In the first (and still best) “Austin Powers” film, a United Nations representative makes a faux pas and calls the film’s villain “Mr. Evil.”
“It’s Dr. Evil,” he huffs. “I didn’t spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called ‘mister,’ thank you very much.”
This is how I feel when I’m referred to as a “blogger,” sometimes with a political qualifier like “liberal” or “conservative” attached. I’m a reporter. I’ve been a reporter since high school. Like a lot of other people, I lucked into some reporting jobs that took advantage of the speed of the web — thus, I blogged. And I left the Washington Post because I was intoxicated by this medium and the privileges of reporting. The leak of my private e-mails wouldn’t have been possible 10 years ago; but then, neither would have my career been possible.

Let’s go back to the start. I started in journalism in a fairly typical manner, by discovering how much I liked writing articles and doing interviews at my high school paper. I chose to go to Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. It was there that I became editor of the campus’s weekly conservative paper, and became plugged into the campus conservative journalism network.
Was I really that conservative? Yes.
I interned at the libertarian Center for Individual Rights in the summer of 2001. I supported the Iraq War and crashed an anti-war protest on my campus. I voted in Republican primaries in 2002 and 2004. (Since I was in Illinois, I voted in 2004 for Jack Ryan to get the GOP’s nomination for Senate, to oppose Barack Obama. I’m better off than one of those guys.)
But I was never combative against liberals. Reporting in a close-knit campus community made it impossible and untenable to pick political fights every day. I was more interested in covering politics than in advocating for a political stance (outside of columns I wrote for my paper and later the daily campus paper). I cared more about finding out stories first than about advocating positions — those stories would get me the jobs I wanted, not the opinions I had. And I knew that I didn’t want to be pigeonholed.
In 2004, when I was graduating, I was offered two jobs — an editing role at the libertarian magazine Liberty and a fellowship at USA Today, sponsored by the conservative Collegiate Network. I chose the USA Today job, but kept freelancing, mostly for magazines like The American Spectator and Reason.

A few months after my USA Today gig ended, I was offered a full-time job at Reason. For the first time I had a byline at a national media outlet, and part of my job was to feed a blog with reporting and takes on the news. It became clear that two things were rewarded with traffic and respect — original reporting, and arguments with other blogs.
This was the start of my success, and it was the start of my problems. Remember how I said it was “impossible and untenable to pick political fights every day?” When I started doing real reporting, I realized that political fights happened every nanosecond. It was just a matter of managing them, and picking them. As I got to find out about gossip and news, I’d banter about it privately and publicly. That’s what everyone did. Let’s let David Brooks explain this:
So every few weeks I find myself on the receiving end of little burst of off-the-record trash talk. Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.
To use a phrase that I’m rolling my eyes at even as I type it: Nobody told me this in journalism school. Seriously, though, nobody did! The fact that one part of journalism in Washington was a give-and-take of gossip, and that sources learned to trust one another by bitching about people and projects they didn’t like, was a total mindfuck. Put me in a room with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and I ask about where his “controlled demolitions” theory comes from. Put me in a room with a union organizer and I push him about how depressed he is about card check. Put me in a room with a GOP strategist and I tell him, in confidence, what the people I know on the left are saying about his candidate’s chances. How do I get people to tell me what they don’t want people to know?

Being at Reason allowed me to do this while broadcasting a clear opinion. Rep. Ron Paul (R, Tex.) knew that I liked him, and that I was voting for him — although that didn’t stop me from co-writing a story about the history of racist comments in newsletters he published. Bob Barr knew that I liked him, and trusted me enough to tell me, off-the-record, what he thought of people. I kept that trust with people, and people kept it with me. In this business you have to keep that trust or no one will talk to you, and then you can only learn what people want you to know.
Here’s an example from a bit later in my career. In September 2009, Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Creigh Deeds, bumbled and fumbled his way through an impromptu press event, utterly unable to explain whether or not he would raise taxes, and at one point calling a reporter “young lady.” I was at the Values Voter summit at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, where I pulled Rep. Eric Cantor (R, Va.) aside for an interview.
“Fair warning,” I said, framing him with my iPhone’s video camera. “I’m going to tape this. So let’s not have a Creigh Deeds moment.”
Did that comment make it unfair for me to write about Deeds? (His communications director, who appeared in the video wincing as his candidate imploded, was a college friend.) But can we assume no reporters joked about Deeds after the implosion? “The opinionless man,” as Jeff Jarvis put it in a post on my current adventures, does not exist. (Here I’d make a reference to the perfect-but-boring human prototypes that survive the end of civilization in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake, but that would just be showing off.)

You’ve read this far, so you must think I’m trying to explain away the emails leaked this week. I’m not. Here’s what happened.
After the 2008 election, I drove up from Atlanta to D.C. and was greeted by my editor, Matt Welch, with surprising news. It would be better, he said, if I worked somewhere else. I’d voted for the Obama-Biden ticket (having joked, semi-seriously, that I was honor-bound to vote for a ticket with a fellow Delawarean on it) and wasn’t fully on board with the magazine’s upcoming, wonky focus on picking apart the new administration. My friend, Spencer Ackerman, immediately bought me Ethiopian food and suggested I come to work at his magazine, The Washington Independent. I was dicey about the suggestion, partly because I was already doing some work for The Economist. At Reason, I’d become a little less favorable to Republicans, and I’d never been shy about the fact that I was pro-gay marriage and pro-open borders. But could I do the same work if I jumped to a left-leaning web magazine? I figured that I could, largely because I wouldn’t change at all.

A few weeks later, Ezra Klein invited me to join Journolist — which I’d known about for a year. I don’t know why he did, but I think it was an assist to a friend trying out a new job, and a way to build my list of sources. I was dazzled by the sudden, immediate access I had to more than a hundred journalists and academics, mostly on the left, some without an ideology I could discern. And I was encouraged that they were so blunt about what they were thinking about and working on. My first big contribution to the list, in response to a question about which conservatives “mattered,” was sent out on January 26, 2009.
Hugh Hewitt, as buffoonish as he can seem, is incredibly well-used by Republicans. Check out the guest list for a week of his show – plenty of governors and congressmen show up. If you count Newt Gingrich as a pundit (I do and I’d be stunned if his yearly rumblings about political comebacks were anything more than book promotion stunts) I’d rank him near the top of this list, if not at the top. Hill Republicans who weren’t actually there for his screwed-up tenure speak of him as a prophet. Gingrich had a LOT to do with the drilling obsession and messaging that hit the GOP conference last summer. Finally, I’d nominate the very young Rob Bluey of Heritage for a place near the bottom of this list. He’s done a lot work convincing Republicans that they need to copy Democrats on internet outreach/YouTube/Twitter, and of course now they’re all obsessed with that stuff as the path back to victory.
One thing I’m watching is whether insulting Sarah Palin or occasionally praising Barack Obama is enough to drum someone out of the conservative movement in a real way – being disinvited from dinners, for example, as David Brock was after his Hillary book. I haven’t seen that yet, although conservative blogs are trying to write David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, etc out of the movement. This is a reason why President Obama scored more of a direct hit telling the GOP conference to “stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.” They really do stop and listen to talk radio, or their talk radio-massaged constituent mail/phone calls, before they take big steps.
This would become typical of what I sent to the list. I was talking, largely, to liberals who didn’t really know conservatives. So I assumed they thought Hugh Hewitt was “buffoonish.” I said Gingrich had a “screwed-up tenture” because Republicans I admired, like Sen. Tom Coburn (R, Ok.) and Dick Armey, had serious problems with how Gingrich ran the House.
But I was cocky, and I got worse. I treated the list like a dive bar, swaggering in and popping off about what was “really” happening out there, and snarking at conservatives. Why did I want these people to like me so much? Why did I assume that I needed to crack wise and rant about people who, usually for no more than five minutes were getting on my nerves? Because I was stupid and arrogant, and needlessly mean. Yes, I’d trash-talk liberals to Republicans sometimes. And I’d tell them which liberals “mattered,” who was a hack, who was coming after them. Did I suggest which strategies might and might not work for liberals, Democrats, and the president? Yes, although I do the same to conservatives — in February, for example, I told many of them that Scott Brown’s election hadn’t killed health care reform, and they needed to avoid dancing in the endzone, because I was aware of what liberals were saying about how to come back.

Still, this was hubris. It was the hubris of someone who rose — objectively speaking — a bit too fast, and someone who misunderstood a few things about his trade. It was also the hubris of someone who thought the best way to be annoyed about something was to do it publicly. This is the reason I’m surprised at commentary accusing me of misrepresenting myself. One other part of my career that wouldn’t have been possible a decade ago is my Twitter account, which has been popular — I’m assuming — because I’m sarcastic and don’t hide my biases. That Twitter account has echoed the way, described above, that I talk to liberals and conservatives in private. And it’s flashed like Drudge’s siren with every take I have on Republican politicians, on Democratic politicians, on fringe movements — everything. When I tweeted that Van Jones needed to resign, I was also e-mailing this to Journolist:
Jones had five years to distance himself from this bullshit. Five years. He didn’t do it. And I can’t believe that a man who spoke at basically every left/liberal event in 2007 and 2008 did not see what the Truthers were up to.
Yes, as [Charles] Johnson points out, they’re liars who try and suck everyone into their orbit. One year ago I was backstage at a Ron Paul event with Kevin Barrett, the lunatic University of Wisconsin professor, who deliriously informed me of all these famous people he’d gotten on board with the Truth movement. He was full of shit–they were people who’d been accosted by Truthers and said nice things to blow them off. Here’s an example of a Truther baiting Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand into indulging his nonsense.
But there was nothing preventing people like Paul, or like Jones, from brushing aside people like Barrett from releasing clear statements that they didn’t believe in these conspiracy theories.
I’m talking to a few media companies about what I’ll do next. Anyone who wanted to force me out of this business will have to settle for the consolation prize of me having to tediously inform sources of a new e-mail address. No serious journalist has defended the leak of my private e-mails; no one who works in politics or journalism would accept a situation where the things they said off the record could immediately become public. But no serious journalist — as I want to be, as I am — should be so rude about the people he covers.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
159 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Big Tweeting and TheDean&HeadMaster, BigJournalism. BigJournalism said: Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, the D.C. Bubble, & the ‘Journolist’ http://bit.ly/bJTSJ2 [...]
Wow. It's interesting, to say the least.
Another perspective that does not match the description given by the writers on this site, or others.
To each his own, I guess.
Compromise, tolerance, and no backbone can get you some jobs working for some organizations, huh?
The term, useful idiot, comes to mind. That's marketable to progressive/liberal organizations.
No apologies. Just did everything right, huh?
Simple justification for wrong.
I respect your opinion. I'm glad I didn't read your articles/posts beyond this one.
Yawn.
Pound sand, Mr. Weigel.
The increasing polarization of this society is a direct effect of a biased media. Journalists were once trusted by the American people to bring them the news – and just the news. Whether that trust was well founded remains debatable. Today, the trust is clearly broken. For conservatives such as myself, the last straw was the election of Barack Obama. Bill Clinton was right – he was concocted in fantasy land. The media did NOTHING to vet this man, and they continue to do nothing to him. Since the media and this administration/Congress enjoy such a cozy relationship, it seems that more and more journalists are coming clean about their true feelings. Who would have thought that Helen Thomas would ever say what she said? I believe it is true hubris – journalists feel protected by the government, and the government feels protected and shielded by them. Take the Gulf Oil Spill for example. If Bush had been president and had done what Obama has done so far, there would be daily calls for his impeachment in Congress and the media. Where are the calls from the media to investigate MMS? Where are the calls for government to come clean on what they knew and when they knew it? Nothing – still nothing. The only attacks come against BP – and that is EXACTLY how this administration wants the national conversation about this tragedy framed. Journalists and the government working together to shape opinion – THIS, if anything, would cause the founding fathers to turn over in their graves. Journalists and this government also want Americans to feel betrayed by corporate elitists, but they themselves are part of this elite. The media is big business itself, and their cozy relationship with Democrats is indeed troubling. Of course, the only villains are the ones who create jobs – at least in the minds of the government and media elitists. Yours has become a despicable career choice – journalism today is about opinion shaping, not about protecting the public from runaway government and corruption. You have chosen sides, and it is NOT with the American people. The American people have rebelled, and you don't like it. Now you and your ilk sulk like children about Drudge, and the only reason you do is that he has become better at opinion shaping than YOU. He has taken the current media model – put everything important to the left on the front page – and turned it on its ear. You don't like that. Well tough – journalists who have chosen to be proponents of leftist causes are to blame – for Drudge, for Rush and for the rise of alternative media. Because of their egos they simply can't see this fundamental fact. So now, when they get caught with their pants down, they apologize, hoping it will all go away. Sorry – peddle it somewhere else. Seriously Dave – if you want to make a name for yourself, I suggest you turn on the media that has betrayed the people and blog about THEM. Lift the veil on their secrets. Expose them for the frauds and hucksters we know they are. Otherwise, save your apologies for those who care – we don't. If you are a true conservative, you will know that actions speak louder than words. So act…until then, we could care less.
[...] Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, the D.C. Bubble, & the ‘Journolist’ Link – Trackbacks Share and [...]
[...] David Weigel comes clean on WaPo, the D.C bubble and the Journolist [...]
Interesting perspective here…written within the assumption that anyone outside of his immediate family gives a rat's a** about what he does, for whom, or whether he does it at all. Andrew Breitbart was kind enough to give you a forum on which to complete your whining, written for an audience that likely believes that your writing is put to best use when used to wrap that 2 week old, dark gray leftover meat loaf in to keep the raccoons out of the garbage. Now run along, little Davy, and send your "resume" to CNN, MSNBC, and the NYT so they can use you too.
How old is this guy? 10? Man get some Clearasil. No wonder he is a Marxist he is a dweeb and ugly goes right down the profile of a leftist. Ugly women emasculated men all become leftists as they can whine about being victims.
To me it sounds like justification from a man without a moral compass.
You're intelligent David but that can be a stumbling block especially in journalism.
I appreciate some of your openness but I'm not too smart not to be a sucker. I'll keep it as an interesting article at best.
A simple conviction such as honesty can go a long way. You're still young, if you can truly digest it's worth you may grow from this to be a better man. You may also learn from the heart, true worth in conservative/libertarian values.
It was Van Jones' vicious racism that sunk him just as much as his Truther status.
And dont' forget, it was Obama who was a member of a viciously racist church for nearly 20 years, had the vicious racist Van Jones on his staff, came to the defense of the racism of the racist Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and nominated a racist to the Supreme Ct.
Poor little guy. Don't you just want to give him a hug?
You know, Dave, I'd actually buy this piece if you hadn't spent so much time being a jerk on your Twitter account after you were exposed.
Instead, I think what we saw on JournoList and your reaction in comment threads and your Twitter account is the real you. Everything here is just a mea culpa to recover a career.
You don't like us, remember?
At least have the courage of your convictions.
That's five minutes I'll never get back. David, your ego is completely misplaced. If you wanted to inspire contempt, mission accomplished.
Weigel, you are a pathetic piece of crap. As my father would say, you wouldn't make a pimple on a good man's ass.
[...] is Dave Weigel’s attempt at a mea culpa. Weigel is the artists formally known as the Washington Post’s faux [...]
Well Dave what you and your lefty friends do to good Conservatives while ignoring the disgusting Democrat Party is in my mind CRIMINAL! I see you think you will be around to do more damage well people like me will be around to MOCK you wherever you go and WE will question the honesty of your reporting. So sit back and think this has blown over, it has just begun because JERKS like you need to be treated like the dirt you are!
[...] Update: Who are his people? [...]
Voted for Ron Paul, eh? Does that make you a "ratf*cking Paultard" too?
[...] Dave Weigel posts an honest and painfully self-critical mea culpa on Breitbart’s Big Journalis… [...]
you've made your confession…. now you need to repent
THANK YOU Harley,
I thought it was just me. What iz dis guy…..12? Ya….I'm sure we're gonna get a TON of informed opinion from middle school bloggers with ZERO, Z E R O, life experience. Crikkies!
Yep — just another example of someone upset that he got caught.
GFY, Weigel. Spend a decade doing something constructive, like digging ditches. Grow up.
Most of all, GO AWAY.
LOL…..lune,
He's just a kid on those teams where EVERYONE got a trophy, win, lose, or whether they even played. He just wants his journalism trophy. Hang in there baby bird, keep tweetin. You'll probably be in the running for the Nobel if you just outlast the other underage sages. Maybe work on your buzz wurdz.
Dave, do you think you could have remained at Reason over the past 18 months and come across as a credible liberal-libertarian, given your statements showing support for ObamaCare? I think you would have been greeted about as well as, say, Huffington Post-ers reacted to Greg Gutfeld's blog entries when he was on that site.
The problem seemed to be that you and/or the Washington Post traded on your time at Reason to put up a PR front that your beliefs were more conservative than they actually were, and you have anger management issues when it comes to comments about certain people you're not enamored of. Dislike Matt Drudge or Rush Limbaugh all you want, but actually thinking it's perfectly OK to tell a bunch of people — even if it's only on Journolist — that Matt should be in some South Florida burn unit and Rush should be pushing up daisies doesn't come across as someone with the type of self-control and distance to work for a major news publication; it comes across as Jeanane Garafalo after 10 cases of Red Bull.
If you had any past posts out there on the Interweb thingy calling any key player on the left the same sort of names as how you labeled the right — such as calling the MSNBC prime-time line-up an example of using the media to “violently, angrily divide America" (hell, you could have told that to Keith Olbermann's face on one of your appearances on "Countdown"), then you would have come across more as a "to hell with all of them" budding curmudgeon. Instead, your doming of the conservative label reminded me of back in the 1970s, when famed womanizer Warren Beatty was trying to claim he was 'shy' in order to bolster his PR image. Actions speak louder than words, or labels.
I'd like to know the justification for creating maintaining and participation in a listserv discussion group that has the potential to shape media coverage of politicians that share your idealogical persuasion and how that that coordination to shape messaging is not in effect a huge in kind coordinated political contribution and abuse of power.
What if conservatives did this, that would be a 'vast right wing conspiracy" or something like that. But when hundreds of the most prominent liberal media types do it , its business as usual, nothing wrong here, move along please. Give me a break.
That article had a lot of "stuff" in it, Steevo,
But the desire to learn, or even ENGAGE was not among them. This is his, "My dog ate my homework" piece. And if it's any measure…..get ready for more of them.
I don't buy it. Go write for HuffPo, where you can get what you deserve: To be roundly ignored by serious thinkers and read only by patchouli stinking vegan communists. You're a JINO. Journalist In Name Only.
You're right, you are cocky, but you're also an asshole, and perhaps its redundant to say, considering my open, but you're the typical MSM "journalist" working today, and that's why the MSM is bleeding money and dying a slow death.
You never would have come across as this contrite is you weren't trapped like the "ratfucker" you are.
BTW, you'll probably regret this posting on Breitbart's site, as that very association will endanger an otherwise smooth transition to the moonbat mothership MSNBC.
Conservatives: get your "We'll Remember Come November!". "I Hate The MSM!" and other great stickers and gear at <a href="http://www.keep2theright.com” target=”_blank”>www.keep2theright.com
Yeah — go find a cliff.
Grovel if you must, but for much of your entire history, over and over again you have shown yourself to be a bottom feeder. And not just a bottom feeder, but one of the Libtard bottom feeders without a shred of journalistic ethics willing to use your position to shill for the Democrat Party.
You suck pal. Good riddance. Don't come back.
Let's hear your justification for
(1) The Journolist and
(2) the use of this list to peddle Democrat Party propaganda.
And some people are living demonstrations on why Public Education in this country is an Epic Fail.
I feel no sympathy for fools.
Dave,
I thought your reporting was very fair and accurate. But one of the few exceptions was your coverage of a dispute between Veronique de Rugy and Nate Silver over a working paper she's doing on how stimullus money is spent.
Nate has now admitted being a fellow member of Journolist. Don't you think you should have admitted that relationship when you were writing about the disagrement. Would you be willing to publish any e-mails you exchanged on Journolist about De Rugy's study now?
Infantile twerpish gossip revealing more about the sick culture of Leftism than the author is aware.
More like a blood sucking leach.
For all the comments on the Affair Weigel over the past week, I don't believe I heard one person say: "Gee, I wish Weigel would give us a bio of his newswriting life and an apology for being so rude".
When he was interviewed on ABC, NPR etc, I don't remember him being introduced as a pro-gay marriage, pro-open borders hater of teabaggers. He was presented as a serious conservative who was eager to save the republican party from the conservative racist flat earth cavemen.
And if you read his emails about the need for certain strategies for passing Obamacare, it's not like some cold, distant opinion on where liberals seem confused, it's as a believer in the faith on something that must be done.
I don't buy your whitewash Dave but then I didn't buy much of your work pre-exposure.
The one lucky thing is you belong to a club in the msm that will certainly reward you for your transgressions.
Too much koolaide makes you blind. Give him a break? You should quit listen to the media a your source of factual information.
Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913
As of Jun 24, 2010: $13,038,079,983,718
Increased by: $2,411,202,934,805
Dude kinda looks like Charlie Sheen during puberty……
They should feel lucky that we even suffer them to live….
Dave can often be a prick…. but you know what? So can I.
It is always better dealing with an upfront liberal, than a liberal who ingratiates himself as some conservative.
I just read your entire post and can find no useful purpose except confirmation that you're disingenuous and despicable. You read as a morally bankrupt phony, even with the groveling and admittance of hubris. I hope you do realize the real measure of a person is not the public persona, but what they say in private?
You appear to be a man of little conviction besides self-promotion and self-aggrandizement. Now that you've been exposed as someone not to be trusted, my suggestion would be for you to adopt that which you clearly believe, and it is not conservative.
Trust is earned and respect hard to recapture. You did neither here.
"Weigels wiggle, and they all fall down"
Ah — so you said what you thought you had to say for liberals on Journolist to like and trust you…and said what you thought you had to say in your public column for your conservative subjects to like and trust you.
Son, do you even have a "self" with which you genuinely and confidently identify?
Don't be what you think others want you to be — whether it's for professional reasons, financial reasons, or even just to get laid now and then. Determine who you are and be that person confidently, consistently, permanently.
There's a word for this: integrity.
You sir are no conservative, what you are though is a "post turtle" unable to choose sides and stay loyal. I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.
don, you forgot the /sarc/ tags.
I understand Texas.
To me, since he has a willingness to acknowledge some of his arrogance and post an explanation in this forum I won't slam the door on him. He may not think any more about knocking.
I would agree with your father. Wise man that.
I caught the sarcasm too, that's why I thumbed him back up.
Good post!
Mr. Weigel,
I'm a mother of three. My husband goes to work every day, I work with my children and with other children, basically for free. We scrape by, we don't have "access" to "important" people like you do. We tithe and give to charity as much as possible. We cook for the homeless, we work in inner city ministry, we do our best to love our neighbor.
We believe in individual liberty and limited government. We as a family welcome immigrants with open arms and work in our community to teach them the language of our country and help them find jobs. We also believe in the rule of law. "Open borders" are a joke to anyone with an ounce of common sense. I believe in fiscal responsibility and I am working with my local Tea Party solely for the reason that I don't want our government to go bankrupt.
When you called me a racist, you lost me forever. I was deeply hurt on behalf of myself and my whole family. It was very personal. It's the worst thing you can call someone but you simply did not care. I hope you are able to make a living, but you ought to be deeply ashamed of your behavior. And I wonder if you really are.
"In the first (and still best) “Austin Powers” film, a United Nations representative makes a faux pas and calls the film’s villain “Mr. Evil.”
“It’s Dr. Evil,” he huffs. “I didn’t spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called ‘mister,’ thank you very much.”
Plainly channeling his sister, Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer (nee Evil).
Pop goes the Weigel!
Weigel, you are about as phony as one can be, and that is probably one of your better characteristics. You have never been a "serious journalist" and will never be one…just another Dan Rather type, at best.
Right.
Merely because of some juvenile need for acceptance by the Cool Kids you, routinely and repeatedly, referred to all conservatives, and anyone who offered a conservative opinion, as "ratfuckers?"
David, whatever your *former* libertarian credentials, you joined and eagerly participated in Journo-List, which immediately and thoroughly vitiates any claim you might have ever had to being a "conservative" or "objective," and casts grave and perhaps irreparable doubt on your claim to being a "journalist." Journo-List is an affront to journalistic ethics. It is no more and no less than Main Switchboard for Democrat operatives, left-wing academics and liberal 'journalists' to do one thing: distort the news. Journo-List is the washtub of the Spin Cycle, the loom of liberal media bias, the dark basement where the Left gets its talking points straight, plans the next day's DNC fax-blast and MSNBC rants, and generally PLOTS AND SCHEMES TO DISTORT THE NEWS for the benefit of the Left.
No individual with a shred of journalistic integrity would participate in such a villainous endeavor
But then, you went the extra unethical mile- willfully holding yourself out as a "conservative," and an "objective" observer of the conservative movement. You were nothing of the sort; you were an imposter, a charlatan, a fraud. You were a mole and, I strongly suspect, Ezra's early-warning system for issues so that the Spin Machine wasn't caught off-guard again by stories like Van Jones.
You may once have been a conservative or a libertarian, long ago; but now you are very clearly not. At least David Horowitz and Ron Radosh don't pretend they haven't changed sides.
(BTW, we are not "casting out" guys like David Brooks. Brooks himself abandoned conservatism, not we him).
We can only apply so much resistance against the (-1)'s.
"some people are just so ignorant."
Truer words were never spoken.
Excuse me, but what the f___ are you trying to say? I note that you posted at 3:01 AM in the morning… just how many drinks did you have before starting this, "thing?" You really graduated, what, with a major in Blow-Hard-ing?
I know you don't mind me expressing myself like this, because part of what I got out of what you wrote is, you don't care what you write, as long as it satisfies your ego.
You seem to believe that sounding great, roguish, wild, quick to turn a phrase, or writing as an uncaring bon vivant, will make you famous & well liked, well haled… sorry, you are wrong. The era of F Scott Fitzgerald is gone! But you might try writing screen plays with rapid fire dialog?
Trying to wrap my head around the concept of someone earnestly describing himself as a reporter solemnly proclaiming that "no one who works in politics or journalism would accept a situation where the things they said off the record could immediately become public." In journalism, the fast-track to career advancement and awards is paved with leaks revealing the truth behind the facade. Hello.
Weigel's work here to paint himself in conservative colors is also fascinating. There is no political scheme available in which someone can be conservative while voting in the last three elections for Obama, Kerry, and Nader (info not included above) while advocating for open borders and gay marriage. You can be an iconoclast or eclectic or something, fine, but a conservative or Republican you ain't.
Confused, maybe
To each his own, to be sure. Weigel was just doing what he was hired to do — write about conservatives. And doing that for the WaPo pretty much means doing it from a liberal perspective. Catching him whining about it on Journolist is a good "gotcha" moment, but frankly, it's nothing that doesn't go on every day in the media biz. Or most other bizzes for that matter.
This is another case where the messenger got shot in the crossfire. The current state of world media almost precludes any sane and thoughtful political discourse. Marshall McLuhan was right — the medium is the message — and when the medium is a four-second sound bite or 140 character tweet, there can't be much of a message.
So yeah, this guy was wrong, but getting him fired is like replacing one lug nut on your falling-apart jalopy. It might make you feel like you did something, but the car's still a piece of crap.
What is this guy, twelve? I have concert tee shirts older than him. Hey, kid, we don't give a hoot. Go self dramatize and pretend you're a conservative who only happens to always vote Democrat (Nader…?) in some other liberal rag.
I don't have time to read this whole piece right now, but my initial reaction to the first half of it is that it reads similar to the hamina-hamina-hamina explanations of Janet Cooke and Stephen Glass. Weigel is probably now trying to figure out which sucky pretty boy actor could play him in a Weinstein Company release the way Hayden Christiansen played Glass.
Screw you zit face. I hope you find work mucking stalls for $5 a day. Even then you'd be overpaid.
"I assumed they thought . . ." Mr. Weigel argues that he had to write a certain way for people who had certain prejudices. Rep. Kanjorski argues that he talked a certain way (about "minorities" and "defectives") for people who had certain prejudices. Here's an idea, guys: Why don't you stop making assumptions about your audience and just say what YOU think?
Or could it be that that's what you really did?
It's good that you recognize hubris and apologize. I won't question the motives behind the apology which would have been much more sincere had it been delivered a week earlier.
Still, your story is an abject lesson of what happens when political/media figures get corrupted by inclusion in the quaint, provincial DC beltway frat house.
Far be it for me to burst an ego bubble, but there are 400 "Dave Weigels" masquerading as independent if not objective journalists and pundits who are anything but. They conspired on Journolist to control, coordinate and strategize a Democratic/Left wing agenda and message in the MSM and pawn it off as original reporting and thinking. The American public was the unwitting consumer of this compromised "news and opinion." As such we have a right to know the identity of the members of Journolist and how these people influenced the stories that were or were not reported.
Weigel, you are completely full of shit. Grow up, you fucking child. Save the "Gee, but I really, really WAS a conservative" fucking nonsense for your apology letter to WaPo. They have every right to sue you for misrepresenting yourself and subsequently embarrssing them and further damaging the paper's reputation.
I don't give a fuck about whom you claim to have voted for in the past. That obviously cannot be verified. What is demonstrative is your writing. Where the fuck is your supposed conservatism there??
I honestly cannot figure out how you were able to con any respectable publication of giving you a job where you were representative of it and exposing them to the criticism and derision that did ensue. Your writing in itself is lacking in any critical reasoning and obviously filtered through a far-left truth-be-damned mindset. It really is just plain childish.
All your previous employers muct have done the same shitty vetting process as WaPo did. Walter Shapiro admitted that Jouro-List was nothing but a control mechanism as to whom was actually hired by media outlets. The revelations about the mutual masturbation society that is Journo-List are simply an irrefutable confirmation of everything that was conventional wisdom about the duplicity of the left wing media.
Good luck finding another journolism job, douchebag. Go back to scholl, and get a real education..then go out and try to find a real job. It's not going to be easy in this economy, but you can't keep operating under the delusion that anyone has any respect for you in the jourmolism field. Anyone stupid enough to hire you will simply ;lose any and all credibility with the public.
[...] Weigel comes clean: I was talking, largely, to liberals who didn’t really know conservatives. So I assumed they [...]
lol..I refuse to give up.
Sorry graybell, but you must think you are on Huffington Post where you can post your oft repeated lies and not be corrected. Here, you are not counted as intelligent. Here, the truth shines bright and you just come across as a moronic drone repeating things you hear from other moronic liberal drones. How exactly was the eight years under Bush terrible? Comparing against Obama, it was damned paradise under Bush. Fix up the mess? The unnamed mess that moronic drooling liberals cannot even properly identify without lying their rear ends off. Please, save your Bush hate for those too stupid to know better, aka HP, Daily Kos, etc. Here, you have to put up or shut up. And since you are incapable of putting up facts, you can just shut up instead.
Hubris–yeah, he's got it, and still flaunting it with this pretend mea culpa crap.
[...] Decide for yourself here. [...]
I get the sense that Dave is a lying weasel. I could put more words into why and how, but that is the most forthcoming sense of it all. That Dave is a weasel that lies.
Weigel, I know for a fact that you have written blatant lies about people & events in Wapo. You are a sham as a journalist…now go whine somewhere else.
Sorry, but I am just reminded of John McCain, who conveniently becomes a conservative every election cycle. Weigel will turn and bit us in the end.
What this kid doesn't understand is that when everything is relative, you're basically operating under the law of the
jungle–the strongest survives. The strongest in the media–most numerous, in control of the most outlets, etc.–are leftists. Pretty soon you begin singing their song. This happens to many politicians who go to Washington DC.
Time for this kid to step back and figure out what he really believes. It's not going to work being an opinion
derivitives trader–betting both sides of the political scene. Whoever exposed his emails did him a life favor.
Except for the part about "coming clean" and being a "conservative" I'm totally buying DW's claims.
The only real "hubris" is when a young man like David thinks that we on the conservative side are too stupid to catch on to his delight in constantly bashing conservatives while making excuse after excuse for libs.
What this kid doesn't understand is that when everything is relative, you're basically operating under the law of the
jungle–the strongest survives. The strongest in the media–most numerous, in control of the most outlets, etc.–are leftists. Pretty soon you begin singing their song. This happens to many politicians who go to Washington DC.
Time for this kid to step back and figure out what he really believes. It's not going to work being an opinion
derivitives trader–betting both sides of the political scene. Whoever exposed his emails did him a life favor.
Do you want to know what the saddest part of this entire commentary is, that the people who hired this guy and others like him give the impression that integrity doesn't matter anymore. The other sad fact is that this kid bought into it and believes it.
NewsBusters: David Weigel Explains Away Journolist E-mails by Claiming to be a Jerk http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/06...
Dave, you have a lot of growing up to do. My advice is to get on with your life and leave me out it. I feel certain that you will land a job with the assistance of your buds on the left. Go with it.
You hit the nail on the head. This is an immature child who should not have been placed in the position he was. What ever happened to the value of experience? Clearly he needed time to be mentored.
Similar to the current president. So much value placed on that little Ivy league parchment. If there had been an abundance of common sense in 2008, BHO would never had made it past Iowa. And today, we begin hearings for an over educated, inexpereienced SCOTUS nominee. Common sense is still lacking in this country.
"I’ve been a reporter since high school. "
You are out of high school? Because as a "reporter" a lot of your writing sounds like you are trapped in it.
James O'Keefe has done a TON more reporting then you have and your glee at his arrest while doing that job betrays your jealousy.
"Reporting in a close-knit campus community made it impossible and untenable to pick political fights every day. "
Plus the "cool" kids might not like you, right?
"Mr. Conservative" voted for Obama, Kerry and Nader.
Go sell your snake oil somewhere else, Davey…
"To use a phrase that I’m rolling my eyes at even as I type it: Nobody told me this in journalism school. Seriously, though, nobody did! "
Any wonder your new nickname is Whiner Weigel? Go somewhere, cut your teeth on real reporting and grow up. Why were you such a dork about the Yeas & Neas piece? It was the first time you seemed "normal" and not a DC elitist with a reindeer shoved up your a$$. Why did that bother you so much?
Don't mean to spend so much time on this but you are such a train wreck (in the best sense of the modern use of that term).
"I was dazzled by the sudden, immediate access I had to more than a hundred journalists and academics, mostly on the left, some without an ideology I could discern."
You'd be A LOT better off reading Evelyn Waugh's "Vile Bodies" (and NO do NOT watch the crappy Stephen Fry movie "Bright Young Things" as a substitute) then ANYTHING by Margaret Atwood.
I guess we're not raising men anymore. Just compromisers, and those who will do any trick for a buck, so they can say and appear to some others like themselves, to be successful.
The 'small people' to take a description from a BP/US gov't exec, are very successful in the end at what matters: substance.
People who live life compromising, die being successful only in their dreams.
Excuses excuses. Nice try Weigel, but it fails, just like your career.
Etheridge style or regular?
It's not that complicated, Dave. Treat people exactly how you would want to be treated.
This guy is exposing how to get a good journalist job in Washington these days. You can work for a conservative paper or news source, and not get invited to all the good parties, or go to work for a leftist rag and get to hear all the good gossip in DC. So which is it Dave, juicy lies and ignorant opinions from liberals, or the truth about what real American's are thinking about the Obama administration, and what real American's want to hear from inside the beltway news sources that will tip them off as to what new disaster the left are cooking up? So, I take it your in this just for the money, right? You're in the journalism career just so you can have a bunch of leftist news sources on your resume in case you need to run to the next hot job to have for journalist in Washington? I can't seem to figure out what it is that you are doing in your life right now, but I suppose you haven't been on the world long enough to know which side your bread SHOULD be buttered on. That's okay, for now. Because later on your stint with leftist rags will not sit well with the conservative government that has to take over this nation in order for it to be saved from people like you and your friends in the MSM, will be viewed as part of the problem, not part of the solution . And I agree with a earlier commenter, that if you want to actually tell tales out of school you will tell the American people why the media thinks it's future will always be with the government. That is as long as it remains in the hands of those who are turning this nation into the first Communist country to start out as a capitalist nation with that highest standing in the G8, not second fiddle to El Salvador. We can thank the Clinton's for their tireless work from all they learned how to do destroy America while in Russia.
Weigel's wrong. He's nothing more exotic than an opinion-writing internet forumist, caught being an Accidental Blogger. It's the Good Book says "Be sure your sins will find you out." Weigel's just provin' that out, same as Helen Thomas (God rest her soul). For Weigel, his sin was not what he said, but that he said it where it could be repeated publicly!
Analysis: He was ACCIDENTALLY HONEST.
You know, our biggest gripe with these weenies in the press is that it's only bytotal accident in "unguarded moments" that they are really ever truly honest and we ever truly hear what we already know, which is they hate our stinkin guts.
Your time in the wilderness will probably not be long and you'll find someone willing to offer you money to write for them. You're not so different from most kids in the business – it takes a while to muddle through the ego-boosting 'Byline Effect' and realize that that what you have here is a job that helps pay your bills. You just got wrapped around the axle before you had a chance to mature. Best advice from a guy who was once black-balled: make no excuses, take your lumps, put your nose to the grindstone, listen to any grown-ups you're lucky enough to work with and never forget that you should never EVER write or say anything you're not prepared to see re-printed on Page 1 of the NYT above the fold.
[...] goes further in his version of events, [...]
[...] the Original article Tags: ‘Journolist, &, Bubble, Clean, Comes, David, Hubris, Humility:, Post, Washington, [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by . said: [...]
So you're really a conservative … who voted for Obama and supports open borders. And you're really a good journalist, who sometimes says snarky things he doesn't mean for longer than five minutes.
But now you're being completely honest?
Great idea. A book on the Journolist and its effect on the MSM narrative would be a blockbuster best seller.
Weigel is a 28-year-old. A kid. He got caught up in the heady excitement of the D.C. scene and imagined himself a player in it. He has grown up in the soup of coarseness, profanity and self-importance that is the legacy of the Boomer generation, but the "given" world into which he was born. He knows nothing of the world of modesty and restraint that preceded it. He sees the Mahers and Stewarts, the Feys and Colberts, the merchants snark and rightly concludes that that is what "sells" now. OK, Mr. Weigel, but it is a dishonorable trade. Do you get that at all? It is not journalism. It is childish ego display. Adults get that. DO you?
I guess I give him a little credit for some self criticism, but this level of self aware epiphany after mere days looks a lot more like getting one's mea culpi out of the way before proceeding with more of the same, albeit in a different, as yet unspecified, venue. If he wants to actually do something important, he needs to (1) ditch the juvenile snark; unplug from the brainless group think of the media shark tank, not plug into it via things like Journolist, and (2) report. We can do without the sage observations of yet another 28-year-old J-school wonder, thank you. Grow up and get some integrity and perspective. Those of us out here in the productive world who have to actually create things, employ real people and be accountable for what we do are not impressed by snarky wonder boys.
But write a book on the inner working of Journolist and its effect on the nation, and I'm all ears.
There was as much sarcasm as surrender in my response. When the media is so biased and untrustworthy, where does that leave us small people? I like your answer — substance. I find myself increasingly thinking and acting locally — focusing on the people and things close to me and screwing the rest.
Which I guess begs the question, "why the hell am I commenting on Big Journalism?"
Did David Weigel call someone a "macaca?"
Weigel's diatribe reminded of the movie "The Three Faces of Eve" (1957 based on a true story). In the movie a women suffers from severe schizophrenia as Eve White and Eve Black–two personalities that are in a struggle for dominance. Eventually, a third personally emerges after she remembers a traumatic event that caused her personally to split, she forces Eve Black and White to disappear, and she becomes cured.
In his article, I kept seeing David White (conservative) and David Black (liberal) in a battle for dominance while trying to remember the traumatic event in his live that caused this hellish identity struggle. I kept hoping that the third personally would emerge; bring stability and peace in his life as a man of principles.
But alas, I'm left with the thought that David may spend the rest of his life playing "I hate me, I hate me not."
David, here's hoping that one day will discover some principles–be they liberal or be they conservative–and the courage to defend them.
Please, just Go Away. You are a foul-mouthed, juvenile, self-aggrandizing, two-faced, whining, pathetic, self-pitying hack jerk. You are a user. You need to grow up. You need to man up. You need to shut up. Just skulk away and leave us alone. The only thing worse than reading the tripe you put out is reading your contemptible defenses here, on Reason and everywhere else. Be a man, own up, shut up & go away.
[...] accuses himself of “hubris,” and suggests that he treated the JournoList like a “dive bar.” [...]
Wow, what a waste of weasel words
[...] Dave Weigel’s explanation of the events that led to his resignation from The Washington Post, penned for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism site (and good for them for running it), is a model mea culpa: Forthright and self-critical, rather than defensive and self-justifying. Here he is discussing the role he found himself playing as a participant in the liberal list-serv JournoList, and how it contributed to his (temporary, I trust) unemployment: This [an e-mail explaining why the radio host Hugh Hewitt, "as buffonish as he could seem," is actually pretty influential on the right] would become typical of what I sent to the list. I was talking, largely, to liberals who didn’t really know conservatives. So I assumed they thought Hugh Hewitt was “buffoonish.” I said Gingrich had a “screwed-up tenure” because Republicans I admired, like Sen. Tom Coburn (R, Ok.) and Dick Armey, had serious problems with how Gingrich ran the House. [...]
Dave, please, quit flogging yourself. We appreciate you coming here and trying to explain, but we on the right won't trust you ever again. I know many right-bloggers like Stacy McCain appreciated you for your willingness to see conservatism first-hand (which, undoubtedly, is rare), and hoped you could have been persuaded to see things our way, but that was the triumph of hope over experience. Your spleen-venting on Journalist, nay your membership there at all, spoke volumes about your perspective and willingness to give us the benefit of the doubt. So, we no longer give YOU that benefit.
Gore, not Nader.
Dave, you come off as schizophrenic or lacking all principles. What you write here not only is disingenuous but is so inconsistent with your Journolist snark (what I've seen of it since this kerfuffle began) that you actually betray – as so many lefties do – a strain of self-loathing. You cannot be a conservative, because conservatives hold to firm principles and don't betray them by trying to be all things to all people. Also it has been pretty much determined and proven that there ARE NO conservatives on Journolist. Like Obama, for whom you voted (also something no conservative would do), you merely reveal yourself to be a precocious fake/fraud/phony with excessive immaturity and no moral compass. You presented yourself to the conservatives as something you were not and are not (thereby absolutely betraying them and your supposed profession) while apparently sufficiently pissing off some lefty on the email list enough to cause your outing. You are actually way worse than a run-of-the-mill conservative-loathing lefty journalist. No one on either side can or should trust you. I'd certainly never read anything you wrote again. Maybe masochists will…
What the hell is this narcissistic dork rambling about?
"… no one who works in politics or journalism would accept a situation where the things they said off the record could immediately become public."
So you'll be loudly denouncing what Rolling Stone did to General McChrystal? And when 60 Minutes or 20/20 or Mike Moore ambush someone who doesn't even know they're talking to a "journalist" that's BAD, right? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
You've represented yourself as a libertarian to libertarians and now we see from your little Easter egg man that you're certainly not a limited government, fiscally conservative libertarian. You've represented yourself as a conservative to conservatives and then call them rat f**kers behind their backs. You've represented yourself as a liberal to liberals, apparently just in an attempt to be 'one of the gang'. Somehow I get the feeling that you're just a phony and an opportunist with no real convictions beyond "all glory to me". And now it sux to be you. Damn, don't you hate when that happens?
You wonder why jounalists everywhere didn't give Hillary a belly laugh for her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" remarks? Now we know it's because at least a few hundred of them were members of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. As if we couldn't have guessed.
[...] Speaking of journolistGate, Weigel opens up his e-mail account and “comes clean” on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government Web site. In short, Weigel blames himself: “I was [...]
Not even fit for bird cage liner 'eh
[...] » Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, the D.C. Bubble, & the… [...]
What amazes me is that David's definition of being "conservative" seems to revolve around the fact that he voted republican in his early days. What a farce. Conservatives have been disgusted with the liberalization of the republican party for twenty years. What does he think the tea party is all about? The fact that a liberal republican was voted in to replace the late murderer from Massachusetts does not impress conservatives. It only impresses the liberal liars of the AP.
LOL
[...] » Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post … [...]
"No serious journalist has defended the leak of my private e-mails; no one who works in politics or journalism would accept a situation where the things they said off the record could immediately become public."
Ah! Here's the link I was searching for:
"A senior military official tells ABC News that Rolling Stone broke journalistic ground rules established for the magazine’s profile of the general by publishing comments that occurred during what McChrystal’s aides thought were off-the-record sessions that would not be reported." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/m...
Doncha hate when those journalistic double standards come home to roost?
"No serious journalist has defended the leak of my private e-mails; no one who works in politics or journalism would accept a situation where the things they said off the record could immediately become public."
Yeah, except when it comes Sarah Palin. I don't recall your defense of Sarah Palin over the leak of her private emails.
You were caught with your pants down (metaphorically speaking, of course). Stop whining, man up and move on.
David, you write about cockiness and hubris as if it's something you overcame with a 12-step program. Yet your latest writing effort reveals anything but a humble, chastened individual.
Look, David, the ability to string words together in a coherent way doesn't make you a professional journalist any more than the ability to heave a football down the field makes you an NFL quarterback. Real professionalism involves maturity, discretion and an understanding of the tremendous responsibility you bear in representing yourself, your employer and your craft.
I don't see that in you. I see a kid who was handed a much bigger and better gig than he was ready for, yet who convinced himself that he deserved every bit of it. Now comes the day of reckoning, when the former high school hotshot steps onto the field for the first time and gets pancaked by a 300-pound lineman.
Unfortunately, because you never paid your dues in the first place, you still don't get it, nor do your leftist media defenders. So here's the reality check you still haven't cashed:
1. This isn't about journalists not being allowed to have personal opinions. Of course they can; of course all do. But as a representative of a major news organization, you had a duty to "keep it real" for the sake of your own credibility and the Washington Post's.
Failing to disclose your secret contempt for conservatives while pretending to cover the political right objectively makes you the worst kind of poser. Instead of being up front about your partisanship, you had no qualms about going to work every day in a Halloween mask, probably because you liked the power, the prominence and the paycheck.
2. Whining that conservatives haven't revealed their private e-mails only makes you look petty. Nobody hacked your e-mail account and published your Social Security Number or love letters; you knowingly stated your blunt political opinions on a listserv that went to about 400 individuals. That makes your situation more akin to Stanley McChrystal's naive trust than the Sarah Palin hacking incident.
Do you feel sorry for politicians who inadvertently speak into an open microphone and reveal too much of their true thoughts? No? Then stop feeling sorry for yourself.
3. Nobody besides your liberal friends care how your e-mails came to light. If that's tough for you to grasp, think about the Rodney King tape and ask yourself what was the bigger deal: The fact that a bunch of cops beat a compliant man senseless … or the question of who filmed it and why?
4. There's no point in trying to rehabilitate your career by recounting all the times you wrote harshly about liberals. Nobody who read your death wishes for Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge believes for a moment that you speak similarly of President Obama or, for that matter, Keith Olbermann. And nobody who read your accusations of conservatives being motivated by "racism" believes you see similar evil in liberals.
You weren't just being critical; you were being tribal.
5. You claim you were merely playing armchair quarterback for the Democrats when you exhorted your leftist comrades to focus on Coakley's "awfulness" after her loss in the Massachusetts election. Not so fast. It isn't exactly news that the mainstream media speak in unison on matters such as the Coakley defeat, so before we close the book on JournoList, let's see some more of those e-mails and determine whether there's any correlation between the comments of JournoListers and the MSM's "official" take on major news stories.
In short, David, it's time to man up. You've been outed already. Calling yourself a libertarian is about as accurate as calling Bob Etheridge's assault on a college student "a hug."
[...] » Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post … [...]
[...] » Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post … [...]
[...] the wake of l’affaire Weigel, so much is at stake for the things that matter to journalists and their enablers (read: you, [...]
[...] » Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post … [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
Mr. W,
Until you stop playing tongue hockey with Keith Olbermann every night, you will never regain any credibility (such as it was…)
Perhaps Dave can take Breitbart up on his offer for the 100,000 smackers. Somthing tells me he's gonna need it.
[...] Weigel started the day on Monday with a long blog post on the right-wing Web site Big Journalism, with an explanation of some of the e-mail messages that [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
[...] It is worth noting that, in the wake of the firestorm that brought about Weigel’s resignation, the erstwhile blogger chose to tell his side of the story on Breitbart’s Big Journalism website. [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
[...] » Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post … [...]
[...] ran a rambling mea culpa (sort of) by Weigel on BigJournalism.com yesterday, in which he more or less admitted he’s a punk and a poser. That was something of a [...]
[...] » Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post …Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, the D.C. Bubble, & the ‘Journolist’ – Big Journalism — News Tweets Gone Viral – June 28th, 2010 at 4:47 am. [...] Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, … Read more [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
[...] I therefore offer the sum of $100,000 to the person who provides the full “JournoList” archive. We will protect that person’s privacy and identity forever. No one will ever know who became $100,000 richer – and did the right thing, morally and ethically — by shining the light of truth on this seamy underworld of the media. Andrew Breitbart: Reward: $100,000 for Full ‘JournoList’ Archive; Source Fully Protected ; E-mails reveal Post reporter savaging conservatives, rooting for Democrats ; David Weigel: Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, the D.C. Bubble, &am… [...]
[...] [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
[...] to the David Weigel story about the private JournoList listserv, which Weigel himself explains here, Andrew Breitbart wrote a critique of “the corrupt fourth estate.” Most of the [...]
[...] the next day. Journolist founder Ezra Klein shut the listserv down, and Weigel was apologetic in his own postmortem of the situation, attributing his comments to hubris toward conservatives designed to get other [...]
[...] » Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, the D.C. Bubble, & the… [...]
[...] the next day. Journolist founder Ezra Klein shut the listserv down, and Weigel was apologetic in his own postmortem of the situation, attributing his comments to hubris toward conservatives designed to get other [...]
[...] the next day. Journolist founder Ezra Klein shut the listserv down, and Weigel was apologetic in his own postmortem of the situation, attributing his comments to hubris toward conservatives designed to get other [...]
damn, dude.
I'm a bit taken aback, for that was a quite different kind of self-appraisal. I say this as someone who loathed every sentence you wrote at Reason. On one of my MDMA days I may have even followed you back to your site to post something about Amanda Marcotte (sp? you know, the one with the cutesy haircut). But I actually didn't have any problem at all with the Van Hagar thing you did for the delightful Katharine Graham Memorial Beverage Party (full disclosure: I only read 3 or 4 of the posts).
It seems you got jammed on this one, I hope it just leads to something profitable for the human race, blah blah blah. The one thing that caught me was your use of the phrase "dazzled," at which I can't help but laugh; what did Chloe Webb say in "Sid & Nancy", hitting her head against the wall outside the pub?
Good luck, seriously. btw how's Wankette doing? Any news on the XM or MSNBC fronts?
Just remember that I have some Sun Tzu books lying around, if that'd be any help. Don't let the bastards grind you down!
Signed,
-Terry S Bollea
[...] » Hubris as well as Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean upon Washington Post … [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
[...] David Weigel saga continues to stagger on, becoming ever more intellectually incoherent. Not only has Weigel written [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
[...] Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough. [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.