What Is The Post Opinion Section For?

One specific issue some of the delicate flowers raised was the question of why progressive bloggers are so mean to Fred Hiatt. And, indeed, a decent point was raised: Progressive bloggers are quick to impute specific motives to Hiatt and we're often leaping to conclusions -- and even frequently mistaken -- when we do so. The truth of the matter is that none of us know why the Post does the things it does; their actions are baffling. Today, for example, I see an op-ed by Richard Perle.

What is one to conclude from this?

Does the Post think Perle is a reliable source of information? Maybe it does, but in that case one would need to seriously question its sanity. My guess is that the Post doesn't think Perle is a reliable source of information, but that it decided to publish the op-ed anyway. Why would they do that? I'm not sure. I could speculate, but I won't since, as I've learned, that sort of thing annoys people. One is left, however, with the basic facts -- Perle's op-ed is there in the opinion section. There's also a column by Charles Krauthammer. Whatever reason either of those articles are there, their presence makes it difficult to believe that the Post's opinion pages are, as an institution, committed to making their readers better-informed about the world.

Comments

Have you been reading too much DeLong? Your last paragraph is written very much in his style.

Posted by SP | May 11, 2007 12:12 PM

It's the elusive search for "balance" that puts Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle on the editorial page.

Apparantly the only way to ensure balance is to have a few total whack jobs serve up some hilarity on the pages at least twice a week.

Posted by Davebo | May 11, 2007 12:17 PM

Both Richard Perle and Krauthammer should be brought up on charges of treason.

They both think the U.S. should spend billions to defend the borders of Israel, but simultaneously support the open-borders, third-world invasion of the U.S.

Isn't this treason?

Posted by Real Patriot | May 11, 2007 12:18 PM

Is Perle on Sally Quinn's guest list? Just asking...

Posted by Rich | May 11, 2007 12:19 PM

Taking your question seriously... I think a lot of the otherwise inexplicable Post Op-Ed stuff is meant to send messages to various people and institutions. That's certainly the case for Novak's columns, which -everyone- reads. Perle's column may be no more that a 'Hey, I'm still here, and I'm still willing to knife anyone in my way'.

Posted by MattF | May 11, 2007 12:20 PM

"Making their readers better-informed about the world" sounds like the job of the news section, not the opinion section.

You can certainly argue that it's uniquely pernicious to give Richard Perle a microphone, but you seem to be pushing a standard that says no one who disagrees with the editor should be published on the editorial page. By definition, if I think you're flat wrong, then the things you say are not informing the public, but misinforming them. Yet this would make for a lame editorial page.

Posted by Steve | May 11, 2007 12:22 PM

"I could speculate, but I won't since, as I've learned, that sort of thing annoys people."

Can we please go for the speculate-and-annoy combo rather than the no-speculation option?

Posted by otto | May 11, 2007 12:23 PM

Maybe they think Perle is an important guy with ideas that frequently make it into the White House, and therefore their readers should hear what he has to say. I could certainly see myself publishing Perle on my imaginary Op-Ed page, even though I would probably disagree with whatever he has to say.

Of course, there's still the balance issue, and I think you have a point there.

Posted by too many steves | May 11, 2007 12:23 PM

I don't really see the big problem with the Perle op-ed--Perle's ostensible point is to refute a statement that seems to have been falsy attributed to him by George Tenet. While I'm sure Perle was arguing for an Iraqi invasion on 9/12, it seems he would have reliable information about that encounter with Tenet, or at least have a side of the story that could be aired.

Additionally, the remainder of Perle's op-ed is a series of arguments throwing the CIA under the bus for Iraq and its concomitent problems. Presumably, this is a view shared by many former and current government officials. It certainly seems OK for the Post to publish proof of intramural government squabbles. The Post's readers could end up better informed about the world not by taking Perle's words at face value, but by seeing evidence of a government that has been working at cross-purposes for the last 6 years.

There is no defending Krauthammer's position as a columnist, though.

Posted by Ben | May 11, 2007 12:24 PM

One specific issue some of the delicate flowers raised was the question of why progressive bloggers are so mean to Fred Hiatt.

Huh. Have they noticed that we're involved in a catastrophic war based on lies? Or has that news yet to reach Washington?

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz | May 11, 2007 12:30 PM

Having read Perle's piece, I'm slightly better informed than I was before it. It's a truly strange piece from a former big wig in the Bush administration. I'm glad the Post published it.

Posted by ostap | May 11, 2007 12:31 PM

Re Krauthammer

In evaluating Dr. Krauthammers' position, it should be noted that he has previously stated that he disagreed with the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision and also the one man, one vote decision, claiming that these policies should have been left to the legislatures. This tells you everything you want to know about Dr. Krauthammer.

Posted by SLC | May 11, 2007 12:37 PM

Steve, I disagree not with this principle ("You can certainly argue that it's uniquely pernicious to give Richard Perle a microphone, but you seem to be pushing a standard that says no one who disagrees with the editor should be published on the editorial page.") but with its application to Hiatt's op ed page. It is pretty clear that the invited op eds align with the editor's position. Perle comes after Scheuer, after all. When the Scooter Libby trial was going on, the op ed page was a fiesta of Libby defenders - and that was the WAPO editorial position. Similarly, the attack on Nancy Pelosi voiced by Cheney's daughter - not known as one of the world's great pundits, or even for being coherent for more than a minute at a stretch - was echoing the editorial stance.

The reason liberals attack Fred Hiatt is - suprise! - he isn't liberal. If I were to tick off liberal positions, one of them would not be defending Pinochet. Nor, as in the recent impassioned paen to Uribe, would it be a liberal position to cheer on the murderers of union organizers.

That a man might support raising the minimum wage does not a progressive make. The standards have not fallen that regrettably low yet. Of course, this is the pre-Hillary Clinton for president era. As soon as the Dems nominate her, we'll see the punditosphere embrace their inner Hiatt.

Posted by roger | May 11, 2007 12:46 PM

I had the same reaction when I saw that Perle had a column in the Post. But after looking at it, it appears that Tenet set him up for the column, since it follows from a story Tenet tells of a conversation with Perle when in reality Perle was out of the country. So Perle can justify his relevance by noting that maybe he had no understanding of the middle east or foreign affairs in general, but he can at least straighten out the idea that he made a claim now being pushed in a book getting national attention.

Posted by Lon | May 11, 2007 12:59 PM

I thought the appeal of Perle vs. Tenet was sort of like that of mud wrestling or roller derby, but that's probably unfair to roller derby.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | May 11, 2007 1:03 PM

One might also question whether someone who reads only bylines was truly committed to becoming better informed about the world.

Posted by jbl | May 11, 2007 1:25 PM

Maybe they think Perle is an important guy with ideas that frequently make it into the White House, and therefore their readers should hear what he has to say. I could certainly see myself publishing Perle on my imaginary Op-Ed page, even though I would probably disagree with whatever he has to say.
...
Posted by too many steves

I agree. The situation reminded me of something from a comic book. In "Superman: Birthright," the latest re-imagining of Superman's origins, there's this scene where Lex Luthor — a billionaire genius inventor — is making the controversial claim that Superman is an alien. Rookie reporter Clark Kent argues that the Daily Planet should not give Lex the publicity and tarnish Superman's reputation until Luthor produces evidence.
CK (paraphrased): All we have is Luthor's assertion about this?
Perry White (paraphrased): Right. The important word in that sentence isn't "assertion." It's "Luthor."

In theory, the op-ed page of a major paper is exactly where people like Richard Perle belong. Everyone can see just how bizarre his reasoning and/or worldview is and no one confuses it with news.

In practice, unfortunately, there's no opposing views given an equal chance to make their case, let alone fact-checking or context, so that plan breaks down a bit. But a country slightly closer to ideal than the one in which we live would indeed recognize that the views of influential nutjobs are both news and bonkers.

Posted by Cyrus | May 11, 2007 1:30 PM

Hmmm. To be clearer, the last line should read: "But a country slightly closer to ideal than the one in which we live would indeed recognize that the views of influential nutjobs are both worth publicizing and bonkers."

Posted by Cyrus | May 11, 2007 1:32 PM

for all i know, fred hiatt is a credit to his family, a great neighbor, a well-read companion with sparkling insights into literature and music.

who cares.

in terms of how he does his job, we can judge fred hiatt by the ridiculous arguments that his unsigned editorials make and the quality and nature of his stable of op-ed pundits. based on those things, we can say that he is a dishonest hack. i don't know how he became a dishonest hack (youthful idealism curdles into cynicism; he's stupid; donald graham threatened his job) but that's what he is.

if the delicate flowers can't grasp that, it's indicative of what is flawed about their world view, not what's flawed about the critics of one fred hiatt.

but i would remiss in not noting, pace prof delong, that the cossacks work for the czar. katherine graham's post had a better editorial page than donald graham's post does; i doubt that's merest coincidence.

Posted by howard | May 11, 2007 1:35 PM

Don't not why people have trouble understanding Matt's point. Its not the Perle is conservative. Its that he's a known liar who has been spectacularly wrong about everything for the past 30 years. Its like publishing a John Lott Op-ed. You basically think that its ok to have a known fraud address your readers.

Posted by Rob | May 11, 2007 1:42 PM

The offence isn't publishing Perle occasionally, but publishing Krauthammer regularly.

Posted by ozin | May 11, 2007 1:46 PM

What Rob said.

Presumably, an op-ed page is supposed to provide insight into the news, beyond that which the reader is likely to come up with on his/her own.

By giving over its space to people who are intellectually dishonest, have lousy reasoning skills, have axes to grind that get in the way of their seeing the world clearly, or just simply have nothing new to offer in the way of insights, an op-ed page fails in that presumed mission.

The Washington Post op-ed page has a great deal of all of the above. It's got a regular supply of intellectually dishonest guest op-ed writers such as this morning's Richard Perle. It's got regular contributors like Robert J. Samuelson and Anne Applebaum who can't think their way out of a paper bag. It's got other regular contributors like Krauthammer who have serious axes to grind. And finally, it's got David Broder, who hasn't brought a new thought to the table in decades.

Not to mention, most of these people, and a whole bunch of other contributors from Richard Cohen to Jackson Diehl, are sinfully boring. They complain about losing readers and the difficulty of competing against other media, yet they publish an assemblage of boring idiots, as if there was nobody out there who could write better op-eds. Yet (as I keep harping) this is the one part of the paper where the incumbents have plenty of proven competition, just a few mouse clicks away.

So one wonders: why is the WaPo op-ed section failing in its presumed mission? Is it accidental? Or does it have some other mission that is too subtle for my comprehension?

It can't have the mission of winning people over to the neocon cause, or if it does, it's failing at that too.

So I just plain don't understand the WaPo op-ed section. It either doesn't have any clear mission, or it's surely failing at whatever mission it has. And it's not helping the WaPo win a younger audience that would stay with it over the next ten or twenty years.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 11, 2007 2:46 PM

I think that Cyrus and Too Many Steves have a point as far as Richard Perle goes. On the Krauthammer issue: some years ago there was a lot of excitement about William Safire's columns in the NYTimes, in which he made assertions which were flatly contradicted by the news sections of the paper (the favored example is the Mohammed Atta / Iraq connection which supposedly happened in Prague, for which there is not a scintilla of evidence which has stood the test of time; but there are many examples). The NYTimes' official response was to point out that Times opinion writers were not subject to any fact-checking whatsoever. On the one hand, you can see why that has to be the case -- how do you fact-check an opinion? On the other hand, that means that the writers of opinion pieces in the Times (and, by extension, other papers which have the same policy, which is most likely all of them) are free to abuse this privilege by writing not just opinions but assertions of fact which then go unchallenged despite being obviously untrue.

It is because of this -- because the opinion page is completely exempt from being even as reality-based as the remainder of the newspaper -- that I increasingly think that newspapers have no business publishing opinion columns and should cease to do so. Allowing anybody who writes for the newspaper to disseminate obvious untruths without correction or sanction damages the credibility of the entire newspaper, especially since the newspapers do not generally publish disclaimers on the opinion page stating that the columns published therein are not fact-checked, that the authors of opinions are free to lie, and that the responsibility for detecting these lies is with the reader and not with the publisher.

Not to be too much of a butt-kisser, but my conviction that newspapers should get out of this business has only increased since the rise of the blogs. I used to read Paul Krugman regularly. I don't read him at all anymore, because what he has to say in the NYTimes is invariably out of date and too cramped to be worthwhile -- after all, he only gets to write about 700 words twice a week. Matt Y, by comparison, can write as much as he wants, as often as he wants, and can link to primary sources so that readers can more easily judge the reliability of his premises ("did he get that from a NYTimes news report, or from a Bill Safire column?"). I think that these days the blogs do what the columnists do and they do it better.

This does leave an open issue: if opinion pieces don't belong in the newspapers at all, because they are not fact-checked; but on the other hand, if it's important for the opinions of an influential figure like Richard Perle to be aired for the citizenry; then what is the correct venue for airing his opinions? I don't have a good answer, it's a real issue.

Posted by PT | May 11, 2007 3:03 PM

Rob:

"Its that he's a known liar who has been spectacularly wrong about everything for the past 30 years."

And this reasoning would justify blackballing Perle and publishing Tenet? Particularly when Perle was refuting a demonstrably false statement about him by Tenet?

Real Patriot [I love how all it takes to call one's self a patriot these days is to oppose unskilled immigration]:

"They both think the U.S. should spend billions to defend the borders of Israel, but simultaneously support the open-borders, third-world invasion of the U.S."

I don't know what Perle's view on this is, but Krauthammer is actually in favor of building a wall on the Mexican border. See, for example, this essay.

Posted by Fred | May 11, 2007 3:09 PM

Fred - who gives a flip about Tenet? This isn't about him. This is about the purpose of an op-ed page, and whether giving space to writers with baggage undermines that purpose. If the WaPo let Tenet publish an op-ed, same thing would apply.

Posted by RT | May 11, 2007 3:26 PM

Hey Matt -

About 2 or 3 times a week, I'll find that I've spent 5 minutes reading your blogging thinking I was reading Sullivan's blog. Because of the color scheme.

I'm guessing perhaps this is an issue with the Atlantic servers themselves, but is there any way you could use a different color? After 7 years (??) reading Andrew's blog, my brain has irrevokably decided that deep cobalt blue = Andrew Sullivan.

My 2 cents.

Posted by Slippery Pete | May 11, 2007 4:32 PM

RT, you have put your finger on exactly what is wrong with most op-ed punditry: editors have lost sight of the fact, in (i believe) keynes' formulation, "you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts."

as for perle (or anyone else): they can start a blog if they want to be heard! i'm no blogging triumphalist, but i've been saying for years that what blogs are demonstrating is the absolute economic idiocy of tenure for pundits, the vast majority of whom are highly compensated for the most minimal of efforts.

Posted by howard | May 11, 2007 6:05 PM

According to the New York Times, Perle was to be paid $725,000 by Global Crossing, including $600,000 if the government approved the sale of a joint venture to Hutchison Whampoa, the international giant based in China that has been linked in testimony to Beijing intelligence. The Pentagon and FBI were balking because this would put Global Crossing's fiber-optics network--used by the U.S. government--under Chinese authority. Perle has resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board but remains a member.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_9_19/ai_100111673

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 11, 2007 6:31 PM

Re Slippery Petes's suggestion : "...is there any way you could use a different color? After 7 years (??) reading Andrew's blog, my brain has irrevokably decided that deep cobalt blue = Andrew Sullivan."
---------
I disagree. I think Andrew's color should be pink with a teal border.

Posted by Don Williams | May 11, 2007 6:36 PM

If saw a Noam Chomsky op-ed in the Post or a Chomsky Meet the Press appearance, I would drop dead of a heart attack immediately.

Posted by Garuda | May 12, 2007 12:27 AM

Actually, Krauthammer, Broder, et al are paragons of virtue compared with Robert Novak, a card carrying member of the fascist Opus Dei organization. Novak, is a pathological liar who is nothing but a shill for the extreme right wing born agains in the Rethuglican party. Novak is a personal friend of his fellow Opus Dei member, the traitor and former FBI agent Robert Hansson. Novak has admitted that many of the leaks which he published over the years came from Hansson. The fact that the Washington Post continues to publish this fascist scumbags' column twice a week is emblematic of the sclerosis infecting the papers' editorial board.

Posted by SLC | May 12, 2007 9:41 AM