The level of obsession by media insiders around the demise of David Weigel as a Washington Post blogger reflects the changing nature of today’s journalism values.
Weigel’s work straddled the world of the new and the old, incorporating norms from the Fifth Estate (distinctive voice, independent point of view and snarky hyperbole) with those from the Fourth Estate (pursuit of truth, fairness in reporting and keeping personal opinions from public view). The scrutiny of his departure from the Post comes from journalists in both worlds and reveals a growing tension between the two cultures.
To recap: Weigel was a blogger-reporter for The Washington Post and the main author of the now-defunct “Right Now” blog. He resigned from his job after Fishbowl DC published excerpts of his personal e-mails in which he lambasted parts of the conservative movement. Weigel had posted his pejorative thoughts to JournoList, an invitation-only listserv for center to left-leaning journalists and policy experts.
The Daily Caller then followed up, revealing even more inflammatory e-mails.
On June 29, Weigel updated his blog with a note that he would be contributing to MSNBC while still looking for a full-time job.
Dividing into camps
Observers from both the Fourth and Fifth estates were quick to take sides, with Twitter hashtags #Weigelgate and #teamweigel. New York magazine explored Weigel’s motivation, pointing to his desire to be liked. The Atlantic was all aflutter, with Marc Ambinder making the pro-Weigel case, Jeffrey Goldberg (who is downright ecstatic at Weigel’s departure) showing out with multiple posts, Ta-Nehisi Coates giving Goldberg a kind version of the side eye for excessive schadenfreude and Conor Friedersdorf asking, “How Should Journalists Be Judged?”
The Washington Post’s own Howard Kurtz touched on Weigel twice, once in his Media Notes column and another time for the Art & Style section. Even the Economist’s Democracy in America blog weighed in:
David Carr of The New York Times won the set, describing Weigel as an outsider brought in to work his magic on a tradition-bound newspaper:
“There are a few lessons to be learned from the whole mess. First, as mainstream media tries to co-opt and deploy some of the tools (and voices) of the insurgency, the intersection is going to be tricky for some time to come.”
Speaking of pixie dust, it could also be said that Weigel was the Post’s version of movie archetype Manic Pixie Dream Girl, providing the Post with a makeover similar to the ones that play out in teen movies. The trouble is, even if Weigel had lived up to his role as Manic Pixie Dream Guy, the Post wasn’t ready for it.
It’s important to note that much of the conservative criticism around Weigel isn’t even about his body of work, but rather that there is not a conservative equivalent to Ezra Klein’s left-leaning policy blog.
The Washington Post explains
Still, what exactly was Weigel’s great sin? Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander (who also maintains a blog) explained:
“Weigel’s e-mails showed strikingly poor judgment and revealed a bias that only underscored existing complaints from conservatives that he couldn’t impartially cover them.
“But his departure also raises questions about whether The Post has adequately defined the role of bloggers like Weigel. Are they neutral reporters or ideologues?
“And, given the disdainful comments in his e-mails, there is the separate question of whether he was miscast from the outset when he was hired earlier this year.”
Alexander posed some of these questions to Raju Narisetti, the Post’s online managing editor, who replied that someone doesn’t have to be conservative in order to cover conservatives, but “you do need to be impartial … in your views.” Narisetti said that managers will revise the vetting process going forward.
The Fifth Estate responds
Considering the reaction from both the Fourth and Fifth Estates, perhaps the Post should reconsider not just the vetting process, but also the role of blogging in a mainstream organization. Perhaps the traditional inclination to maintain the appearance of impartiality is the problem here, not the solution.
The disclosure of Weigel’s comments offended a variety of sensibilities, particularly those conservatives who didn’t appreciate being covered by someone who, in the words of The Daily Caller’s Jonathan Strong, “betrays a personal animus toward conservatives.”
Some writers even called for someone more sympathetic to the conservative cause to cover the movement. However, isn’t the hallmark of a journalist being able to report fairly, despite one’s own personal opinions about certain subjects? Can the media afford to blur the wall between a reporter’s private opinions and professional life, as long as the facts are the most important piece?
A week into this debate, there is no clear consensus from either the Fourth or Fifth Estate on the broader issues laid bare by Weigel’s downfall. Many in legacy media believe he was the convenient fall guy for multiple agendas. Many in the Fifth Estate believe that blatant disclosure of derogatory opinions, particularly from someone who is an active participant in the digital space, is too foolish to be defended. (Weigel himself used the words “hubris,” “cocky,” and “arrogant” in his mea culpa on Big Journalism.)
Confusion remains, as well as a host of unanswered questions: In our increasingly polarized political discourse, what role should bloggers play in reporting the news? Are they more like opinionated columnists or impartial reporters? Will there be a further blurring of the boundaries between Fifth Estaters, who generally make their names based on both quality of work and personality; and Fourth Estaters, who gain credibility by quality and fairness? (It’s a high compliment when sources with different opinions agree their views were adequately and accurately represented in a story.)
Those of us in the Fifth Estate will continue to push back against the notion of impartiality. Is it even possible to report on an issue without bringing your own personal lens to the situation? Many of us would argue no, and media critics often point out the hidden bias or slant in news stories, particularly on divisive issues like race, gender and sexual orientation.
In some ways, the Fifth Estate prefers transparency to impartiality — then, at least, bias is acknowledged and accounted for. Did Weigel misrepresent himself as a conservative? Was it a sin of omission by simply failing to reveal enough about his complex views?
In the end, the true culprit here is the management at The Washington Post. In the mad rush to grasp the new, hot up-and-comers, they failed to do enough due diligence — both on Weigel’s (public) background and how the addition of bloggers would impact their perception as a newspaper. In the end, it’s no surprise they got burned.
