PJ's thoughts on "The Washington Post leaves us still Waiting for Lefty"

Saturday morning, while C.I. was working on the NYT entry and we were playing "read over the shoulders" Jim and Dona stated that a point should be brought up since C.I. was addressing the issue of Todd S. Purdum and another Times reporter. (The other one was deleted from that entry and will be dealt with at another time.) The issue was one that arose as a result of a feature at The Third Estate Sunday Review (click here) and we attempted to address some issues in "About Last Week."

While C.I. phoned community member PJ to see if there was any comment he wanted to make. He had quite a few and we were comfortable with them going up at The Common Ills. However, to aid us in having the spine for at least one entry (if not the structure) C.I. offered it to this edition.

The feature was "The Washington Post leaves us still Waiting For Lefty" and that edition didn't come with "A note to our readers" where we usually discuss what was written and note credit. Ava and C.I. did not want to participate in that entry at all. Only because the hour was late (actually around five in the morning) and things still had to be done along with the promise that we would do the features they wanted (one on the protests in France the other on Puerto Rico and the targeting of independence activists) did they agree to work on it focusing solely on the issue of the blogger. In that article evaluations of the paper were made by others participating:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot

Ava and C.I. did not participate in those evaluations (though Waiting for Lefty did come from C.I.). Had "A note to our readers" gone up, we would have noted that. C.I. wasn't aware that there was no note for that edition until calls started coming in from friends at the Washington Post. C.I. referred them to Jim and stated to call back after Jim had responded.

The gist of the calls (to Jim) can be summarized as expressing anger and then stating basically, "Well you're entitled to your opinion." Jim clarified that neither Ava nor C.I. wrote the evaluations, that they confined themselves to the issue of the blogger being fired. On C.I.'s end? The calls aren't discussed so who knows?

But C.I. avoids critiquing The Washington Post or highlighting it at The Common Ills due to potential conflicts of interest. (An online chat was noted and that chat was with a reporter that C.I. does not know.) Due to the efforts made at The Common Ills to avoid bringing up The Post (Martha and other members can highlight and it do -- C.I.'s comments on those highlights are only in terms of a wrap around statement contrasting it to a Times' report), we should have noted the fact that Ava and C.I. did not participate in evaluations of the paper or the reporters.

The phone calls (to Jim) took care of it in our mind. We don't retract our opinion. (C.I. and Ava don't retract their opinion of the treatment of the blogger.)

When C.I. was on the phone with PJ Saturday morning, it was obvious that it was an issue still. We do not care in terms of the paper but PJ is a member of the community and due to that and the fact that C.I. made the case for this being noted here (where the feature appeared), we are going to note it.

As C.I. noted in the draft version Saturday morning:

My contributions to that were confined solely to the issue of the way the blogger was disowned by the paper without any completed investigation on the part of the paper and for alleged errors that were not made either by the blogger in writing for the paper's website or while the blogger was employed by the paper and writing elsewhere. Both Ava and I did not want to take part in writing that commentary and our input was minimal. We agreed to participate at a minimal level to hurry the night along and with the promise that two topics we wanted covered would be (the protests in France and Puerto Rico). Due to time issues, those two ran in the print edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review and not online because there was no time to shape them into anything but scraps. This was supposed to be noted in the edition's "A Note To Our Readers" which is where Jim comments on the edition and notes who is responsible for what. Due to the fact that this was the never-ending edition (I think it took around thirty hours straight but check with someone else because I just know I wanted it to end), there was no "A Note To Our Readers."


When Jess has criticized The Washington Post's coverage of the peace movement in past news round ups, C.I. did not comment on the paper. That was intentional.

PJ's reaction, intended to go up Saturday morning at The Common Ills, was that he disagreed still with the commentary. His judgement was that the allegations against the blogger were an issue and that whether or not the blogger had plagiarized in the past or while at The Post did not matter because the issue was the reputation of the paper. Since the hiring had resulted in much attention and since the allegations had already resulted in an investigation, previous work did impact upon the reputation of the paper. PJ feels that C.I. and Ava wrongly see it from the angle of the public humiliation the blogger went through and not from the angle of the damage that was caused to the institution of the paper. (PJ confined his remarks to C.I. and Ava.)

PJ feels that the paper made the correct decision and wanted it noted that the blogger did not appear in print but only at the paper's website.

PJ's opinions are similar to those expressed to Jim. Most people complaining stated that not to address the issue as it was would allow "the situation" to be an ongoing controversy where each post by the blogger would become the "news of the day online" as everyone rushed to see if they could catch him borrowing material. As long as the situation was not addressed, any story the paper broke would be eclipsed by the continued attention placed on the blogger.