Ben Domenech blogging at the Post

Ben Domenech is the new "Red America" blogger at WashingtonPost.com. He was apparently hired to balance the allegedly liberal slant of Dan Froomkin.

I have a little history with Domenech. As a reader reminded me by email, I debunked a false quotation he published in a defense of President Bush's false "trifecta" story on Spinsanity back in 2002:

Blogger Ben Domenech claims to have proof that President Bush said he would run deficits in times of war during a debate with other candidates for the Republican nomination, but it's not true -- and even if it was, it doesn't negate the "trifecta" lie Bush has been pushing. Blogger Bill Quick highlights Bush telling Paula Zahn he might run a deficit during a recession, but again it's not close to sufficient.

First, Domenech. Here's his key quotation:

"If I ever commit troops, I'm going to do so with one thing in mind, and that's to win," Bush said.

"And spend what it takes? Even if it means deficits?" asked the moderator, NBC's Tim Russert.

"Absolutely," Bush replied, "if we go to war." (AP, from Boston Globe)

But if you read the full transcript of the debate, you'll see that Russert never asks "Even if it means deficits?" (Jason McCullough beat me to this point.) If you want verification, watch the C-SPAN video or read the Boston Globe account. This question is absolutely fictitious. There is no match for Bush AND Russert AND "even if it means deficits" in the entire Nexis database, and I can't find the AP article in question in a Westlaw search for Bush AND "even if it means deficits" either (though Domenech claims it came from Westlaw)...

Update 6/20 3:40 PM EST: Domenech is pulling back: "I've listened to the online version of the NH debate now, and I don't hear the second part of Russert's question as printed in the AP article. Considering that most accounts of the debate don't include this part of the question either, I'm close to believing that the AP article I have is inaccurate. I've been taken in by faulty reporting before, but never by the AP. Either way, I'll post the article tonight."

Update 6/24 11:09 PM EST: Domenech hasn't produced the alleged AP article despite requests from me by email and via comments on his site. You can read me debating this issue in the comments on Domenech's original post, or in the comments below Quick's post.

Update 7/2 3:09 PM EST: ...I've been alerted that Domenech posted the alleged AP article (apparently slightly before the above update). I'’ve found two AP articles that mirror parts of his in Nexis, but the key passage, including the fictitious question from Russert, does not appear in any articles in Nexis or Westlaw. Domenech has failed to respond to requests for a Westlaw search that can be duplicated proving its existence, and has not engaged in a serious effort to respond to many other questions raised by myself and others. Given the criticism he initially leveled at others based on this alleged source, this is irresponsible, especially from someone who writes professionally.

Draw your own conclusions...

Update 3/21 10:15 PM EST: On the larger issue of what Domenech's hiring means, see Josh Marshall:

So, to 'balance' Froomkin, who may be a commentator with liberal tendencies, the Post goes out and gets a high octane Republican political activist who hits the ground running with a tirade of Red State America revanchism and even journalism itself.

That's balance. That's the Post's balance.

Managing perceptions is the death of good journalism, especially manufactured perceptions, and even more those manufactured for the easily cowed.

I'm embarrassed for the Post. Embarrassed by the Post.

Their explanation doesn't cut it. If they want to make a blogger Crossfire with a firebreather on the left and on the right, they should do it. It might even be interesting. But here they've just been played by bullies and played for fools.

Jump! How high?

I can think of more than a few actual journalists at the Post who must feel a bit embarrassed too.

Comments

[earl]

Thanks for the work. After reading about the dustup yesterday I did some research and found the supposed AP article from the Boston Globe reveals further problems for Ben. There was a n article in the Boston Globe the day he says he saw the one he posted, on the same subject and containing Russert's real question--but it was written by two Globe writers who, I'm presuming, do not also write for the AP. That is further evidence, in my mind, that he had the thing up entirely.

Sorry if you've already mentioned this. Thanks again.

[Leo Strauss]

Brendan, nice work and like Joe Conason says over at Salon, Spinsanity is sadly missed.

The mistake that Joe, Josh and perhaps you might make, however, is that the WaPo is no longer really a journalistic enterprise. I don't mean that in an easly blog slam.

I've dealt with the Post in a variety of ways -- as interviewee, as low-level business partner for several of their ventures and denizen of the Imperial City for decades.

The business transactional side of the enterprise I think is now the largely dominant mindset. Not just in the journalism-we-have-to-have-Republicans-Like
Us-Because-They-Control-The-Government. But also in the fact that their dead tree version customers are increasingly Republican in the surrounding DC suburbs. And their national aspirations via interactive media must also reach that sweetspot.

The concern by Josh about the journalism misses the point. They never intended Domenech to be a professional counterpart to Froomkin and they really didn't care. What they did care about was addressing the 'sentiment' of their key audience -- to keep their subscriptions and their online clicks. Cynical? Craven? Maybe. But then, if management increasingly treats the WaPo as largely a furniture advertising circular surrounded by text, what can one expect?