The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

WEIGEL RESIGNS

Posted on | June 25, 2010 | 123 Comments

This is not good news for conservatives, no matter how much you hate Dave Weigel.

UPDATE: In an e-mail to several bloggers last night, I observed:

[O]nce the WaPo axed Ben Domenech, it was more than four years before they again tried a “conservative” blog. As someone who is BCC’d said to me on the phone Thursday, Dave is “about the best we can expect” from the Post. So there’s nothing to be gained by conservatives doing a takedown on Weigel, and perhaps a good deal to be lost.

Ah, vain hope. The “No Conservatives Need Apply” policy at WaPo may now be regarded as a permanent fixture.

UPDATE II: Dan Riehl disagrees with me. But I never argue with Dan.

UPDATE III:  Philip Klein at The American Spectator:

It should also be noted that he went on Keith Olbermann’s show and shot down a story about Sarah Palin committing perjury that had been lighting up the liberal blogs and defended Cato’s Michael Cannon against a “dishonest and unfair hit” by the Center for American Progress.

Pamela Geller, on the other hand:

This is the asshat who sided with chuckie the traitor, and slammed Spencer and me, among . . .

I’m not aware that Weigel “sided with” Charles Johnson, but perhaps I missed something. At any rate, in a phone conversation just now with a conservative activist/blogger, I located what may be the deepest root of my pain over this episode: Weigel’s short tenure at the WaPo will be woven into the “conservatives don’t do journalism” narrative that Matthew Yglesias and his liberal buddies have been weaving for the past couple of years.

UPDATE IV: Conservative operative Liz Mair:

[P]erhaps the Post could pursue someone like Phil Klein or Eli Lake or Jim Antle.  It would demonstrate good faith towards conservatives, and help the Post continue to drive in a direction that seems to be benefiting it, in terms of audience.

Not. Gonna. Happen. However, Liz also theorizes:

A lot of leaking has been done with the clear objective (I believe) of ruining Dave’s career, and forcing his ouster by the Washington Post.  I suspect it is happening because Dave committed the cardinal sin of defending Rand Paul, a figure who has become so reviled by many on the Left that it’s hard to draw a bright-line distinction between him and Saddam Hussein, by their standards (in fact, for some of them, I believe Saddam Hussein is held in less contempt).  That’s a bad place for Dave to be, but he got there because he had the courage of his convictions and defending a man who many on the Right consider almost indefensible — and he did it at the Washington Post, not Reason Magazine.

Ah, well. Water under the bridge. Weigel under the bus. Ace isn’t wasting any tears on Dave. Sad to see that among the few bloggers saying anything in Weigel’s defense is . . . wait for it . . . Andrew Sullivan.

Yeah. Kiss of death. Dave who? Never heard of the guy.

(Rooster crows three times.)

UPDATE V: In the comments, Moe Lane makes a good point:

“The thing that strikes me about this is how little input in the affair actual conservatives have had.”

Exactly. News organizations don’t hire conservatives. Therefore, conservatives don’t seek careers in journalism and instead become lawyers or accountants or stock brokers or whatever.

Ergo, none of the people making decisions in MSM newsrooms are conservatives. Where set A = “employees of news organizations” and set B = “conservatives,” we see that as the closer set AB approaches to zero, the more likely journalists are to view conservatives as The Other, and vice-versa.

If you think such a situation is a good thing, then you’re obviously congratulating yourself about Dave Weigel’s downfall, and you don’t want to hear the explanation of my disagreement.

UPDATE VI: Not to say there isn’t an upside: Ezra Klein has deep-sixed Journolist as a result of the Weigel affair. Little Miss Attila says the list had become “blackmail fodder.”

I spoke to Weigel by phone this afternoon. He’s fine, and is currently deciding which of three or four job offers to accept. He admits that he succumbed to hubris, but wasn’t interested in rehashing the back-story of this whole mess. He said he was going somewhere this evening to chill out.

Ed Morrissey says “Dave and I are on friendly terms,” so there’s that, and Ed engages in the “who leaked from Journolist and why?” theorizing that is the really intriguing angle here. The more I think about it, the more I suspect that Liz Mair was on the money in suspecting that Dave’s defense of Rand Paul motivated the leak.

Matt Welch at Reason recounts the saga for the benefit of Weigel’s former readers at Reason, and Ed Driscoll has a long and excellent round-up of reaction.

Category: Blogging, Media Bias, Neutral Objective Journalism

Comments

123 Responses to “WEIGEL RESIGNS”

  1. H. G. Fielding
    June 25th, 2010 @ 7:46 pm

    re: update V.

    While I concur in your concern over “set AB aproaching zero,”
    I have serious doubts that Wiegel ever belonged to set B.

  2. H. G. Fielding
    June 25th, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

    re: update V.

    While I concur in your concern over “set AB aproaching zero,”
    I have serious doubts that Wiegel ever belonged to set B.

  3. Wm T Sherman
    June 25th, 2010 @ 7:47 pm

    And running interference for Congressman Etheridge and his restless hands – God.

  4. Wm T Sherman
    June 25th, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

    And running interference for Congressman Etheridge and his restless hands – God.

  5. Ed Driscoll » ‘The Self-Immolation of David Weigel’
    June 25th, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

    […] Stacy McCain adds: News organizations don’t hire conservatives. Therefore, conservatives don’t seek careers in journalism and instead become lawyers or accountants or stock brokers or whatever. […]

  6. Ezra Klein Kills JournoList | Little Miss Attila
    June 25th, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

    […] Stacy has some thoughts on why Wiegel’s downfall is not good news for the right, notwithstanding the fact that […]

  7. TR Sterling
    June 25th, 2010 @ 8:14 pm

    Please, no more candles for a guy who prefers backstabbing emails and snide columns that would defend Palin stalkers etc. It wasn’t Wapo who told the boy to act like an arrogant fool. Look at William Kristol who wrote for the NYT for at least a year (in the lions den) while he was also lecturing at Harvard. He left with head high and reputation intact. Difference = professionalism and depth of knowledge. The right person can do much given the chance, the wrong person….well Weigel is a case in point.

  8. TR Sterling
    June 25th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

    Please, no more candles for a guy who prefers backstabbing emails and snide columns that would defend Palin stalkers etc. It wasn’t Wapo who told the boy to act like an arrogant fool. Look at William Kristol who wrote for the NYT for at least a year (in the lions den) while he was also lecturing at Harvard. He left with head high and reputation intact. Difference = professionalism and depth of knowledge. The right person can do much given the chance, the wrong person….well Weigel is a case in point.

  9. timb
    June 25th, 2010 @ 8:34 pm

    First of all, who the hell likes Drudge? I get that journalists and institutions have to respect his traffic, but he’s a worm who survives on rumors, innuendo, and gossip. Why would right-leaning people who “likes” him?

    Secondly, aren’t there any conservatives who remember Watergate? I get that there aren’t a ton who remember they used to not care about deficits, that they used to hate “Big Government” before they all started believe Government is the only solution to the BP fiasco and all, but really, none of you remember David Segretti? Weigel and his band of journalist “friends” hardly made up the term “ratf*cking.” Segretti, Liddy, Colson, et al coined it almost 4 decades ago.

    Geez, faux outrage is all the thing and I get that, but to know less about the history of your country than what happened during Watergate is just weird.

  10. timb
    June 25th, 2010 @ 4:34 pm

    First of all, who the hell likes Drudge? I get that journalists and institutions have to respect his traffic, but he’s a worm who survives on rumors, innuendo, and gossip. Why would right-leaning people who “likes” him?

    Secondly, aren’t there any conservatives who remember Watergate? I get that there aren’t a ton who remember they used to not care about deficits, that they used to hate “Big Government” before they all started believe Government is the only solution to the BP fiasco and all, but really, none of you remember David Segretti? Weigel and his band of journalist “friends” hardly made up the term “ratf*cking.” Segretti, Liddy, Colson, et al coined it almost 4 decades ago.

    Geez, faux outrage is all the thing and I get that, but to know less about the history of your country than what happened during Watergate is just weird.

  11. timb
    June 25th, 2010 @ 8:35 pm

    Nice editing. Should read “why would any right-leaning person “like” him

  12. timb
    June 25th, 2010 @ 4:35 pm

    Nice editing. Should read “why would any right-leaning person “like” him

  13. Dave C
    June 25th, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

    This is not good news for conservatives, no matter how much you hate Dave Weigel.

    So the guy who was hired to ‘report’ on not only conservatives but the fringe groups and paint them as mainstream is out of a job.

    How is this ‘not good news’?

    he was doing the same job as every other liberal blogger but he had the title of ‘view from the right’. Wouldn’t that make what he was actually doing a bit more insidious for the average reader?

  14. Dave C
    June 25th, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

    This is not good news for conservatives, no matter how much you hate Dave Weigel.

    So the guy who was hired to ‘report’ on not only conservatives but the fringe groups and paint them as mainstream is out of a job.

    How is this ‘not good news’?

    he was doing the same job as every other liberal blogger but he had the title of ‘view from the right’. Wouldn’t that make what he was actually doing a bit more insidious for the average reader?

  15. Count Vikula
    June 25th, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

    Stacy you should take his place. If not you, then Jack Hunter who does items for The American Conservative.

  16. Count Vikula
    June 25th, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

    Stacy you should take his place. If not you, then Jack Hunter who does items for The American Conservative.

  17. Danby
    June 25th, 2010 @ 9:41 pm

    The deal here Stacy is that Weigel was NEVER A CONSERVATIVE. He’s not a member of set B. He’s a member of set F, the so-called cosmopolitan Libertarians. In other words he’s pro-drug, pro-abortion, pro-perversity, the kind of guy who writes for Reason. He is for a smaller government, but only because government interferes with absolute personal autonomy. Somehow, in the current political climate that puts him on the right.

    He despises conservatives, you can see that in his writing. I’m sure he seems like a nice guy, but that’s what reporters do, con you into thinking they’re your friends, so they can betray you later. You, of all people, should know that. It’s exactly what the Rolling Stone reporter did to MacChrystal. Just because you’re on the receiving end of it shouldn’t blind you to the technique.

  18. Danby
    June 25th, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

    The deal here Stacy is that Weigel was NEVER A CONSERVATIVE. He’s not a member of set B. He’s a member of set F, the so-called cosmopolitan Libertarians. In other words he’s pro-drug, pro-abortion, pro-perversity, the kind of guy who writes for Reason. He is for a smaller government, but only because government interferes with absolute personal autonomy. Somehow, in the current political climate that puts him on the right.

    He despises conservatives, you can see that in his writing. I’m sure he seems like a nice guy, but that’s what reporters do, con you into thinking they’re your friends, so they can betray you later. You, of all people, should know that. It’s exactly what the Rolling Stone reporter did to MacChrystal. Just because you’re on the receiving end of it shouldn’t blind you to the technique.

  19. blaster
    June 25th, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

    RSM, I agree – nothing good for conservatives in the defenestration of Weigel. But there was nothing good in his emplacement at the WaPo either. I mean, great, we got Brooks at NYT, and Weigel at WaPo?

    Nothing good for conservatives.

  20. blaster
    June 25th, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

    RSM, I agree – nothing good for conservatives in the defenestration of Weigel. But there was nothing good in his emplacement at the WaPo either. I mean, great, we got Brooks at NYT, and Weigel at WaPo?

    Nothing good for conservatives.

  21. Dave C
    June 25th, 2010 @ 10:47 pm

    Weigel was nothing but a Judas Goat for unsuspecting readers.

  22. Dave C
    June 25th, 2010 @ 6:47 pm

    Weigel was nothing but a Judas Goat for unsuspecting readers.

  23. Boz
    June 25th, 2010 @ 11:57 pm

    I don’t blame the WaPo for accepting his resignation. Dave Weigel is supposed to be somebody with special knowledge of the conservative movement. That knowledge and access ended yesterday when it became clear what he really thought of his sources and subjects, the actual people he made a living covering. It’s all fine and good to claim that somebody’s emails should be private, but he really should have known that when his utter hatred for his subjects (wishing people would die?! set themselves on fire?! wtf??) became public, he would lose his livelihood. Definitely sounds like hubris to me; kid got in over his head and lost all perspective.

  24. Boz
    June 25th, 2010 @ 7:57 pm

    I don’t blame the WaPo for accepting his resignation. Dave Weigel is supposed to be somebody with special knowledge of the conservative movement. That knowledge and access ended yesterday when it became clear what he really thought of his sources and subjects, the actual people he made a living covering. It’s all fine and good to claim that somebody’s emails should be private, but he really should have known that when his utter hatred for his subjects (wishing people would die?! set themselves on fire?! wtf??) became public, he would lose his livelihood. Definitely sounds like hubris to me; kid got in over his head and lost all perspective.

  25. RightKlik
    June 26th, 2010 @ 12:00 am

    There are a billion hateful libs who can pretend to be objective as well as Weigel can.

  26. RightKlik
    June 25th, 2010 @ 8:00 pm

    There are a billion hateful libs who can pretend to be objective as well as Weigel can.

  27. The Anti-Clique
    June 26th, 2010 @ 12:04 am

    I sure am sick of Beltway conservatives engaging in special pleading for their friend the liberal. Hey, Lesson No. 2 from L’Affaire Weigel:

    If you are friends with Weigel, recuse yourself from writing about the matter.

    The whole reason the Daily Caller scooped the Beltway diaper brigade was because they were too close to him.

  28. The Anti-Clique
    June 25th, 2010 @ 8:04 pm

    I sure am sick of Beltway conservatives engaging in special pleading for their friend the liberal. Hey, Lesson No. 2 from L’Affaire Weigel:

    If you are friends with Weigel, recuse yourself from writing about the matter.

    The whole reason the Daily Caller scooped the Beltway diaper brigade was because they were too close to him.

  29. Weigel to the Atlantic? : The Other McCain
    June 25th, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

    […] Douglas on Twitter asked me if I knew whether David Weigel had gotten a new job. As I mentioned earlier, Dave told me he had received three or four offers, but he didn’t say who had made the […]

  30. Richard McEnroe
    June 26th, 2010 @ 12:48 am

    “but really, none of you remember David Segretti? ”

    I remember DONALD Segretti…. do you?

  31. Richard McEnroe
    June 25th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

    “but really, none of you remember David Segretti? ”

    I remember DONALD Segretti…. do you?

  32. Nicholas Stix
    June 26th, 2010 @ 1:04 am

    When I read this piece, Stacy, I asked myself, “Dave who?” Then I reviewed a couple of posts of his I’d read, and asked myself, “He was supposed to be a conservative?” I’m with the commenters who see this as no loss.

  33. Nicholas Stix
    June 25th, 2010 @ 9:04 pm

    When I read this piece, Stacy, I asked myself, “Dave who?” Then I reviewed a couple of posts of his I’d read, and asked myself, “He was supposed to be a conservative?” I’m with the commenters who see this as no loss.

  34. Instapundit » Blog Archive » STACY MCCAIN on why conservatives shouldn’t be congratulating themselves over the Weigel defenstrati…
    June 25th, 2010 @ 9:25 pm

    […] MCCAIN on why conservatives shouldn’t be congratulating themselves over the Weigel […]

  35. chercast
    June 26th, 2010 @ 8:41 am

    My opinion, from reading DW I thought he thought conservatives were ……super. Smile.

  36. chercast
    June 26th, 2010 @ 4:41 am

    My opinion, from reading DW I thought he thought conservatives were ……super. Smile.

  37. traderrob
    June 26th, 2010 @ 12:45 pm

    What’s worse, a wolf or a wolf in sheeps clothing?

  38. traderrob
    June 26th, 2010 @ 8:45 am

    What’s worse, a wolf or a wolf in sheeps clothing?

  39. Mike G
    June 26th, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

    The good part is not that Weigel got axed (that was an inside job of a guy who was okay, I guess), but that his job, and the reason for it existing, was revealed as a fraud.

    The Post ombudsman has a pretty good piece but he unintentionally reveals the thinking here when he suggests that the Post should create jobs of covering conservatives– one for opinion and one for objective reporting. TWO reporters covering 50+% of the nation? Let’s not get crazy here!

  40. Mike G
    June 26th, 2010 @ 8:48 am

    The good part is not that Weigel got axed (that was an inside job of a guy who was okay, I guess), but that his job, and the reason for it existing, was revealed as a fraud.

    The Post ombudsman has a pretty good piece but he unintentionally reveals the thinking here when he suggests that the Post should create jobs of covering conservatives– one for opinion and one for objective reporting. TWO reporters covering 50+% of the nation? Let’s not get crazy here!

  41. Blue
    June 26th, 2010 @ 8:50 am

    Hold on just a sec.

    Weigel in private wrote on Journolist about how to slant the coverage of the MA Senate race to not hurt the Democrats.

    How is that acceptable?

  42. Blue
    June 26th, 2010 @ 12:50 pm

    Hold on just a sec.

    Weigel in private wrote on Journolist about how to slant the coverage of the MA Senate race to not hurt the Democrats.

    How is that acceptable?

  43. ak4mc
    June 26th, 2010 @ 12:59 pm

    It’s not good or bad for Conservatives…

    I agree with this; it’s far more of a blow to the Establishment Media in general, and to WaPo in particular, than to conservatives.

    Stacy, I rather suspect your reaction to this has more to do with your background in that dying industry than with any actual fallout in terms of a political philosophy’s public standing. WaPo and the so-called “M”-SM don’t get to make those kinds of decisions anymore, and they never should have.

  44. ak4mc
    June 26th, 2010 @ 8:59 am

    It’s not good or bad for Conservatives…

    I agree with this; it’s far more of a blow to the Establishment Media in general, and to WaPo in particular, than to conservatives.

    Stacy, I rather suspect your reaction to this has more to do with your background in that dying industry than with any actual fallout in terms of a political philosophy’s public standing. WaPo and the so-called “M”-SM don’t get to make those kinds of decisions anymore, and they never should have.

  45. M. Simon
    June 26th, 2010 @ 1:03 pm

    Let me see here. Conservatives make up 40% of the electorate (and growing)and liberals make up 20% (and declining) and the WaPo will no longer be covering the conservatives. And that hurts conservatives? Just as a rough guess I think it hurts the WaPo. A lot.

    And people wonder why the newspaper BUSINESS model is failing.

    The liberal media is tired of shooting itself in the foot and is going for the groin. I look forward to the heart shots come a few years hence.

    That is called moving up.

  46. M. Simon
    June 26th, 2010 @ 9:03 am

    Let me see here. Conservatives make up 40% of the electorate (and growing)and liberals make up 20% (and declining) and the WaPo will no longer be covering the conservatives. And that hurts conservatives? Just as a rough guess I think it hurts the WaPo. A lot.

    And people wonder why the newspaper BUSINESS model is failing.

    The liberal media is tired of shooting itself in the foot and is going for the groin. I look forward to the heart shots come a few years hence.

    That is called moving up.

  47. Paul A'Barge
    June 26th, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

    Libtards.

    Before this is over, they all go under the bus. All of them. Every single one of them.

    Nail their asses when you can and party like it’s 1931 every time.

  48. Paul A'Barge
    June 26th, 2010 @ 9:05 am

    Libtards.

    Before this is over, they all go under the bus. All of them. Every single one of them.

    Nail their asses when you can and party like it’s 1931 every time.

  49. Mike G
    June 26th, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

    “In other words he’s pro-drug, pro-abortion, pro-perversity, the kind of guy who writes for Reason. ”

    To be fair he got a lot of s–t at Reason for being the kind of “libertarian” who supports Obamacare.

  50. Mike G
    June 26th, 2010 @ 9:13 am

    “In other words he’s pro-drug, pro-abortion, pro-perversity, the kind of guy who writes for Reason. ”

    To be fair he got a lot of s–t at Reason for being the kind of “libertarian” who supports Obamacare.

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin