Does anyone know who writes Washington Post editorials?

[BurtWorm]

They seem to be getting stupider and stupider and stupider and stupider...

They do help clarify that neo-conservatives, far from being the ultra-sophisticated real politik types they sell themselves as, are actually almost completely devoid of imagination, real sophistication about the world beyond Washington DC, and common sense. As an example, here's paragraph one of today's lead editorial:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4369-2003Aug16.html

No Time for Half Measures

Sunday, August 17, 2003; Page B06


PRESIDENT BUSH has proclaimed the democratization of the Arab world a central goal of his administration. Writing on these pages recently, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, urged "the transformation of the Middle East." She likened the dedication needed to achieve that goal to the generational effort by the United States to rebuild Europe after World War II and anchor democracy there. Some critics assert that the goals are too sweeping -- that the Muslim-majority countries of the Middle East are not ready for democracy, or that the stakes do not justify the resources that would be demanded of the United States and its allies to hasten such a transformation. We disagree on both counts. Mr. Bush's goal of political liberalization throughout the Middle East is a noble one, worthy of the highest traditions of U.S. foreign policy, and also is important to long-term U.S. national security. In the long run, the economic and political success of now-impoverished Islamic nations would diminish the threat of radical Islamist terrorism. But we agree that the goals put forward by the Bush administration are extraordinarily ambitious, and we continue to question whether the president is mustering the resources necessary for the challenge.

Note the utter inability to apply critical thinking about what the Bushists assert as their "goals," for example, as though the Bushists are ever straight about anything they do, least of all where Iraq is concerned. Whoever this dope is wants to be Thomas Friedman, of all the Timesmen to wannabe!

Was the Post always this innocent about politics? What the hell is it doing in Washington?

[Sweetpea]

1. Yikes!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. thw WP editorial page is conservative controlled

yup bonifide wingnuts!

[BurtWorm]

3. But were they always?

Weren't they the ones who refused to let go of Nixon until everyone else was on him too? That took a LOT of guts. What they're doing these days takes a lot of padding around the knee caps.

[Wwagsthedog]

8. Those were the days of...

... Katharine "Guts of a Burglar" Graham (publisher) and Ben Bradlee (editor).

[BurtWorm]

11. What the hell happened?!

I know this seems like a naive question. I've noticed the deterioration in principle and heart at the Post over the last decade and a half, but it's just occurring to me to ask how this once courageous and principled newspaper became the whore it is now. I know the answer lies in what happened to Washington media culture. It just strikes me that they've been consistently STOOOOPID in very recent weeks.

[PATRICK]

13. reeaxmine those guts

A0 Not as herois or liberal b) those icons alos skipped stories, decided what was best for the common man c) in the thrall of Washington elite buddies d)not that bright about real facts or common politics. Advanced ounitry thriving on high connections and top down careful managment of opinion making.

What did Nixon ever do for them? They hated Nixon, Clinton and others. Bush is scarier, friendlier, tied in to their interests and dominates the insider elite- currently.

Even watch the move a bit more critically and remember how much easier they had it back then and how small and lucky the media effort really was.

What happened was nothing happened or changed. They patted themselves on the back for not getting creamed and enjoyed the laurels and the illusions of ability and power.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Charles Krauthammer...

...was mentioned as a possible writer of last week's anti-Gore screed.

[BurtWorm]

5. But is he even on staff there?

I thought he wrote for The New Republic. Is he a Washington Post guy too?

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. Krauthammer...

...writes a column for the WaPo.

[BurtWorm]

10. Yes, I know

But it's unusual for a columnist to write an unsigned op-ed. I think it's unusual anyway. Most newspapers have boards of editorial writers specifically for that purpose. These are staff members whose specialty is writing unsigned editorials in their field of specialty. They don't usually write columns as far as I know, and columnists don't usually write unsigned editorials.

[liberalmuse]

6. Gad!

That's almost as bad as the other editorial linked from Bartcop, where some unnamed staff writer is mocking the Europeans over their reaction to the current heat wave. I guess the thousands of people dying in Italy and France are just wimps.

[BurtWorm]

17. I saw that.

The 20th Century version of Marie Antoinettism: "Let them use air-conditioning."

[tsipple]

7. Six Monkeys with One Typewriter

:-)

[grasswire]

12. an explanation

....although a bit dated.

Each major American newspaper has, in addition to reporters and editors, a small staff of editorial writers who draft the paper's official positions. The New York Times employs 16 editorial writers, and the Washington Post employs eight or so. Every day, the entire editorial team convenes to discuss and debate the day's topics, and then the individual writers retire to their offices to prepare the articles. Ordinarily, the editor of the editorial page--Howell Raines at the New York Times, Meg Greenfield at the Washington Post, and Robert Bartley at the Wall Street Journal--has the final say on a particular issue. Occasionally--with candidate endorsements, for instance--the publisher might participate in or even make the decision.

Reporters and editors from the newsroom are never involved in the editorial-writing process. The idea is that if reporters were writing opinion pieces, it would compromise their ability to remain (or at least appear) objective. Of course, no one seriously believes that reporters are without opinions, but, in American newsrooms at least, they're not encouraged to cultivate them. (British reporters have more leeway for editorializing in news stories and British unsigned editorials are often written by the newsroom editor.)

from Slate in 1999. Meg Greenfield is dead now.
http://slate.msn.com/id/1002028/

[BurtWorm]

14. Howell Raines is also "dead" now

Gail Collins is the editorial page editor at the NY Times.

[jackstraw45]

15. Seriously...

I've only lived in DC for 4 years but there has DEFINITELY been a swing at the Post from pretty moderate to NEOCON city.

This Sunday editorial is a perfect example.

I've also noticed they are printing fewer and fewer critical letters.

Anyone know of a good deal on the NY Times?

[Jacobin]

16. Yeah. Members of a PNAC think tank

Its painfully obvious