Washington Post soft on Orly Taitz

Did the world really need a Washington Post profile of almost 2500 words on the "charming but ferocious tenacity" of crazed birther activist Orly Taitz? It is, as the Washington Independent's David Weigel points out, "possibly the least critical thing ever written about this severely disturbed person who’s encouraging the military to rebel against the elected president of the United States." At several points in the latter half of the article, Post Style writer Liza Mundy obliquely raises concerns about the lack of factual support for Taitz's theories, their appeal to extremist groups, and the racial dimensions to her rhetoric, but all are mildly worded and framed in "he said," "she said" style. (Meanwhile, Weigel notes that Mundy fails to accurately describe Taitz's most absurd claim about why Obama is supposedly ineligible for the presidency.) At this point, the only reason to cover Taitz is to debunk some new claim she's made that's received mainstream attention. She should otherwise be ignored.

Comments

[David]

I agree that this profile is awfully kind, but I think it's unfair to say that she's "encouraging the military to rebel against the elected president of the United States." That statement implies that she's involved in contacting military people and asking them to disobey orders. I'll grant that in theory her actions could conceivably have the side effect of encouraging rebellion, but that's not her aim.

Furthermore, there hasn't been any rebellion or threat of rebellion by the military. The alleged encouragement of military rebellion is entirely hypothetical.

Also, let's not forget all those on the left who spent years claiming that Bush hadn't been properly elected in 2000. As the slogan went, Selected, not elected! If the birthers are guilty of undermining Presidential authority, so are the many Dems who attacked Bush's legitimacy long after his election was settled.

[Rob]

A Washington Post feature story that portrays Orly Taitz as pretty much of a nut is criticized because it's insufficiently derisive and, even more fundamentally, should not have been published at all. I guess this shows the Post's lack of revolutionary consciousness. Better to adopt the practice of the New York Times and Pravda and suppress stories that don't fit the chosen narrative.

Couldn't we have a compromise, in which profiles like this are published but are prominently labeled "Enemy of the People"? The Government could maintain a list of provocateurs and troublemakers--advisory only, you understand, nothing that would offend the First Amendment--to guide publications and assure that everyone is on the same page. Or the publications could get together and create their own Hays Office, headed by a respected media watchdog. I've got my candidate.

[rone]

Rob and David should be working for some congressperson's PR office. The way they've consistently spun things around over the years of comments on this Web site is tenacious and impressive.

[Rob]

Thanks, Rone. I understand it's sometimes unsettling to hear dissenting views, but you know what they say--dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Though I acknowledge, David's comments and mine do prevent us from all speaking with one voice.