Why won't the Washington Post run a response to Sarah Palin?
December 14, 2009 9:52 am ET by Jamison Foser
Four days ago, Editor & Publisher quoted Washington Post Op-Ed editor Autumn Brewington defending the paper's publication of Sarah Palin's deeply dishonest column about climate change. Most of the defense boils down to a predictably depressing acknowledgment that the Post doesn't really care about facts or expertise; they just want to sell some ads -- For example: "She is someone who stirs discussion and we are in the business of putting out opinion. She reached out to us."
But here's something interesting:
Brewington said the piece drew more reaction than most Op-Eds, adding that it ranked among the 10 most-read articles on the Post Web site Wednesday. ...
Among the critics was a university professor who has offered to write a rebuttal column, Brewington said, declining to name the person. "It is always interesting to see who reaches out to us," she said.
Palin's op-ed ran on December 9. By December 10, the Post had an offer from a "university professor" to write a rebuttal to the error-filled column. So ... Where is it? The Post has yet to run any kind of "rebuttal column," by a professor or anyone else. (The paper did, however, run December 11 column by former Bush aide Michael Gerson that echoed Palin's.)
Brewington seems to regard a proposed rebuttal column by an academic as a joke; something to be amused about -- "It is always interesting to see who reaches out to us." But it isn't a joke. The Post published a falsehood-filled screed by a former half-term governor who either doesn't know the truth or is willing to lie about it. And the paper apparently laughs off requests to run a rebuttal column. There's nothing amusing about that.
Early this year, when the Post was criticized for running a deeply flawed George Will column, Post editorial page boss Fred Hiatt challenged critics to debate Will rather than expect the Post to run a correction. So Chris Mooney submitted an op-ed in response to Will, which the Post eventually published. (Mooney's column ran three weeks after it was submitted. It took the Post less than a day to get Palin's into the paper.)
So why won't the Post publish a column rebutting Sarah Palin's op-ed? Did the paper promise Palin it wouldn't run such a response?
Brewington states the obvious about op-ed articles...they're in the business of putting out opinion. She was clearly correct in her reasoning of running Palin's article...it was a ratings hit...just what op-eds are supposed to do.
Unable to find fault with that rationale...mmfa shifts to the standard tactic of deflection. Brewington said it was "interesting" to see the responses and Foser turns that into Brewington was "amused"...she "laughed off" the response as a "joke".
Foser's question was a fair one for a media watchdog with an opinion...but failed to offer little more than that.
The headline asks a question and mmfa's response is nothing more than another question, "Did the paper promise Palin it wouldn't run such a respnse?"...other than some wild stretching of their imagination and word-smithing of Brewington's response.
Spoken like a true Murdoch-media-empire warrior! Screw the whole idea of editorials being based on falsifications, inaccuracies or conspiracy theories, eh?
Oh, and while you're at it, ignore the rebuttal op-eds because they're not gonna be a "big ratings hit"!
Nope - op-eds are supposed to advance the discussion on important topics of the day. By not printing a rebuttal op-ed to Caribou Barbies pack of lies, the Post is suppressing the discussion.
The next question is "Why?"
You "failed to offer" an answer to that question.
Why won't the Post publish a column rebutting Sarah Palin's op-ed?
I clearly stated that the question was a good one...just as I clearly stated that Foser's attempt at answering it was specious.
He could have saved himself some valuable time to report on other more important issues by just posting the headline...because he brought nothing else to the table but less than honest word-smithing of Brewington's response.
At least Foser attempts to answer the question. You dodge it.
At least he BROUGHT someting to the table - which is more than we can say for you, Wesley.
Sorry, but your criticism is a complete and utter fail.
It's a welcome sight to have one of the "founding fathers" of this comment section return.
Newspapers do run editorials, and op-ed pieces, and they don't 'require' an opposing viewpoint for every editorial they print. However, when there are factual mistakes, they do issue corrections in a variety of ways - often, through a guest editorial or a rebuttal op-ed!!!
And the fact that you don't understand the difference between a supposedly neutral news organization's responsibilities and the track record of MMFA is stunning!
In your next life, wear a real helmet, not a leather one. It might protect your brain power better.
It's really too bad MMFA won't allow a commenter to express an opposing view any time the commenter wants to, isn't it.
Re-read the penultimate paragraph of my post.
The fact that the first op-ed was popular doesn't negate the fact that newspapers have a longstanding and perfectly understandable responsibility to post opposing views that debunk previous op-eds!
It has nothing at all to do with journalism which, I think, is what the WaPo ostensibly does.
This notion is much too close to "FauxNews has the best ratings evah!" It fits the Faux/O'Reilly, Hannity, et.al. MO. The louder they are, the righter (heh) they are.
After all, she can see the climate from her house in Alaska.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120903860.html
More discussion here:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/12/wapo_redeems_itself_palins_new.php
What am I missing; why doesn't this article count as a rebuttaL/
If you're smart enough to use the internets and can type, you should already know this.
And we don't believe you when you say "you'd really like to know". Your snark about the "brilliant column writer" gives you away.
Maybe next time you can try honesty. Or you can choose to remain like Sarah Palin. And you'll get from us exactly what you deserve!