WaPo on Palin op-ed: We'll publish garbage if you'll click on it
December 10, 2009 5:45 pm ET by Ben Dimiero
Yesterday, The Washington Post published a falsehood-laden op-ed on climate change from noted climatologist...Alaska Governor...uh, social network celebrity Sarah Palin. In an interview with Editor and Publisher's Joe Strupp, op-ed editor Autumn Brewington explained how Palin's piece came to appear in the paper, and defended the decision to run it:
She said the newspaper received an e-mail from Palin Tuesday asking to write about the issue and it decided it should run Wednesday, before President Barack Obama was to head to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
"If we were going to use it, we had to use it immediately," Brewington said. "It was a quicker turnaround than is often the case. But we made the decision based on news."[...]
Brewington did not regret giving Palin space, noting, "She is someone who stirs discussion and we are in the business of putting out opinion. She reached out to us."
A few things come to mind in response to this. Considering Palin's history of falsehoods, rushing her piece through the editorial process was probably not the best idea. As Media Matters research director Jeremy Schulman pointed out on Wednesday, not only were Palin's falsehoods contradicted by scientists and temperature data, but also by the Washington Post's own reporting.
Also, the idea that Palin's thoughts are worth publishing for no other reason than she "stirs discussion" suggests that The Washington Post is more interested in getting attention than informing its readers. Does Palin have an open invitation to write ill-informed pieces on newsworthy issues just because she "stirs discussion?" How about a piece about Barack Obama's birth certificate? Actually, I don't think I want to know the answer to that.
Yesterday, under the headline "Hard Questions," Josh Marshall framed the recent "Climategate" kerfuffle perfectly:
Who to believe on climate change mystery: scientists or conservative pundits? Any thoughts?
WaPo answers: That depends - how many clickthroughs will these "scientists" get us?
If Merriam-Webster defines journalism as 'writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation', then most of what we call reporting today is certainly not synonymous with journalism. Infotainment is about the closest idea, based on what I've seen.
Who to believe on climate change mystery: scientists or conservative pundits? Any thoughts?
uh, Nuf said?
Although I do believe that she does stir discussion.
Is MMFA saying that opinions MMFA disagrees with should be shut down? MMFA's argument is that Palin's piece is that insufficient time was given by the Post to reviewing Palin's misinforming, falsehood-ridden piece before they published it.
If one's opinion is not based upon facts, then that opinion is suspect and should be called out as such.
Not all opinions should be given the same weight.
Opinions based upon flawed or dishonest factual information shouldn't be given a nationwide audience and more credibility and legitimacy than what they deserve.
This is the mission of MMFA - to stop those people and organizations that get more credibility than they deserve from poisoning our national debate! We need to talk about the real issues, and not waste our time shooting down Sarah Palin's false talking points!
This is not rocket science.
And both entities -- HarperCollins and The Washington Post -- should have sent Palin's maunderings back to her in the equivalent of a plain manila envelope with a big red "REJECTED" stamped on it.
I cry for the hundreds upon hundreds of serious but inexperienced KNOWLEDGABLE authors who've received the "reject" treatment, knowing they're thinking, "how does this proven inarticulate, ignorant, protopolitician whose missives are unencumbered by facts get instant access to the very media she excoriates nearly every time she opens her mouth, and we have to re-write 5 times before our submitted work gets a second opinion, or publication?"
She is a flame thrower and is throwing flames for whatever her personal ambition is, nothing else. Tomorrow, Beck could be writing opinion pieces in WaPo. I don't care personally but people who give weight to WaPo's opinion pieces might.
My post idea:
Hey, I know this guy named Adolf, and he can really "stir discussion" with his ideas about Jews and their role in our national problems and the world-historical flow. How's about we give him a regular pundit spot, eh?
Exactly. Huffington Post has a news item today titled "Sarah Palin Op-Ed Is A Chart-Topper: 21st Most Read At WaPo In 2009"
Jason Linkins has it right. He said, "...And every time she updates her Facebook page, the Angel of Page Views accumulates mad frequent-flyer miles. When Sarah speaks, an army of detractors and an army of supporters get on their perches, link back to the source and send traffic merrily on its way."
It's all about the bottom line, baby.
well, ALMOST perfectly.
Whom to believe on climate change mystery:
:P