Dave Weigel and the dangers of Fight Club

I liked Dave Weigel's blog. All things being equal, I don't think the Washington Post should have fired him. I mean, isn't everyone in America pretty much agreed that Matt Drudge should self-immolate? What, we're just not supposed to say it out loud?

But honestly, given what happened as a direct result of Weigel's firing, I have a hard time not seeing the whole thing as a net positive.

This mess stemmed from Weigel's comments on JournoList, an exclusive listserv for left-leaning journalists that on Friday was shut down by its founder. Now, I'm a liberal. I tend to agree with and gravitate towards liberal commentators. But JournoList bothered the hell out of me, and I'm glad it's dead.

Journalists, even those who tilt towards the same end of the political spectrum, are supposed to be competitors. Reporters are supposed to go after and do a better job covering the same stories than their fellow reporters, whether it's exposing Watergate or exposing that Albert Haynesworth's a prick. Pundits, which unfortunately seem to outnumber reporters these days, are supposed to try and...well, out-pundit the other guy, I guess. In any profession, the line between work relationships and personal relationships gets blurred, and I'm well aware that journalists have been friendly with each other long before email lists existed. But there's something to be said for their not being so friendly in the context of a work-related endeavor like this, either.

Ostensibly, JournoList existed to give liberal journalists a safe harbor to discuss issues and current events with each other. Wouldn't it be great if we, the unwashed masses, could see such intelligent and educated people debating one another, and make up our own minds as to who was correct? Well, according to JournoList founder Ezra Klein, no, absolutely not: "Taking the conversation out of the public eye made us less defensive, less interested in scoring points."

That's about as bullshit a rationalization as I've ever heard. Commentators are supposed to "score points." That's what they're paid to do. Or if you want to phrase it in a slightly less aggressive way, commentators are supposed to make the case as to why they're right and other commentators with different viewpoints are wrong.

I see bloggers like Klein, Matt Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan, etc., openly disagreeing with and sniping at other bloggers all the time. Whether it's due to political differences, personal animosity, or indeed, trying to "score points," I doubt there's been a day in years where one prominent blogger hasn't publicly disagreed with something another prominent blogger has written. The only question is whether that disagreement is phrased in a respectful or contemptuous manner.

But here's the thing: You typically only see it between conservative and liberal bloggers. Sure, some of it's petty dick measuring. But it's also resulted in some interesting exchanges. By taking such liberal-on-liberal debates out of the public discourse, the members of JournoList made a conscious decision to hide their disagreements and thought processes from the very people who they're supposed to be writing for. And while that made their jobs a hell of a lot easier, it certainly didn't help the public.

I'm sure being a professional blogger is a cushy gig. Especially if you're one of the really lucky ones, where your living room is your office and you get to wear pajamas all day. But when you're discussing actual issues, as opposed to celebrity gossip or whatever, you actually are playing a role in the political process. It's not supposed to be just a fun intellectual exercise for shits and giggles and a paycheck. Should Americans care what Klein, Yglesias, Sullivan, etc. think when they're making up their minds about certain issues? I dunno. But they do.

From the above-cited Politico article:

“It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and kind of toss them around, back and forth, and determine if they have any value,” said New Republic associate editor Eve Fairbanks, “and get people’s input on them before you put them on a blog.”

As someone who isn't a journalist--except, I guess, because of this blog, in the absolute loosest sense of the word--I depend on journalists to give me both unbiased reporting and their honest opinion. It does me no good to have hundreds of the nation's top journalists bouncing ideas off each other instead of me. It does me no good for hundreds of the nation's top journalists to fall into some sort of group think. It does me no good for hundreds of the nation's top journalists to be having debates behind closed doors instead where I can see them. Klein calls it scoring points. I call it accountability. If you're a paid blogger and you post something stupid, you should get called out on it, not talked out of posting it in the first place by your fellow JournoListers. Worse, if the group decides one such "bounced idea" is bad, and the group happens to be wrong, that means a good idea didn't make it through.

From The Daily Caller:

After Sarah Palin claimed Obama’s health care legislation included “death panels” that would ration health care, for instance, the Huffington Post reported that many Americans believed the claim was true. Weigel suggested that reporting on the subject might be counter-productive to liberal policy aims. The Huffington Post, Weigel pointed out, ran “a picture of Sarah Palin, linking to a poll that suggests 45 percent of Americans believe her death panel lie. But as long as the top liberal-leaning news site talks about it every single hour of every day, I’m sure that number will go down.”

“Let’s move the fuck on already,” Weigel wrote.

And:

After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.

“I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats,” Weigel wrote.

So, is coordinating coverage of stories with other reporters to help a political party, "floating ideas" or "getting input"? I can't tell. Either way, if the same people had found out that conservative journalists were doing this same thing during the Bush years in order to figure out how best to propagandize the war, I'm guessing they would have lost their shit, and rightly so.

From Tommy Christopher at Mediaite:

Given the fact that Journolist is (was) leakier than a summer camper with his hand in a bowl of warm water, it’s tempting to say that Dave Weigel is to blame for the Dave Weigel kerfuffle. Then again, you don’t stop going to bars just because one idiot can’t hold his liquor. No, Weigel shouldn’t be blamed for thinking that his private emails would remain private.

You know, it is tempting to say that Dave Weigel is to blame for the Dave Weigel kerfuffle. Why? Because Dave Weigel is to blame for the Dave Weigel kerfuffle.

I'm not sure of the exact figure, but JournoList supposedly had a membership somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 people. That's really stretching the definition of "private." Especially since it seems highly unlikely that everyone on the list had the same professional status or were equally known among their fellow members. Did Klein personally vet every single person who wanted to join? Were there background checks? Loyalty oaths? How many people can an email go out to before it's no longer considered private? 500? A thousand? Whatever Tommy Christopher decides it is? If Sarah Palin wrote something inflammatory in an email to 400 people, would the journalists now screaming about invasion of privacy refuse to publish her comments because they were "private"?

And hey, speaking of private, let's say for a moment that journalists do need a place where they can have off-the-record conversations with each other. What was the purpose of keeping the names of JournoList members secret? What possible good did that do, other than add a "You do not talk about Fight Club" mystique to the whole thing?

Weigel's a great writer who won't be out of work for long, given that a lot of the people who seem to be outraged over what happened to him are also in a position to hire him. (Although some of the reactions from his fellow bloggers were just embarrassing temper tantrums, and probably gives more credence to the idea that maybe these guys shouldn't be quite so chummy.) Still, it sucks he got fired. I imagine working for the Washington Post is as close to a dream job as it gets.

JournoList will probably live on in some form, even if it's just occasional email chains between a far more select group of journalists. But it won't be nearly as formal or as all-encompassing, which seems like a pretty significant victory for fans of transparency in journalism. Sure, a lot of reporters have lost their little clubhouse, and suddenly seem a lot more paranoid about where their colleagues' loyalties lie. But you know what? Fuck 'em. It's for the best.