that once a SWAT team is established, it is going to seek out new things to do, if there aren't enough circumstances that really justify the use of a SWAT team.

There is a significant downside to this - the more police behave in a paramilitary fashion (particularly when it isn't justified), the less likely ordinary citizens are to cooperate with the police, which has impacts on police effectiveness and safety far greater than the slight improvement in officer safety by using a SWAT team in circumstances where it really isn't justified.

garage mahal said...

I never questioned Weigel's motives. I just think he lacks judgment.

When you said:
(Weigel was a particularly weird kind of cheerleader -- dressed in the uniform of one team while cheering for the other.)

That led me to believe you were questioning his motives. Why would it be weird for one side to criticize it's own, when you feel they should be fiercely independent, and especially when you said this in the same post:

If he was blowing kisses to conservatives, that would make him no different from a lot of young journos who become intellectually captured by the people they're supposed to cover.

The Post employs lock step conservatives, and has for years. But that doesn't seem to be the problem here for you, does it.

itzik basman said...

Cutting excellent post, right on the money

Original Mike said...

HD taunted Roger J: "anytime, any subject, facts only roger dodger...and i'll beat you like a rented mule."

How about school yard rhymes for 20?

Organization that took out a full page ad in the New York Times entitled "General Betrayus".

Trooper York said...

Roger J, I think you have to let hd be hd. Trust me it's not good for your liver to let him get you pissed.

No serious person gives his comments any credence anymore. And we are all ganging up on him because of the silly things he says in the befuddled haze he wanders the Hamptons in each day. Take pity on the poor fella.

Somebody has to be the Betty White of this blog.

holdfast said...

Reason has lot of good writers and good writing, but it also has its share of liberal douchebags who pose as libertarians (cough, Timothy B. Lee, cough) - liberals who maybe don't like paying a lot of taxes and who therefore style themselves libertarians. Megan McArdle is one of these types, which is why her writing on politics is so execrable, though her writing on economics and business is pretty good, and that is her main beat at the Atlantic.

Put it this way: I can see a lot of good reasons why a principled libertarian would be disgusted with John McCain, and therefore would have sat out the 2008 presidential election, or wrote in Ron Paul or something. I cannot, however, understand how anyone who claims to be a libertarian could possibly vote for Obama, a man who will go down in history as the most anti-liberty president since Roosevelt, if not ever.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Most of the time I have no idea what she's trying to write."

I am guessing he must have missed "gadfly" on his SATs.

Roger J. said...

Trooper--you are right--I have personalized this too much--I admire your restraint and will heed your good counsel--Now one caveat: I still get to drink strong liquor to keep my liver working :)

Take care, and Garry Owen (and don't make me splain that to you)

atlharp said...

Anyone want to wager when CNN offers him his own show? What a douche....

Trooper York said...

No problem Roger. And thank you for your service.

Fenway_Nation said...

Maybe he can get a 'goodbye hug' from Congressman Etheridge.

Trooper York said...

Oh and Fenway Nation....BOSTON SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!

Opus One Media said...

@mathadras........

does the phrase shirveled up little pinned dickhead shit for brains have any meaning to you?

it should.

Opus One Media said...

@Trooper York...

go sox...!!!! my daughter is a died in the wool fan.

Wish them well.

Opus One Media said...

HI Roger...or should I just call you shit for brains...i'm easy..up to you...

themightypuck said...

I don't know what the big fuss it. What journalist didn't have something nasty to say about their subject regardless of ideology? I do understand why the WaPo got rid of him though as is their prerogative: he brought attention to their own biases.

Revenant said...

The whole fucked up thing about this is that if Weigel had been blowing kisses at conservatives in emails, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

And if chocolate was non-fattening, you could eat five pounds of it a day and still keep a slim figure.

zefal said...

According to Weigel, their motives include “racism” and protecting “white privilege,”

I like how someone who is a lefty white talking about whites protecting their "privilege". How overrepresented are lefties in the media? Talk about privilege. Privelege for me but not for thee! Didn't see Dave passing on his opportunity to write for the Post and letting an underprivelidge minority or illegal alien have that oppurtunity, did we?

The baldfaced shamelessness of people like Weigel are staggering.

Tell me how wapo can have someone like Dana Milbank on their paper who had no problem joining in on the lunatic rantings of the likes of Olberman and then has the audacity to portray Glenn Beck like this: http://tinyurl.com/2aakdps

M. Simon said...

To me, this episode displays the dichotomy of today's "journalism:" the fake, adjusted, contrived news appears in the print media; the real news, including underying facts, appears on line.

Fax machines brought down the USSR. We have better technology.

Eric said...

Do you realize that I could walk up to 1000 people on the street in NYC and not hope that even 1 of them knows who Ann Althouse is?

Perhaps so. But I bet you couldn't find 1000 consecutive people who'd never heard of Drudge, Instapundit, or Kos.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying "I could walk up to 1000 people in NYC and not hope that even 1 of them knows what the Barstow Star Ledger is.

The Dude said...

"Died in the wool" - with a father like you that sounds like the best alternative.

WV: grati - you're welcome.

Methadras said...

Roger J. said...

Apologies to the commentariat for letting my personal squabble with HD House hijack the blog--I am sure harry will email me his creds and I will apologize forthwith if he has them


Are you still busting his shriveled balls about the alleged patents he says he holds?

Methadras said...

HDHouse said...

@mathadras........

does the phrase shirveled up little pinned dickhead shit for brains have any meaning to you?

it should.


Actually it does. It's usually the thought that runs through my head every time I see you've commented on this blog and said something deep, meaningful, and witty. Oh and has value too. Oh wait...

Methadras said...

HDHouse said...

i'm easy..


That's not what Titus said.

Freeman Hunt said...

Initially today I confused Weigel with an entirely different man and commented scathingly about him. When I realized my error, I deleted the comment. It now occurs to me that someone may have read it at the time, so I'm just coming back to say that I had him mixed up, sorry. Dumb error.

Ralph L said...

Do you realize that I could walk up to 1000 people on the street in NYC and not hope that even 1 of them knows who Ann Althouse is?
I was in NYC several years ago (for the first time since 1982) for Thanksgiving with my brother's b-i-l very near the Brooklyn Bridge. I told him I followed a blog by a law professor which frequently had photos of NY taken near his apartment. He said, "Oh, you read Ann Althouse?"

So I got my 1 in a 1000 on the first try.

I wonder what percentage of self-described libertarians are principally interested in drug legalization. That might explain his Obama vote.

Milwaukee said...

Let me get this straight: this Weigel fellow lost his job because emails he thought were private weren't. Isn't this like the young woman who wrote emails to what she thought were friends, continuing a conversation on race, and was thoroughly ripped to pieces. Folks, Ben Franklin says three people can keep a secret when two of them are dead. Beware what you put out there on the internet. Are you ready to go to court and defend everything you have ever done online? Then don't write those things.

Next, a reporter needs to have some empathy for their subject, but not so much as to lose perspective. As a person of faith, I find that religious reporting is usually so bad that the reporter comes across as a hostile witness. Then stories become distorted beyond recognition. If Weigel had such low regard for conservatives, his reporting was going to be tainted. This is a difficult job, and requires a great deal of maturity.

A friend of mine, in the same 50-something cohort, observed that in many ways many people are still in middle school. Some precious folks have a tree house somebody else built for them, and they are going to run an exclusive club: you can come and you can't. You smell funny and your mother dresses you funny. So Weigel wanted to be accepted by the "in" crowd. Someday he will learn that winning the approval of the "in" crowd is a game that can Never be won. Ever. There is always a more "inner" crowd, and membership in that crowd comes at such an expense which requires your soul. And then some more.

Bender said...

So Weigel wanted to be accepted by the "in" crowd.

Weigel already is accepted by the "in" crowd. He's part of the "in" crowd.

The problem is that he was marketed and presented by the Washington Post as being part of the conservative crowd, i.e. the "out" crowd, when in fact he has been a liberal hack all along. He may or may not have ever personally claimed to be conservative, but the Post represented him to be their resident conservative and he went along with that deceit.

If he was ever the slightest bit conservative, it was only in the John McCain variety, that is, a purported "conservative" who was always reliable to bash conservatives.

His writings betrayed him to be a liberal hack (like the rest of the Post) from the onset, but still they presented him as something he was and is not. Now that his personal thoughts have been exposed to all the world, he is seen to be a total fraud and, hence, no longer in a position to credibly claim to be part of the conservative crowd, so as to report on conservatives "from the inside." Having now been exposed, he could no longer continue in the deceit; he had to go.

Ben Smith at Politico has had the clearest explanation of what really happened here.

Synova said...

I figure that any journalist of any stripe is only faking objectivity.

But the thing about faking it is, if you do a good enough job of it you do a good enough job.

Objectivity is something that you "put on" after all.

What are the necessary elements in order for someone to fake it? First, the person has to understand what objectivity would look like, so they have to actually know the difference. And then they've got to make sure that none of their bias shows, so they have to recognize that as well.

It's a bit like those obnoxious "fake it 'til you make it" motivational things. They're obnoxious, but they're right, too.

knox said...

Just got around to reading this. Fantastic post. Nail on the head, and all that.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 243 of 243   Newer› Newest»