« Groups versus swings in elections | Main | State of the Union media prebuttal »

January 25, 2011


On Oct. 1, 2006, the Washington Post ombudsman wrote:

Did The Post overplay the [macaca] incident? Not initially, but the coverage went on for too long after he apologized. The news stories, handled by the paper's Virginia political reporters, did not go overboard. An editorial was well done. Then the columnists weighed in, along with Style reporters and editorial cartoonist Tom Toles. No one piece was over the line. But when you put it all together, it looked like piling on. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901609.html

If it was piling on for a local paper to give macaca such extensive coverage when it was current, it's certainly piling on for Brendan, who isn't local, to give it extensive coverage four years after the event and the apology. Maybe this blog needs its own ombudsman. ;)

If there are any among Brendan's readers who share Matt Bai's woeful ignorance about the Army-McCarthy hearings and Joseph Welch's evisceration of McCarthy, they should spend ten minutes watching the colloquy on YouTube: part 1 and part 2.

I have fond memories of the Army-McCarthy hearings, which were televised when I was in the second grade. Coming home from school, I'd find my mother so glued to the television set that my usual Tastycake and milk snack had to be deferred until a recess was called.

A nice footnote to this history is that for a period preceding the Army-McCarthy hearings, young Robert Kennedy was assistant counsel to McCarthy's subcommittee, a job procured by Kennedy's father, who was a friend of McCarthy. And even before he was hired by McCarthy, whom did Bobby Kennedy choose as godfather to his first child? Who else, Senator Joseph McCarthy.

The fact Milbank has to announce and challenge other pundits on a Palin-free month is telling.

Better to just begin covering her when she is truly news-worthy rather than swinging from "obsess on Palin" to "obsess on not-Palin".

Brendan - Good call though in the "pro-business" slant of the Immelt appointment.

As a side note, perhaps this is more common than I thought but I don't recall any President appointing a CEO from a giant corporation to a post such as this and the CEO keeping his day job. Strikes me as potential huge "conflict of interest" issue. Is there a precedent for this?

The comments to this entry are closed.