Late last week, Washington Post blogger David Weigel resigned from his post after emails he wrote to a private listserv became public. Weigel, who covered the conservative movement and the Republican Party, it turns out, is not a conservative. What he is depends on what source you use, but most agree he is a libertarian.
Forget for a minute that bloggers tend to have a point of view. Forget, even, that almost everyone has a point of view and that point of view – no matter how hard someone tries – will eventually come through. The question is: do you think someone from one political point of view should cover those of another point of view? If so, why? If not, why not?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Doesn’t really matter, if you’re an honest reporter. People hold differing personal views from their professional obligations all the time, and we seem to get on just fine. That said, assuming that honesty exists in the reporter, I’d prefer to read coverage that’s coming from one without personal views that are necessarily sympathetic to the subject. That helps avoid some of the laziness (taking some things as a given, giving small passes on perhaps telling details, etc) that seems to come with covering those that hold views close to yours.
~
Separately – the Weigel case is a bad example for the issue, I think. Weigel’s out because the WaPo is obsessed – to the point that it’s wrecked the place, in my view – with demonstrating to the whinging right that they’ll give them the voice and platform they want. And if that has to include heads on a stick from time to time (Froomkin, Weigel), so be it. And if anyone at WaPo thought they were getting an orthodox conservative when they hired Weigel, they’re even worse at fact gathering and analysis than I give them credit for.
I agree that Weigel is a bad example. But he was a recent one 🙂
~
Good point on the laziness.
Blogs are slightly different animals than what appears in the main newspaper news hole. In the years I worked around newspapers, reporters who covered politics weren’t allowed to become involved personally in partisan politics or express personal feelings about specific parties or political issues. Most didn’t even vote.
But I believe things might have been a little for columnists, whose personal stripes were purposely more visible. In that blogs are arguably more like columns than like straight news, it doesn’t surprise me if a blogger has a clearly understood political point of view. It’s almost expected.
But when they’re writing under the banner of a major news organization, I do believe they have a burden to either disclose their position or be more responsible when writing about a party or partisan issue.
As for Weigel, if he’s a decent journalist, his personal views shouldn’t be relevant unless they taint his coverage of his beat.
I guess this raises the question: are bloggers journalists? And, one that few are willing to tackle: are columnists journalists?
I think it adds perspective to have people from differing sides tell the story of the other side. If you read the four Gospels, you will find different tellings of the same stories, and this allows for connecting to the stories in a slightly different way (it also fleshes out the story). Perhaps I can identify with a story the way it’s told in the Gospel of John, but not so much in Matthew.
A good reporter can objectively cover any point of view. I agree with Chris that bloggers are different from reporters are different from columnists, and that point is important. Reporters have less personal leeway.
Of course, there’s this (from Jay Ford on Facebook):
http://www.salon.com/news/media_criticism/index.html?story=%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F2010%2F06%2F28%2Fjournalism
And from Weigel himself http://bit.ly/bJTSJ2
My belief is that a person’s individual ability to provide accurate, useful information and insight into a political beat is less about that person’s platform or ideology — it’s about maturity. Whether you’re a blogger, a columnist or a reporter, if you don’t care to have your writing rise above partisan talking points or ideological shibboleths, all you need is a subject and a verb. On the other hand, if you care to actually inform the reader so that he puts down your writing with a greater depth of knowledge than he had when he picked it up, you’re always going to need to be able to understand and explain at least two different points of view — at least one of which won’t be your own. The ability to succinctly advance in good faith a notion or philosophy which differs from your own requires of a writer a certainly level of intellectual honesty and maturity that, I’ve come to realize, most writers don’t actually possess. Which means that when you do find such a writer who can provide timely, accurate and useful information about the political arena, you should treat that person like he or she is your publication’s most valuable commodity.
The Washington Post disagrees with me; their goal for the foreseeable future is to become a clearing house for top-down, party-approved messaging. Essentially, they strive to be the Walmart of political communications, a one-stop shop for partisan white-noise so that you don’t have to visit multiple outlets for your “news and information” by going to the DCCC and the NRCC’s respective web pages.
It’s enough to make me go sit in the car and turn on NPR for solace.
This bears repeating:
I think you nailed it.
I think we need to distinguish, as someone did, between bloggers who sound off opinions from electronic soapboxes, such as me, to those who report real news, such as Josh Marshall.
I am not a journalist. I’m a loudmouth. I try to be a thoughtful loudmouth, but, all the same . . .
Reports should report facts. If I lean right, I may not emphasize the same facts that someone who leans right does, but what I report should be facts. The reader should be responsible to sort out which facts are more important or persuasive.
Opinionators on the Op-Ed page have more leeway than reporters because they are presented as opinionators, but they should still base their opinionating on facts. When they don’t, the result is Fox News.
Anyhoo, to return to the original question . . . .
To have persons with a particular political viewpoint reported on only by those who share that viewpoint does not result in “news coverage.”
It results in cheerleading.
I’m beginning to wonder if we need a new term. Like you, I think we should distinguish between the different types of “bloggers.”
Cheerleading – yep.
I am, frankly, a little confused. Did the Post not know that Herr Weigel was not a conservative? If that is the case, WHY did they not know? Had they not read his previous work before they hired him?