WaPo editor: We didn’t cover the Wright story sooner because, um, it wasn’t “new”
posted at 12:25 pm on March 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Wasn’t new to Post readers, you mean, because the paper had covered it so extensively in the past? No. They never covered it. What he means is it wasn’t new to him because he’d seen a few articles in other papers over the past year and figured “good enough.” Even though his own religion reporter pressed him to do a piece on it — twice.
“[F]ascinating” indeed:
The Post — and some others in the news media — came late to reporting on the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Barack Obama’s former Chicago pastor. The story, long there for the picking, touched raw nerves — racial, political and religious — among readers.
The Post did next to nothing on Wright and his Trinity United Church of Christ before March 15, and editors turned down a reporter’s requests to do a story before the controversy broke…
Had anyone suggested doing that story at The Post? Religion reporter Michelle Boorstein pitched it twice and was turned down by editors on the Metro and National desks.
Joe Davidson, assistant city editor and Boorstein’s editor, wrote: “At the time Michelle suggested the story, before the latest revelations about Wright’s comments, there was little that was new. I didn’t see what it would add that was significantly different.” Tim Curran, deputy national editor for politics, wrote: “I am pleased that we were able to present Eli’s very thorough and thoughtful piece on Wright and his relationship with Obama, an article we had set in motion well before the situation came to a head, in such a timely fashion.”
Follow the WaPo link to see how uncompromising that “very thorough and thoughtful piece” that finally dropped on March 18 turned out to be. This makes two Democratic scandals in the past week that were there, waiting to be reported on, and not until they caught fire online was most of the media pushed into covering them. I can’t even blame political bias. Where were Fox, the Journal, and the rest of conservative media on the Hillary/Tuzla thing? Hannity took a shot at launching the Wright story last year but it went nowhere. A lesson for future scandalmongers: If you think you’ve got something hot, set it adrift in the river YouTube. The response will tell you if you do or not.
Exit question: If the concern was that “there was little that was new,” why not have a reporter dig a little deeper into those sermons to find stuff that wasn’t so new? Wright’s most notorious line, about those roosting chickens, was delivered six years ago. There was nothing new to discover between then and now that would have supported a fresh story? How come it was new enough for Brian Ross, then?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Its the way the media covers for its own biases.
They don’t activly supress stories, they just don’t go looking for stories that disagree with their Agenda…
Its a lie by omission, not commision.
Romeo13 on March 25, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Simply SHOCKING.
benrand on March 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM
See, when people say there is no collusion or anything like that, they are simply protesting too much.
Now, how did the editors at both desks know to not cover this story? Do they talk with editors at other outlets to coordinate messages?
Looks to me like they do.
benrand on March 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Just another example of the MSM covering up for “Saint” Obama.
TooTall on March 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Hey, you can’t expect the MSM to go looking for damaging stuff on the candidate they’re actively pushing for President, now can you?
AZCoyote on March 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Ideology before truth.
Ideology before accuracy.
Ideology before integrity.
Ideology before fairness.
Ideology before profit.
Ideology above all else.
In fairness, he talked about it frequently. So frequently then when story blew up, my first thought was, “Sean was right.” Why Fox never thought to buy the DVDs is a mystery.
TheBigOldDog on March 25, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Sins of omission.
Connie on March 25, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Anyone notice how little press coverage the MSM is giving to what is happening in the Democratic party? I mean, if what is presently happening right now between B.O. and Shillary had been switched around, and it was McPain duking it out with Huckaschmuck instead, you would see daily headlines literally screaming from the front pages of the New York Slimes, the Washington ComPost, The Boston SnowGlobe and every other MSM newspaper from the left coast to the right coast about how the Republican party is falling apart at the seams, it’s the end of the GOP, and on and on. Instead, you are lucky if you can find anything on how the Democratic Party is going to pieces because of the B.O. and Shillary camps literally tearing into each other like wild dogs on page three of the Washington ComPost.. If anything, the paper will practically bury the story as deep as it can, almost into the Lifestyles section.
pilamaye on March 25, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Hogwash!
The Washington Post didn’t cover it because they were protecting their little leftist buddy, Obama.
rplat on March 25, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Hogwash!
The Washington Post didn’t cover it because they were protecting their little leftist buddy, Obamakhan.
Chakra Hammer on March 25, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Let’s not forget, this is the paper that had “macaca” as a lead story every day for, what, a month?
With that instance of a paper leading the charge to defeat a single candidate, um, sorry, doesn’t pass the smell test.
Politics, pure and simple.
rjwest21 on March 25, 2008 at 12:57 PM
At times I have complained about journalists being unethical. I now realize that I was off base. Journalism is not a profession and so lacks the rigor for ethical standards. Journalism is a trade. Some journalists are fair minded and have intellectual rigor but most just follow their prejudices and run around in packs.
snaggletoothie on March 25, 2008 at 12:57 PM
As one who isn’t finished with this story yet, I would like to know just when has Obama attended this church?
moonsbreath on March 25, 2008 at 12:57 PM
This is old news, therefore not newsworthy.
I am waiting, however, for WaPo and NYT to do the big expose on all the hellraising McCain did while at the Naval Academy.
You know it’s coming!
redshirt on March 25, 2008 at 12:58 PM
One of the things about being a reporter — at least in the way it’s supposed to work — is there are certain stories you get that you are excited about covering and are completely motivated to go after. And then there are the stories that are either too boring, too complicated or don’t conform to your pre-set beliefs and you might not be excited about them, or you might even dread covering them, but you still have to cover them. That’s where you’re supposed to make your paycheck on most days, in covering the stories that are the narrative version of spinach and not ice cream. If you only cover the things you want to cover in the world of politics, that makes you the Village Voice, The Nation or (on the right) The Weekly Standard or The American Spectator, which have no qualms about picking and choosing their stories, because they don’t hide who they are ideologically.
But apparently, the Washington Post has decided that if anyone else on the planet has covered a story they don’t want to cover, that justifies them not having to cover it at all. It’s not only a lazy cop-out on their part, but it calls into question the whole point of even subscribing to the Washington Post for news, as opposed to signing up simply to have your own belief structure validated, if you’re a liberal Democrat. If you want to be a full-service newspaper (or a TV news network), you have to report on stories that both validate and go against your personal beliefs, especially when the internet makes it so easy to show that stories are being left uncovered.
jon1979 on March 25, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Poo
Wade on March 25, 2008 at 1:03 PM
It’s like not covering the fall of the Berlin wall because the existence of Germany isn’t “new”.
Dash on March 25, 2008 at 1:04 PM
The sooner the public comes realize that the best stories are covered first on the blogs the better. Reading the newspaper online is like going on a nostalgia trip to remind yourself of the amusing stories that have been discussed over the past week.
pedestrian on March 25, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Apparently, we cannot expect anything from the MSM but selective reporting.
Kini on March 25, 2008 at 1:06 PM
The reason they didn’t cover it is because it boils down to racial tension. Racial tension is such an ugly, unfair, cruel subject that I doubt we will ever have a frank, stark airing of the root issues. Until all the racial talking heads grow a tough layer alligator skin, the truth is too hurtful to discuss even though everyone black and white knows the ugly taboo.
Once we come to grips with the fact that everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and they are not all the same, we will be in this round robin. Making general statements about ethnic groups made up of unique individuals is not acceptable. Many black leaders love to play the victim card, but thinking people realize that can only account for so much, not everything.
We can’t handle the truth.
saiga on March 25, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Yeah, it’s old news. Hot Air’s own Bryan Preston covered it last May.
flipflop on March 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Alright, you people, don’t you understand. America is a racist country,already. Got that. Now to our next headline.
Johan Klaus on March 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM
America pulls for the underdog too.
saiga on March 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I get all my news from HA. Kidding of course. But I do get more information from various sites on the internet and very very rarely actually even bother to read a newspaper.
HawaiiLwyr on March 25, 2008 at 1:43 PM
People like the Rev. Wright are so invested in promoting racism in their congregation. Like race-baiting mongers Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan, they all have a need to promote the worst in America.
People like Bill Cosby try and identify the problems within the black community by pointing out the destruction of the family structure and get ostracized for it.
What Christian belief does the Rev. Wright preach from? What is he propagating to the youth of his congregation? What has Barack Hussein Obama learned in 20 years of Rev. Wright’s lessons?
Kini on March 25, 2008 at 1:51 PM
AND WHEN IS WRIGHT GETTING INTERVIEWED ON CNN?
leftnomore on March 25, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Well, stupid is what stupid does. And, the race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton are intellectually handicaped at best. They can’t even speak proper English much less figure out reality.
They suffer from the bigotry of very low expectation, and I’m guilty. Think how embarrassed millions of blacks are to have these morons called “Black Leaders”.
saiga on March 25, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Entelechy on March 25, 2008 at 2:33 PM
This can all be summed up, in one term…
Fourth Estate
It’s undeniable…It’s irrefutable.
franksalterego on March 25, 2008 at 2:49 PM
That’s such an overused expression that it has lost any relavent meaning. Besides the Wright issue has little or nothing to do with race as it stands by itself as being blatantly anti-American. Anyone white, black or purple would draw an equal amount of justified criticism.
docdave on March 25, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Maybe the Washington Post was trying to explain that, as the premier national political journal, they are in-the-know about so many presidential candidates who have had tin-foil-hat-crazed, racist, anti-American religious mentors for 20 years that that’s what’s old news to them.
Yah.
Lockstein13 on March 25, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Saiga if these millions of blacks don’t like these socalled leaders to represent them they should speak up. Until they do, these race hustlers will represent them.
As far as the MSM, the nightly news is crumbling and newspapers are going broke and they all wonder why. Why watch biased news or buy a biased newspaper? When we start getting just the news, unfiltered through their ignorant liberal heads perhaps we will return to t.v. and newspapers. Or, we might just sit on the Internet where you can find anything and everything in a nanosecond.
UnEasyRider on March 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM
This just confirms the fact that those who want hot, breaking, true, and straightforward news don’t rely on MSM outlets like WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc., and the editors at WaPo know it. So why bother printing anything that even closely resembles current news? People probablt already got it from other more reliable sources. So might as well wait until it is really nice and stale…
Fineagle on March 25, 2008 at 6:05 PM
My first thought was “Hasn’t this been covered?” But I guess that’s because I’m one of those bigoted uninformed talk radio listeners who live in a hole away from the real media.
OneGyT on March 25, 2008 at 6:08 PM