Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, the D.C. Bubble, & the ‘Journolist’
by David WeigelIn 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 by 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?
820 Comments
Dude,
If you voted for Obama, are pro-gay marriage, and open borders you are most decidedly NOT a conservative in any way.
You may or may not be a journalist, but you are suffering from an identity crisis.
It is still a free country for the moment at least. Figure out what you REALLY are and go be that to the best of your ability. Have a nice day.
Goodbye.
PS – Find a new picture. This one makes you look like Charlie Sheen's teenaged stunt double. You seriously need some time on the pond… It might help people take you seriously if you did not look like a college freshman…
Hmm, I thought he left the Post because it's a liberal rag that needs to keep up the illusion of being objective, and his e-mails showed a bias. Having knowledge of his e-mails would force the reader to take into consideration what was in them, and that would make every piece he wrote subject to scepticism. It's okay to have a bias, but you have to hide it if you're a journalist, and he didn't. Sounds like he's saying he was betrayed. It's not exactly like Hellen Thomas, but the effect is the same on the reader.
Fred
I had a chance meeting with David (his card said Washington Independent) when he was covering the National Tea Party convention in Nashville. As I sat at a back table at one of the presentations he sat down next to me and started asking me the "normal" questions like where I was from and why I was there. He seemed to be jotting down notes.
After I explained how I got started being concerned about politics, he quickly got up and explained he had some other things to report on. He appeared nervous to be talking to someone with a real (and untold) story.
As journalist it's almost impossible NOT to pick a side and stay there! To paraphrase a line from a movie "You can't ride one horse with two asses, sugerbabe"….if you can't be true to yourself, you don't do a good job…All the apologizing in the world won't erase your words or opinions…
Is this a kiss ass thread to poor Dave?
try counting how many times the words ME, I, MY, MYSELF was used. wgas/wgaf
The joke about what you call 100 dead lawyers in the middle of the street seems to apply here also…
"trying to write David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, etc out of the movement"
Brooks, Parker, and yourself (voting for Obama, open borders advocate, calling the Etheredge assault a "hug") have written yourselves out of the movement.
.
How do I get people to tell me what they don’t want people to know?
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.
Everyone wants to play, no one wants to get played.
.
My comments are still under review it seems…
Hmmm… Nothing oiffensive in them either… Interesting…
Frankly I suspect the automated agent flagging comments for review is far more interesting that this RINO pups views on much of anything
Nah. It's what passes as something that's supposed to be "news."
I swear, all the news is about "news" anymore.
You and those like you have sullied the profession of journalism probably beyond repair….your refusal to do your jobs and instead be used by Democrats and Unions have imperiled our country and our future. Your boot licking reporting of the Obama administration has allowed unthought of corruption, dirty back room dealing,civil rights violations, our very Republic to be sold off in pieces to Unions and other "valued" voting and campaign contributing blocs. The daily atrocities that occur in the present administration…and you and other "journalist"….ask nothing, investigate nothing and in fact to aLL YOU CAN TO COVER-UP and distract with those important stories about Sarah Palin and her breasts etc… You( and your entire profression) should be as sickened by yourself as we are of you… but you don't appear to have the insight or understanding to grasp how utterly you have failed in your profession and the role you were supposed to perform in our Representative Republic.
Who cares, David. You got caught, now get out of here!
This guys career can go south with the rest of the Main stream media………he got what he deserved……..he is just trying to save his own @ss
Boo-hoo-hoo. I've been a a baaad boy!
Go suck eggs.
Exactly what I thought too. Egotistical third rate twaddle peddler, much like the indonesian in the whitehouse.
Apart from you know, Palin being fair game for all the lamestream media lapdog lickspittles. If I never read another lamestream wankfest again I will die a happy man.
Will the real David Weigel just go away? Maybe Hollywood could do your life's story. "The Days of Whine and Poses." Never heard of this guy but he must be important somehow to someone, some where. A bit of a switch-hitter, I'd say.
The big problem with his premise is his unshakable but mistaken belief that a LISTSERV mail list consists of private e-mail messages.
As a non-administrative member of even a private e-mail list you have no expectation of controlling who reads your messages posted to the list and thus you have no expectation of privacy. And the first rule of e-mail is to NEVER put in writing anything that can come back to haunt you.
He can go on believing his flawed premise but self-delusion is part and parcel to self loathing.
And this is newsworthy?
Oh, I get it. Your not a hack, your just untrustworthy. In other words, you don't have an "off the record" position when it comes to people you interview, if it works to your advantage.
Man, I am happy that I never had to share a foxhole with you!
.
I never heard of Dave before all this. So, I've read his account twice, knowing nothing of any other's assessment of the situation and I still think all he's fit for is a gossip columnist.
Investigative journalism takes much more real work and real thinking and a modicum of curiosity about where all the money is coming from and flowing to. Everything else is gossip, hearsay, deniable pabulum. The truth is knowable, but the Media have no love for it, nor a desire to work that hard.
Fuck Woodward and Bernstein. Not for their work, but for the Media who idolizes them for simply doing their job. Now everyone wants to be them, but nobody wants the truth more than the glory. Self congratulating circle-jerk of FAIL. (Used to be only politicians could make me utter such imprecations.)
.
Thanks for posting Mr Weigel.
Unrelated to this story, Senator Robert Byrd (D) WV has died.
I'm sure they're typing the biography as we speak.
Not enough dead lawyers?
I think we need at least that many Journo's from WaPo, NYT, MSNBC etc.out there covering this! That will make it MUCH BETTER!
I won't miss him.
OK I will try again…
Dude, if you are pro G A Y Marriage, Open Borders, and Voted for ObaMao the ONE thing you are NOT is conservative. You may not even qualify as a RINO.
You are in the midst of an identity crisis. Tough Luck. If it walks like a duck…
PS – Get a new photo. You look like a college freshman who does not need to shave yet. NOBODY will take you seriously who looks at that picture.
PPS – Try Proactive might help the "skin" condition.
Ahhh come on now, it's ok to cry. : )
I kept wondering, why should I care what this guy has to say, and after reading all the great
comments, I realize, I don't have to care, and really shouldn't…..David, you are right, I think
he has an identity crisis too…I kept wondering when was he a conservative….I think he has
a lot of growing-up to do, seems a bit self-centered!!
Waaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!
Ouch!
His positions are much more progressive than any conservative can stomach and voting for Chairman O is a very serious credibility and character issue.
Kinda hard to pull off the whole "conservative thingy" if you vote for the likes of Chairman O, now you gotta ask what other character flaws does he have and did those translate into progressive votes as well…?
There, there now – Let me know if you need some snot rags. ; )
Got any white sheets…? Bwahahahahaha!!!!
What I learned from this:
You're ugly.
You're an idiot.
Lots of "libertarians" are really just leftists.
The leftist media really is secretly conspiring together on a daily basis to shape the news and win elections for liberals.
What goes around comes around.
pointy hood and all?
I don't know if West Virginia will ever have another appropriator the likes of the geezer of the Senate. I wonder if they will ever finish that highway?
Nope….I don't do white they get dirty too quick.
I hear they have plenty in the sandy beaches in Iraq ….oops I shouldn't have said that. I can hear the trolls now.
LOL … me too.
Sounds like he was having a fun time, until he got caught.
Nah, points hurts when you wipe the corners of your eye…
Cue Kermit the Frog, "It Ain't Easy Being Green"…
You have to wonder, how many of these commies know we are a Constitutional Republic or even care. I doubt even one has ever asked any Democrat 'do you think that is Constitutional'?
I'm sure that this will be one of those "crises" that require an excessive response…
Meet a real journalist David: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/...
Never let a crisis go to waste.
Princess Hahrri reeeeeeeed, is working on it you can bet.
That's what scares me.
I suspect that the two year gap filler will be the consumate puppet. He or she won't have the same juice however.
Exactly what I was thinking. Expecting what amounts to a "newsletter" to remain private to it's audience is pretty naive, even if their is an agreement among the audience.
Considering the content of the messages, it looks like it would be easy to eventually get on the wrong side of someone on the list, and you're screwed. Just a dumb move he's hoping to back his way out of somehow.
It's obvious that Weigel, like McChrystal, thought that voting for Obama was akin to donning a teflon suit. History shows that blind obedience ends badly.
AGREE cardon, …………………….ID crisis of epic proportion, Weigel needs to GROW THE HELL UP!!!
[...] Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, the D.C. Bubble, & the ‘Jour… [...]
MR FLYNN, please count the stories that have been posted on the Bigs about this guy or his tailspin
into the ash-bin, and realize that although this is big news to ya'll, we were DONE after a couple of col-
umns. I realize he probably brow-beat you to allow him to defend himself, but please……..there is stuff
happening in GOVERNMENT we need to know about.
Thanks
Nice try David. Your ramblings remind me of Obama giving 10 minute answers to yes or no questions. Given that a rose by any other name is still a rose, you calling yourself a conservative does not make you one. If you ever were, you're obviously incapable of standing on principle and couldn't handle not being considered cool. You may yet land another gig but those of us with intellect and reason see you for what you are, weak, spineless, and pathetic.
Dave- Ignore the people who are complaining about your photo, you're a good looking guy and they are jealous.
I for one, would like to know who was behind those leaks.
As interesting as your bio is, a really good story would be getting to the bottom of who would break the integrity of that sort of list and for what reason?
What you were reporting was obviously enough of a threat to someone, or a few someones to go to this much trouble.
If you need help from us under classed scrappy bloggers, we are here.
We might not have always agreed, but what you covered and exposed about the trend of extremism in politics today is an invaluable asset of information to the public.
[...] Weigel self-justifies: I was talking, largely, to liberals who didn’t really know conservatives. So I assumed they [...]
Are you not wowed by his conservative credentials? Who wouldn't have voted for Obama Biden because of the Delaware connection? In my mind, that makes him totally credible. It all makes such perfect sense. Don't you think it all makes such perfect sense?
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.
[...] By hyper-partisan (which Weigel wasn’t), I mean the kind of open-minded and tolerant liberal progressives who accused the McCain campaign [...]
Robert Byrd used his position to scare the elderly and the young into voting for him for the past 58 years.
His office and position were contingent upon convincing others that they were too weak to exist without his or the government's "help".
I give him credit for being a true parliamentarian and attempting to keep the rules square in the Senate but that is the only credit he will get from me.
I'm sure they will call his successor a "constitutionalist" or even "conservative" but the truth is that it will be just another run of the mill proglodyte tool.
So, basically, Dave has described himself as a stereotypical RINO. Which is of course fine, unless you're being sold as the CONSERVATIVE WRITER FOR THE WASHINGTON TIMES!!!!
First of all, a vote for Barack Obama is the same as tatooing "NOT CONSERVATIVE" across your forehead. But this genius goes even farther – "Sure I voted for Barack, I want every citizen of the world to immediately become an American with no questions asked, and I love the idea of gay marriage, but I double pinky-promise that I am a conservative." Of course we believe you Dave – just like we believe Barack when he swears he sat in a church for 20 years but never agreed with, heard, understood, or believed a word Rev. Wright said, he was only there because he liked the after-church doughnuts. He double-pinky promised me of that too.
I also love the qualifying arguments he uses at the beginning of the piece – "Well, I worked for or had internships at these traditional conservative and libertarian media outlets, so that totally makes me a conservative." It's like the racist telling people about the one black friend he has, as if this fact will completely absolve any racist behaviors and tendencies he displays.
But the most intellectually challenging arguments this "oh please feel sorry for me" loser uses are the ones concerning his descriptions of other conservatives when discussing them with liberals – "well, I was just describing my conservative bretheren in this way because that's how I assumed liberals see them already."
You were exposed for what we all already know David Brooks is – at best a RINO, at worst, a raging liberal. You did this to yourself, so please don't ask people to feel sorry for you now. God knows you would have continue to behave exactly the same way had you not been caught. Just go ahead and join the other side already, we are so much better off without you anyways.
What's even scarier is that the temporary replacement will be hand picked by Harry and Nancy though "officially appointed" by the WV Governor.
He calls himself a "Journalist", what balls! His upset of Van Jones is that he became a truther, not that he is a Marxist…twitter that dude.
seriously folks? "ugly" "face care" the " G A Y"? How about we take the proverbial foot off a guys neck while he's down? Full of courage you are. Oh and if we are talking hippocracy here … self titled "conservatives" (I know a generalization and not 100%) have a strong connection to christianity (forgiveness-a strong tenant there right…) why dont you take your head out of the ignorant corner and come to realize that just because you don't agree with someone's thoughts or positions on some bombastic flitter-topic-of-the-moment …. yea that does not a bad-person make. Maybe you could try finding someone doing something right and the quality of your life may just improve a bit. Maybe add to a solution instead of just needing to stir-up for stir-up case.
Libertarians are all socially liberal.
Dave, you could go on for pages and it wouldn't negate your open hostility toward conservatives, a subject you obviously cannot cover objectively given your insulting and condescending emails on JournoList. Or do I need to remind you of this picture, which dominates your Wikipedia page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teabagger!.jpg
Exactly. They are being written out because of something THEY did, not someone else. This sounds like he's refusing to accept responsibility for his actions (or words). That is a liberal concept. He needs to own it.
Mr. Weigel, I fear you have no moral compass.
This man (and everyone else too) needs to read C.S.Lewis's That Hideous Strength. It highlights how one can get sucked into the "in" political crowd and lose one's soul.
He is way better looking than you are.
Mr. Weigel,
You come across as an extreme narcissist who confuses the very real ideological differences between the left and right as mere contrivances– as simply a means to power and influence.
Under what conservative principles did you vote for Obama? Based on that vote, you either know very little about conservatism or cannot claim to be one.
Dave, you forgot one point at the end:
"But no serious journalist — as I want to be, as I am — should be so rude about the people he covers."
AND FOR THAT, I'M SORRY.
There, fixed that for ya.
Wow, whoever gave permission for this to be posted made their point so well, I find it a little shocking in its near cruelty. I say near because someone with this little self-awareness and this much self-delusion is asking for it, but it's hard not to pity someone who doesn't even appear to have the awareness to be embarrassed by their plea to be taken seriously as a journalist, while taking nothing so seriously as their juvenile need for acceptance.
Your assumption is predicated on the belief that "Libertarian" means only "socially liberal", nothing could be further from the truth. There is a left/progressive side to Libertarianism just as there is a right/conservative side and left/right philosophies co-exist in all four corners of the Nolan chart. The vast majority of Americans have a very conservative moral compass and that includes most libertarians. America has always been a right of center country no matter how you slice it and even Libertarian thinking tends to bear that out. Do I care if two homosexual people join in a "civil union"? No, but it is NOT a "marriage" those are religious sacraments between a man and a woman and those concepts are mutually exclusive of one another. Drug legalization is another point of contention among libertarians and it is the primary reason that national Libertarian candidates lose elections time and time again. Should some drug laws be relaxed? Perhaps so but general drug legalization would be national suicide and the people are smart enough to recognize that fact and soundly reject the notion.
Your argument that ALL Libertarians are "socially liberal" is fatally flawed.
A weasel words "apology" is often worse than no apology at all.
Mr. Wiegel, you are a fundamentally dishonest man, and I'm sure you're self-aware enough to recognize that. HuffPo is exactly where you belong.
That's as idiotic as saying all conservatives are fundamental christians, or all liberals are gun-grabbers.
And open-borders is beyond socially liberal.
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 McCrystal'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."
[...] here to read the rest. AKPC_IDS += [...]
You lost me at "Open Borders" good luck with your new career. Whatever it is, it is not likely that you will be trusted.
[...] Dave Weigel’s professional life story. The lesson: be humble, and don’t be a dick (needlessly). [...]
Marsh, I am a conservative Reagan Libertarian all the way and beg to differ. Leftism and Libertarianism totally contradict each other. Know of any lefties for smaller government and lower taxes? Libertarian is yet one more moniker the left has co-opted (like 'liberal' for example) in an attempt to make their ideological chicken shite taste like chicken salad to the American people. Ain't working, and we'll be spitting them all out in November.
[...] see the real consequence of Dave Weigel’s fall from the Washington Post’s graces over some mean and occasionally true things he wrote in ‘private’ about the elements of this country’s conservative political [...]
Ouch!! The screams you hear are from Logic being tortured.
that's not what your mom said.
Right on. Libertarians, in general, favor self government… naturally, this requires small, limited government, and minimal taxes necessary to run essential government functions- i.e. national security, etc.
[...] Hubris and Humility: David Weigel Comes Clean on Washington Post, the D.C. Bubble, & the ‘Jour… 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. [...]
What's the matter? Are people figuring out what you are so now you are trying to claim another name to disquise yourself as?
"Libertarians" are mostly old type liberals; they think people should not be oppressed by the gov't. Very much unlike the present crop of new style socially liberal wannabee fascists.
Live and learn, Dave. Insulting a person in private is perfectly acceptable, and they may thank you for it afterward. Insulting them in public, and they tend to think you are serious. You should know how unbelievably vicious the internet can be, and that someone in your position, when mocking or belittling a group that likely consists of a majority of well-meaning people, can cause you a lot of grief. Nutters are nutters. Liberals have them, evangelicals, Paul's crew, neocons, etc, all have nutballs. Dismissing and ridiculing the population based on a small sample of the extreme, causes the rest to turn on you. Prudence is your friend. I think you'll have a great career, and look forward to reading more of your reporting. – mrjuggles
"I for one, would like to know who was behind those leaks."
Uhhh… anyone on the listserv? Messages are posted on the board and anyone can read them. Including moles. Be afraid… be very afraid.
[...] people look at it. That’s the only possible explanation as to how anyone could write something like this which, were it a person, would be Richard Burton as St. Beckett praying at the altar, eyes [...]
Just because we have freedom of speech does not mean stooping to using foul adjectives such as your "mind [----]" to describe mental confusion.
A great writer uses words like the Italian Renaissance painter, Michelangelo used paint.
Really? Oh well, these kids and their internet tubes…
Even so, FishbowlDC made claims that e-mails were being forwarded to them, it would be interesting to know who was behind it.
Interestingly the "open borders" concept is one of the centerpieces of the communist party platform and now the uber-lefties in the DNC have fully adopted it. People fail to understand what they will lose in the transaction if this insanity ever becomes law but then again the left has never embraced sovereignty, national or otherwise.
I agree that Brooks and Parker have lost a lot of readership because of what THEY wrote – not because of something someone else said about them, or about things they wrote/said privately that were leaked. You can't kiss up to Obama the way they did and expect anyone to take you seriously as a conservative voice.
He complained about getting linked by Matt Drudge. Never piss off Matt Drudge.
What a joke. Compare what he says above to my Dave Weigel page. He's consistently lied and misled about one issue in particular, yet he doesn't even mention that above. He also wrote about me on his site, and then refused to approve the perfectly acceptable comment I left showing how he's wrong.
What a world we live in, when "I think (used to think?) anti-war protesters were anti-American!" is considered a *defense* rather than an embarrassment.
SHHHHH! Be Vewy Vewy Quiet – She is hunting Wight Wing Nazi Wascists… She is whacky Anarchist and it will smell better if she does not come any closer…
When she discovers the Nazi's are not really rightwingers I suspect she will explode…
There's not an ounce of humility here, just defiance. The headline was misleading. If they didn't teach you in journalism school not to write anything that ridicules people, perhaps you have learned something. I wish you well looking for another job, but I think you are going to find a lot of doors shut in your face. You had a job as the king of the hill, and you ruined it. Maybe that experience will eventually give you humility, but you are really nothing special. I wish you good luck.
David, you just can't say you are a reporter when your main goal is to shape the stories to hurt the right and help the Democrats. I know it's what most of the MSM does, but we are fed up with it and we will try to stop it wherever it happens. The Internet means the end of the monopoly of filtered, slanted news.
You must be logged in to post a comment.