Well said, Steve. It's all about integrity, and I appreciate yours.

Spot on.

VandeHei has done an excellent job. He and Dana Milbank were MSNBC's go to guys on Hardball, Countdown and other shows.

He came across as the epitome of what a journalist should be, reporting the news.

Great post.

Steve,
I think your commentary is grossly unfair to Vanderhei critics. You misapprehend the reason that people have gossiped about his wife, which is that these critics have been very disappointed in his work on several stories, leading to suspicions that he possesses right wing politics which are influencing his reporting.
Actually I do not follow these criticisms closely, but your description of them amounts to a slur. I expect better from you.
People like Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake.blogspot.com have made pointed, specific complaints about Vanderhei's reporting, particularly his reporting on the Abramoff scandal and the Plame investigation.

You can't dismiss the criticism of Vanderhei's journalism by complaining about gossipers.

There is another reason why people are talking about Vanderhei's wife which you may not be aware of. The female reporter at the WaPo who recently testified in the Plame case---I can't recall her name off the top of my head--has a husband who was among the recent crop of Bush appointees.
There was the definite appearance of quid pro quo, since her testimony was widely represented as being favorable to Rove.

NOT quid pro quo, as the nomination had been made by the White House long before her name was mentioned by Luskin

If Jim VandeHei is commenting on the Abramoff scandal without disclosing that his wife, in fact, worked for Tom DeLay then it is not scandalmongering, it is absolutely relevant.

And hey, thanks for keeping Townhouse stuff under your hat.

I agree with Marky and Jane.

Steve....

I can't believe you are serious....

On each one of the articles you cited, Vandehei was paired with another (superior) reporter. And I don't know who JS was watching (or what he was smoking) but anyone who has watched Vandehei on television cannot help but be struck by his cluelessness and/or willingness to parrot GOP talking points.

We BOTH know that in Beltway journalism, access is the coin of the realm -- and that to maintain that access, a reporter has to be something of a "whore" about protecting the interests of his sources.

And one of the elements of Post journalism is the "tag team" nature of most of its political coverage. Vandehei may be sharing a byline with Walter Pincus, but that doesn't mean that Vandehei shares Pincus' insight -- it just means that the John Harris wanted "balance" in the piece, and insisted that the point of view of the administration be included--and Pool Boy was their go-to guy on that one.

Within the context of "access journalism", discussing who Vandehei is married to is not only acceptable, its necessary.

(what next Steve? A stirring defense of Steno Sue?)

I agree and disagree with aspects of this post regarding VandeHei--I've been frustrated at his response to questions on the cable TV shows, and with some reporting, but I understand some of it.

But I agree 100 percent with those who are tired of personal slander and the general negativity on many of the blogs. It's all about wankers and the outrageous wingnuts. I agree, they ARE wankers and wing-nuts, and criminals and liars. Maybe I'm just burned on outrage, burned out that the grown-ups in this country have let it get this bad in terms of the culture of corruption (yes, I think that's a real thing).

Visiting TWN is like diving into a pool of adulthood. Here we get new info, peeks into the personalities of more honest civil servants. And when Steve gets outraged, as he does, I'm much more apt to listen than when those who are continually outraged blog about it. I find the perennially negative blogs tend to get just cynical in the face of the worst of the crimnal corruption.

Please oh please progressive leaders and journalists, step up to the plate, and Steve, please keep up TWN!

You know what is the problem with much of journalism? The same problem with our political system: much of it is bought and paid for by corporations and is beholden to corporate political interests.

SC:

One last point in our ongoing disagreement about your building bridges to the Bush Administration and about your assertion that at least one Senior official is granting you access in that regard.

How can anyone who is a moral patriot American work for an administration who does this?

"A recent American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posting of one of forty-four US military autopsy reports reads as follows: "Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq."
The ACLU website further reveals how: "a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was "undetermined" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death.
Another Iraqi detainee died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated. He was standing, shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth, at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries.
So read several of the 44 US military autopsy reports on the ACLU website -evidence of extensive abuse of US detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan 2002 through 2004. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, "There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths." ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, "These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations."
Additionally, ACLU reports that in April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of "environmental manipulation" as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. So responsibility for these human atrocities goes directly to the highest levels of power."

There is more here:

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/ustorture.htm

Tell me how good people could still be working for such a group of anti-American monsters who would do this to people?

And how can you as a moral person not do anything but vigorously oppose those who would approve torture and murder in your name as an American?

njr, without wanting to get into a brouhaha over a secondary point, your comment "NOT quid pro quo, as the nomination had been made by the White House long before her name was mentioned by Luskin" shows a lack of understanding as quid pro quo infers an exchange, often explicit but not always, but not a time sequence.

Well, living up here in the North Shore of Boston, I think the people in Washington are a little bit...ah, what's the word - myopic. Well, you can't bullshit a bullshitter so i went to google and the first article I found by Jim VandeHei:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903284.html
Now I read it's about GOP leadership changes and how they are being yawned at by voters, but does he expect the GOP reps to say that the electorate is really interested in the changes and what is precipitating them? Oh, and did he actually check with any......voters? Even Republican voters.....though the last time I checked, Deomcratic voters have views too. He sounds just like the rest of the Washington Post, Republican shills. But I liked this line the best: "Other polls show Democrats with a significant edge when voters are asked about who they want elected to the House." Well, jeez, Jim, thank you for that one sentence. Too bad we couldn't mention what polls we're talking about. I like your blog, Steve, but you lost me on this one. Of course, I'm a hard ass who doesn't even think the Boston Globe is doing a good job, but i don't agree with you here at all.

I just want to make a little comment which I hope will be taken in a light way.
I think integrity is a jewel which is best not put on display---somehow it loses its lustre that way.

"There is nothing wrong about political agendas, or political advocacy, or even seeking to undermine talented good people on the other side of the political equation to push a new political direction or candidate...But savaging journalists who have very clear records is not a wise move." -SC

Why is it that you believe it is alright to seek to "undermine talented good people on the other side of the political equation to push a new political direction or candidate," but it is not alright to do the same to a journalist? Journalists, by definition, become players in the game as soon as they began writing. They receive access, make promises, get leaks, hold off on and conversely push stories. Why should they be immune?

I don't know anything about the VandeHei situation. But I can tell you that I have real concerns that the same people who are reporting on those in power are now, at the higher levels anyway, part of the same social group as those they are covering. I can't watch Russert, for example, without wondering whether the Republican big-wig he's interviewing has a house next to Russert's in Nantucket.

This is a natural problem; I'm not sure I'd be inclined to say anything negative about my next door neighbor either. But that's the problem, isn't it? Those of us non-insider, non-DC folks know there are webs and connections between/among DC journalists and politicians, lobbyists, etc., but we don't know which WashPo writer is close to which Bush administration official. I don't know whether VandeHei's wife's relationship to DeLay affects his reporting. I hope not, but I think it's reasonable to suspect that some reporters might be hesitant to criticize their own friends, or their spouses' friends.

How about this? Reporters should disclose in each story any relationship they have with the subjects of the story. Did you have a social dinner with DeLay or his chief of staff last week? Does your wife work for Bill Frist (or Ted Kennedy, for that matter)? Put it in the story.

I understand your desire to defend VandeHei. And, as I said, I don't know anything about his situation. But I think we'd have to be a bit naive to not suspect that things such as a reporter's social circle or spouse's connection with a political party don't affect that reporter's work.

I can't help but suspect that Sy Hersh isn't a darling of the cocktail circuit, and he's one of the few that have always done daring investigative journalism without fear of offending anyone.

I've been reading blogs for the last two years (after Paul Krugman first mentioned Talking Points Memo) and there's a fair number of good blogs out there including yours. I'm always using Josh Marshall as an example of how useful a blog can be and the first thing I mention is that he works to protect his credibility. The best bloggers take the time and effort to do so.

There are also group blogs that I regularly read that have their ups and downs. In the last few weeks, the NSA revelations and some laxness on the part of the press has led to some shrillness that doesn't help matters.

Your post raises a minor point. I've been thinking of you as more of a foreign policy expert who has a blog (in the sense that Juan Cole is an expert who has a blog). Do you think of yourself more as a reporter? If so, I'm happy to correct my misperception. It's been my intention to write something for newcomers to blogs on what the blogs are good for.

Steve,

Here's a great piece on blogs vs. traditional media: a blogger is just a writer with a cooler name.

SC

In December http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001148.php you told us your thoughts about Doug Bandow taking payments from Abramoff to write favorable articles. You stated "For the record, I would ask Bandow to guest blog again", got hammered with comments and backed off your position.

It was wrong for VandeHei not to disclose that his wife worked for Tom DeLay. The WP shouldn't even let him report on some of these issues. It was wrong for Howell as ombsbudsman to go after Froomkin and to write to a piece about Abramoff donations. I think these represent serious errors in judgment. As someone stated the key word is "integrity"....if they loose it getting it back is a steep climb...of course they can probably get a nice job with one of the local "think tanks."

Why is it that so many who work in MSM today want to be opinion columnists rather than reporters? Steno Sue, VandeHei, Woodward, J Miller and the list goes on and on and on. How do we vote the MSN out of office?

This is in defense of blogs; there are a great many stories in them that are very important for the public to know about, quite often they are linked with what looks like overwhelming proof of the statements they make.

I am very disappointed that the major news organizations get off scott free avoiding the very duty that the first ammendment was written for.

There are a lot of voices out there that may not tell stories that measure up to your progressive centrist standards, but that does not automatically make them yellow journalists. I am not personally aware of anyone who is demanding that he print unsourced or vindictive lies about anyone or anything, are you?

I do believe that it is in (almost) everybody's best interest to disclose financial and personal relationships between all parties.

This is classic Vandehei -- basically, its little more than a White House press release, with a short paragraph that notes what "some critics" have to say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46581-2005Apr12.html

Steve...this is what Vandehei writes if he isn't being supervised by a Baker or a Pincus. Please tell us precisely where you see an "insightful" reporter, and not a Bush administration flack, in this piece....

Here is a letter I sent to the Post recently about Mr. Vandehei's reporting. The ombudsman did not respond. I do not think spouses are fair game unless they involve themselves in a public way in the arena occupied by the other spouse. But when a reporter writes an article like the one I identify here, it is fair to wonder whether his politics are more in line with Mr. DeLay than with the independent line on the ballot.

Dear Ms. Powell,
I read two accounts of the White House meeting with former Secretaries of State and Defense. The New York Times described a meeting in which 40 minutes was allotted to happy talk from our ambassador and military folks, and "5 to 10" minutes of feedback was received from this august group. Whereupon, they had their picture taken and the President left, along with everybody else who should be listening to outside advice.

The Washington Post article? Not so informative. Even the title is misleading.
"Voices From History Echo Anew
Former Cabinet Officers Offer Advice on Iraq to Commander in Chief"
I'm sure the White House press office loved it, but it is not a fair portrayal to give the impression that this meeting was really about listening to advice. Obviously the meeting was another PR stunt: a pretext for a picture and some good press, which Mr. VandeHei obliged with. No one person can give the President effective counsel on the war in Iraq in ten minutes. Let's not pretend that a roomful of people can do better.

The real story is that the President is still inside his bubble and trying to create the illusion that he is listening to criticism. Maybe if the press called him on it, he would be motivated to do more. By giving him a pass, the Post does not serve the public.

Slightly OT, but I'd like to try a different way of expressing why some of your long time readers and fans seem antsy on here, Steve.
I think it boils down to one thing. You say that you only fight to win. Great, that's the best attitude. The problem is, we don't see you fighting. Taken one at a time, your recent posts are no different than a few months ago, but compared to the Bolton fight of last year, the energy seems lacking.

I see a couple of possible arenas for fights that are suited to your skills and access.

1) Attack Frist---get him removed as Majority Leader. I know that many Democrats would rather see him stay, since he is so ineffective, but I do not like seeing a White House puppet in his position. I would rather have a solid Republican who is independent from the White House than a toady like Frist. Perhaps the biggest fault of the Bush administration is that they don't respect the separation of powers. Frist looks very weak now, implicated in corruption equal to Delay's but more venal. Get on the horn with your sources in the Senate and find out the truth about the day-trading allegations.

2) If you think the fight can be won, blog for a filibuster of Alito. He also is not independent enough from the White House, both personally and as expressed in his deferential legal view of executive power.

3)Any luck with the Blair memo? I assume you are still after it---publishing that would be a great service.

4)This last is a general idea, but right up your alley. We are agreed that victories are good. They don't have to be big victories to make a strong impression. Have you seen how Jane Hamsher helped destroy the book sales of Kate O'Beiren's anti-feminist diatribe with a clever prank?
My suggestion for you is to find some incompetent in the Bush admnistration whose record is so bad that if the public knew about him, he could not keep his job. Embarrass the Bush administration by finding more Brownies doing their heckuvajobs.
I hear the treasury department is full of Brownies.

cheers

I think Marky's #4 suggestion is brilliant. You may be put off at shining the light of day on lower level positions (lower than Cabinet-level), but these people are my country's face to the world, and it's not a pretty face. Appointees who are not dedicated public servants, working to make life better for others, should be held up to the cold light of day.
And yes, if VanDerHei's wife did work for Tom DeLay, he should either not touch the stories, or disclose EACH TIME he writes on the matter, that his wife held that position. After all, the networks and magazines do it every time they review or report on something where they hold an interest.
Lois Quick

Steve writes:

Who he is married to, or who I hang out with bars on the weekends, or who you spend time with is not relevant in any debate about whether journalism is high quality or not. I hope that my friends in the blogging community will agree and move on to better challenges that do deserve their scrutiny.

I find the recent requirements that financial reporters disclose their relationship to the stocks they cover a much better model for transparency and accountability. If analyst X recommends stock ABC but discloses that he owns shares in ABC, I have a point of reference for evaluating that analyst's advice. His advice may be spot on based on fundamentals, etc but I know to check further in case his ownership influences his advice.

Let's say Steve Clemons routinely hits the bars with Jim Vanderhei and then recommends him as a good reporter. If Steve discloses this, I know to check Vanderhei's stories myself rather than simply accepting the word of his drinking buddy.

Why should our standards be lower for reporters who influence whether we support wars and torture than for those wo influence our investment decisions?

Steve:

I am disappointed. I have found Jim V to be a fair to middling reporter and his comments on MSNBC and CNN are not particularly noteworthy. What good bloggers have done is call into question the role of a reporter in present day Washington. The results have not been pretty. I am very sceptical of journalists nowadays and don't accept their analyses or even their reporting without looking at blogs that I have come to trust e.g. TPM.

After the Bolton issue your posts have gone hither and thither. Obviously you are busy and travel a lot. But you are good when you are focused. Hopefully you will get back to foreign policy issues soon.

Alan

you have my great respect, steve... i follow twn regularly and rarely fail to come away with value added... i do sometimes worry, however, that your shoes may be tied a little too tight...

vandehei comments that bloggers "seem to react more to what WE write..." [my emphasis]

i can only speak for myself, but i am blogging for two reasons and two reasons only... one, i think the u.s. is in the midst of the most serious threat to its constitution and its integrity as a nation it has ever experienced and rather than sitting on my ass, fuming, i am giving voice to my deep concerns by publishing a weblog... quite frankly, mr. vandehei, i really could care less about reacting to what you write... i care much more about discerning patterns in news and events and i will seek the pieces of those patterns wherever i can find them... are bloggers reactionary...? oh, hell, yes, but i trust my own intelligence and instincts to separate the wheat from the chaff... are traditional journalists providing us with the real news and information we so desperately need...? damn little, i'm sorry to say, which brings me to the second reason why i started and continue to maintain my weblog...

by publishing the patterns that i'm seeing emerge along with my - admittedly - biased personal commentary, if i can help enlighten even one person, i will consider it a job well done... i make no pretense of investigative journalism nor do i make a case for exposing new and earth-shattering information... but, by laying out the bits and pieces of what's going on, a pattern emerges expressed by what i choose to pay attention to... i believe i am offering the pieces of a puzzle that, when assembled, reveals an increasingly horrifying picture of a country descending into fascism...

and as for "the still un-evolved standards in blog journalism and commentary," gimme a break... it's the goddam EVOLVED standards that have led us to the current sorry state of the traditional media, steve... i say, if what we have out there now represents evolution, i don't want it...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

There's a lot that could be said about this but let me just say that bloggers' greatest use so far has been to ask good questions and act like terriers in getting answers. Gadflies. Pressure. And sometimes moral voices. And perhaps most important (and annoying), suggest that accepted wisdom is actually yesterday's moldy leftovers.

Some of the best bloggers don't have the means (or the right geography) to be reporters or have direct access to events. We have to rely on our ability as researchers to sort through available information -- from current media reports, videos and stills, history and often foreign-language press -- and to raise the questions, suggest possible answers, and pressure MSM into giving some serious attention to issues they have nimbly skated past..

TWN is routinely thoughtful,well written, and interesting but is wrong on this one.
If one writes about politics and does not disclose that one's spouse, partner, or lover works for one of the most corrupt or vicious thugs in politics then that is not only a mistake but also deceitful. My guess is that Steve Clemmons would not want to be represented by a lawyer whose spouse, partner, or lover worked for even a subsidiary of a group that he was suing without disclosure from that lawyer.
This is a simple matter. For Vandehi to regularly comment on GOP matters when his wife worked for their Majority Leader without disclosure was wrong. It would also be wrong to not disclose that she quit. There the thought might be that the reporter could be prejudiced against the guy just because his wife quit or was forced to leave.
I am sorry but in the world we do make decisions every day based in part at least on who people spend their time with and how they actually live their lives. Steve Clemmons, for a moment here seems to have fallen prey to a particular kind of hubris that appears to affect journalists; they routinely judge others but do not like it when others judge them . Suck it up, make the disclosures, and then say whatever the hell you want to say.
We would be better served in this country if the writers admitted their biases nad prejudices and their political leanings instead of adopting the holier than thou objectivist view that in fact is not objective.

This clubbiness betwixt the media and politicians in Washington is as big and as bad as the K-Street project. Maybe worse. From my communications with Bob Schieffer and others, they think the access makes them better reporters but their not reporters at all, merely social wags. Look at the lot from ABC, NBC, CBS, and NPR; the anchors and anchorettes are virtual know nothings, avoiding the truth like it was the plague. Their concern is their salary and the social status that goes therewith. No doubt before, but after the Reagans got to Katharine Graham its been the game ever since. Vandehie's wife had no business socializing with DeLay or Delay's wife. If Vandehei wants to be a reporter in Washington let him get off his butt, get out the door and talk to a lot of staffers. Notice how Knight Ridder is the best and they don't do clubbiness.

Actually, I'm beginning to feel that any journalist who hangs out with anyone in the White House press corps, no matter how good they are, is tainted. I've seen how even the best of them seem to burp up RNC talking points and I feel it is inescapable that when you are constantly around this stuff, you get infected with it.

Perhaps it's not an accident that some of the most serious and factual material comes from people who have no access and in many cases don't even spend much time in DC at all.

I don't think this has anything to do with VandeHei's wife, really. I think just being in that particular milieu makes you forget that out in the real world, the convention Beltway wisdom doesn't actually make any sense.

Your post amounts to an eloquent plea saying just this: "Trust my social class."

I like and value your blog, but after the events of the last fifteen years, I no longer trust your social class. I'm not happy about this but it's true.

Steve......

Off topic....

In the last two days I have encountered a problem being able to access the full extent of individual threads. For instance, on your Reid thread, although 87 posts are indicated, when I scroll down I can only get to approx. #85, an am unable to scroll past that point to the comment box. I just "bottoms out" on a post, and am unable to scroll down any further. Interestingly enough, I do not have that problem with this thread, or the Wolfowitz thread, but do on all the prior threads. Any idea if this is a glitch on my end, or yours???

I like and respect you, Steve. But I can't agree with you here. If VandeHei's wife works for Delay, then so far as I'm concerned he is compromised by definition. A major source of the rot in our political culture is the inbred character of the Beltway elites. They all marry, date, party and fool around with each other. Too much Kool Kids clubiness permeates the whole crowd.

Conflicts of interest have become such a standard of behavior in Washington, among lobbyists, politicians, and the media, that insiders such as Steve seem to have become inurred to the damage such conflicts have inflicted upon our government's, and our media's, ability to represent the interests of WE THE PEOPLE. There was a time that just the appearance of impropriety was enough to call a reporter's or journalist's credibility into question. But now we are subjected by a steady mantra of rationalizations and justifications for behaviors that were once unacceptable.

As a result....

Who trusts the damned media and journalists anymore??? Even Steve, as much as I respect his obvious intelligence and political accuity, only gives us one side of the coin. He defends Reid as a "tough guy", yet fails to comment on Reid's mewling apology to the Republicans over the corruption issue. He lauds Reid's invocation of Rule 21 as couragous, yet in his entire body of comments on the issue, fails to note that Reid's efforts bore absolutely NO FRUIT. Reid RECIEVED CREDIT for forcing an issue THAT WAS NEVER REALLY FORCED, as evidenced by the still invisible "Phase Two" report. How can one write an UNBIASED essay that includes a description of Reid's use of Rule 21, yet fails to mention that it did not recieve the RESULTS that a large block of Americans undoubtedly believe it did???? In order to properly describe the events of history that surround the issue of Reid invoking Rule 21 in the Senate, isn't it incumbent upon any "journalist" to provide a FULL accounting, not only of the action, but the RESULTS of the action as well????

OF COURSE the issue of a journalists wife's loyaties and alliegences matter, IF ONLY for the sake of appearances, and how those appearances affect a reader's ability to take the author's comments at face value, without fear of reading tainted, biased, or contrived material. The fact that such matters of journalistic integrity are no longer as simple as black vs. white is alarming, and the fruits of such equivication are personalities such as Novak and Miller, and entities such as Fox News.

I'm less concerned about VandeHei's wife than his overly credulous reporting. He is that classic animal, a beltway reporter who doesn't question whether the Administration is spinning him, and as a result requires someone like a blogger to come later to point out the blatant evidence of spin. Is that because his wife used to work for DeLay, or because he's just not that sharp? I don't know.

But you're kidding yourself if you believe we can put aside what spouses do. Because, starting early next month, we're going to be hearing non-stop about how Matt Cooper's wife biased his reporting of the Plame affair and how Cooper shouldn't be trusted as a witness against Scooter Libby. I guarantee you, the Republicans are about to make a capital case based on spousal relations. So we'd better be prepared to point out the spousal relations throughout the media if we don't want that old lie of the liberal media to gain mroe traction.

I think the Republicans already did that, emptywheel, when they tried to smear Joe Wilson by saying he was sent on his mission by his wife.

William Safire writing about Scandalmongering...
that's rich coming from Mr. "could have", "perhaps", "maybe"... He is the master of insinuation and if that isn't a recipe for scandalmongering, I don't know what is.

I am struck with the relevance that the Blogsphere is evolving and jockeying for a voice. With that said, it is disappointing that Jim Vanderhei, who makes his living off his curiosity, does not find most blogs useful. Is this a personal problem on Jim's part that he hasn't connected, does he feel the bloggers step on his professional toes, does he see them as too much emotion and too little facts? This is a true problem because all who read this post as well as the many other great sites knows, there's a huge intellectual, focused, problem solving talent out there that often does get it right. This evolving stuff is hard and it's complicated but I believe down to my toes that MSM is really missing the bet and therefore their readers are missing as well, the opportunity for some of the finest reporting in the history of this little country.

"I am struck with the relevance that the Blogsphere is evolving and jockeying for a voice. With that said, it is disappointing that Jim Vanderhei, who makes his living off his curiosity, does not find most blogs useful. Is this a personal problem on Jim's part that he hasn't connected, does he feel the bloggers step on his professional toes, does he see them as too much emotion and too little facts? This is a true problem because all who read this post as well as the many other great sites knows, there's a huge intellectual, focused, problem solving talent out there that often does get it right. This evolving stuff is hard and it's complicated but I believe down to my toes that MSM is really missing the bet and therefore their readers are missing as well, the opportunity for some of the finest reporting in the history of this little country."

Posted by mainsailset

Belittling the blogisphere is a form of marginalization that undoubtedly will precede an attempt to control it. Just the fact that Vanderhei did so calls his credibility into question. On blogs such as Huffington's we see a VOLUME of opinion that allows us to judge the veracity of the MSM's representation of public opinion. It appears to me that the blogs are illustrating a general concensus of public opinion that is polar to what we are TOLD public opinion is.

The internet is the antidote to the disease we now know as "Main Stream Media". You can bet that no stops will be held to rein in this medium for public discourse. Can you imagine how we would percieve the Iraq war, the 9/11 disaster, the NSA wiretaps, if we were not privy to the information that has come off of internet sources????

It is important too to remember that there is a large segment of our population whose world view is formed COMPLETELY by the likes of Fox News. I deal with these kind of people daily, and can assure you these are well intentioned intelligent people, GOOD Americans, who are woefully uninformed and ignorant of the TRUE EVENTS of the last five years. I talk to people daily that still believe Saddam was highly involved in 9/11, and that the "torture" at Abu Ghraib consisted of "putting underwear on men's heads". One of the downfalls of the Democratic leadership is its COMPLETE failure to launch a UNIFIED campaign of seeking to inform ALL AMERICANS of the truth surrounding recent events. Too many of them are pursuing individual political objectives and agendas, and they are drowned out by the static of the main stream propaganda and misinformation. They need to forcefully present Americans with the TRUTH through UNIFIED press conferences and speeches. Only as ONE VOICE will they speak louder than the media voice that has been PURCHASED by the right.

I think we need to keep a distinction in mind. That Vandehei's wife worked for DeLay *proves* nothing. It is only evidence: probative, but not proof. You can't say that James Carville is a wingnut because he is married to Mary Matalin. OTOH, you can't ignore personal relationships, either, especially because of the mechanics of access journalism. And Carville-Matalin relationships are rare.

About 90% of the probative evidence should, I think, be Vandehei's writing. That is much more important than anything else: even Vandehei's personal politics. I don't have much opinion of it either way: I am the dull sort of person who only notices bylines when they are attached to big scoops (Pincus, Priest,) big snark (Milbank, Froomkin), or big stink (Miller). So I'm not picking a dog in this fight; I'm just advocating modest arms control.

Okay, Steve, how about this: reporter Bob Schieffer's younger brother, Tom Schieffer, is a former president of the Texas Rangers baseball team and is now President Bush's ambassador to Australia.

Perhaps this relationship leads to comments like this one on Face The Nation:

Schieffer: Kerry and Bin Laden Expressed “Almost The Same” Sentiments

Today, CBS’ Bob Schieffer borrowed a page from Chris Matthews. NewsMax reports:

Asked whether bin Laden had expressed “almost the same” sentiments that [Sen. John] Kerry did during an appearance on [Bob] Schieffer’s “Face the Nation” broadcast in December, the CBS anchorman told WABC Radio’s Mark Simone: “Well, he did. That’s exactly right.”

Neither Schieffer nor Matthews bill themselves as right-wing propagandists. They are, by their own descriptions, journalists. Yet, over the past few days, they have said things about prominent liberals that would make Karl Rove blush."

Should Bob Schieffer disclose that his brother is a friend of George Bush?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/

Steve, just to remind you that 'pampleteers" at the birth of our nation included Thomas Paine. I would hardly call COMMON SENSE' or 'THE AGE OF REASON' scandalmongering'.

VandeHei is right about TWN, but about very little else. I didn't know his wife was on DeLay's payroll, but I'm fairly certainly that he himself is on Karl Rove's.

Obviously, he's not literally on Karl Rove's payroll, but his career, and thus his income, have benefited from the "access" Rove gives him and he's only too eager earn further access.

That's the trouble with the whole system. Of course, the same danger could extend to bloggers. When a blog gets enough traffic, it gives the blogger an opportunity to do what he loves full-time, but then, when someone says or does something to increase that traffic, the blogger is consciously or subconsciously going to be beholden to that person, just as the lawmaker is beholden to political contributor.

The goals are fair laws, factual news, and commentary based on unbiased analysis of that news. But the system inherently works to corrupt those whose jobs are involved in providing those services.

What's the solution?

TWN : trying too hard to be a Washington Insider?

P.O.'d-
Perhaps I will never understand you.
You think, on the whole, the elected Democrats spout ANY substantial difference than the Republicans concerning the singular fact that our country initiated an immoral war? Do you think there is a difference among them concerning lobbyists? To me, they, over the decades, have proven they are the same side on a coin just jockeying for advantage so they can demand a higher percentage of the take when they control things. You say no? O.K....
You claim to know all these "well intentioned intelligent people" who you proceed to excuse for supporting our government by what to me is the very behavior that labels them just the opposite of intelligent and well intentioned. I hope these sleepy dullards aren't sitting on MY jury. You have me beffuddled. You see, I don't think it is much of an imposition to go a little out of your way-one less party, one less Packer's game- to make sure your war machine is acting in just manner. Pass the chips. Ain't life in America tough!

I also endorse Marky and Siun and others who have questioned your assertion that who we hang with is not important. The fact that VandeHei's wife is on Delay's staff is material. I also endorse Marky's comment about the jewel of integrity - let the work do the talking - preening is unseemly and unnecessary.

btw, the Wolfowitz piece was uncharacteristically fluff. So he's brought in two or three staff and a few staff are leaving?!? and you consider yourself a Washington insider... Where's the beef?

Focus on the policy and leave the personalities aside.

"Perhaps I will never understand you.
You think, on the whole, the elected Democrats spout ANY substantial difference than the Republicans concerning the singular fact that our country initiated an immoral war? Do you think there is a difference among them concerning lobbyists?"

You're right. You will never understand me. Particularly if you interpret my posting as you just did.

And yes, I DO know intelligent well intentioned Americans that have been buffaloed by the bought and paid for media entities such as Fox News. And, I'll tell ya what, calling EVERY conservative or even extreme right winger "sleepy dullards" is simplistic and naive.If they are "sleepy dullards", what does that say about their rise to power, and the marginalization of the "MINORITY" party???

P.O'd:
Your description from "One of the downfalls of Democratic leadership..." onward ends with you demanding, or strongly suggesting, they speak TRUTH and I am saying they ARE speaking the TRUTH-it's just not YOUR truth. Your call for their unison is neither here nor there to me.
I never labeled ANY right winger or conservative anything. If you were suggesting all those people who haven't been able to discern anything beyond the examples YOU give are right wing or conservative, good for you. I AM SAYING anyone and I mean ANYONE over 18 years of age who you described as such and pardoned with "the likes of FOX News" influence, is a sleepy dullard-AT BEST! At worst they believe what they want to believe for whatever reason gives them comfort-and they agree this country, THEIR country, has a right to use any means used thus far to do what is being done. Again, this might not be compatible with YOUR truth, but remember that to which Hobbes referred: ..."solitary, nasty, brutish, and short". Their comfort through their rationale in these times is the law of the jungle-war.

I'm still scratching my head over this item - I'm not going to ascribe any ulterior motive's to VandeHei's reporting, but he's just not good. Others have pointed out several examples - another, indicative of the problems at the Post in the past several years, is his article last fall following Libby's indictment outlining how WH staffers would be taking ethics cources. His source? A "senior administration official" - like this was a topic he had to meet someone in a trenchcoat in the dead of night to get info on. If Dan Bartlett is feeding you administration PR then just say so, for the crap's sake, and attribute it openly and honestly.

VandeHei and the Post are demonstrably deferential in the face of this administration's arm-twisting and spinning of print news. That they also have produced a few stories contributing to a better understanding of the goings-on at the WH just proves that old adage about the blind pig and the truffle.

I saw VandenHei on Countdown after it came out that Rove knew about Plame before Libby. The talking points were a)this blows a big hole in Fitzgerald's case b)Fitzgerald was wrong to indict because he obviously did not have all of the facts c) Libby will now be exonerated because Rove knew first. Keith Olberman played tape from Fitzgerald's indictment news conference showing the error of each of these points. VandenHei was his guest. VandenHei then proceeded to repeat every GOP talking point as if it were gospel. Olberman pointed out what Fitzgerald actually said and asked for comment. VandenHei stuttered, stammered and repeated the talking points. Olbermann persisited and VandenHei was visibly annoyed and uncomfortable. This is the problem with VandenHei and now with Howell. When presented with facts that refute what they probably should not have written in the first place they behave like the Bush admin, they deny the facts and get annoyed with the people who have pointed out the errors. I've seen VandenHei ask tough questions at the press gaggle on CSpan but I never see this reflected in his reporting. I've seen his frustration at not getting a stright answer from McLellan and the non responsiveness of the admin never shows up in his reporting. Why? This is why people get so frustrated. I read your blog and then read the newspapers and wonder why the things you write about are not in the papers. Unfortunately not everyone at the POST is Pincus, Priest, Milbank. This should be a golden age of investigative journalism yet everything is treated as a tactic not as something affecting people's lives and the future of people's children.

I'm late to this discussion, but I recall the 90's and even early 00's when I was just getting on the Web and was not aware of many good blogs.

I recall often asking my friends how the "great" newspapers (at that time I subscribed to the NYTimes, paid attention to the WaPo, WSJ) could get things so wrong, how could they ignore known and easily knowable facts.

Early in the Clinton administration, when the Rush Limbaugh types would run around saying Clinton was going to be impeached (began first or second year of administration), I would think I would find the factually based coverage in the NYTimes.

Then I began to notice strange headlines: One I recall fairly vividly, if not the exact wording. An staffer had used a WH helicopter to scout out a golf course for possible Clinton use, there was some to-do about whether he should have done so or had permission. The NYTimes ran a story headlined to the effect that the Clinton WH used helicopters frequently for personal use. The story actually mentioned very, very few times over the couple years.

I read it over, asked myself how the headline could have been used for the article, blamed some lazy headline writer/editor. But...I also thought it went along with the Jeff Gerth Whitewater stories as means of impugning the new president and his administration's integretity. Sort of like the missing "W" on WH typewriters, trashed offices, etc. (Were there apologies for those stories?) If the previous Bush administration had some staffers notorious for using WH helicopters for strictly personal use, a parallel had to be established for Clinton.

The remainder of the 90's were driving me crazy, as magazine articles, sometimes NPR, would point out the knowable facts, but "great" and "good" newspapers would continue to push fuzzy facts.

(In the mid-90's, I had the office with the fax machine for our work group at a very large corporation. At least once a week, one of my co-workers, a very conservative guy, would receive a fax from one of the early right-wing religious leaders. Talking points. Usually I would hear those same talking points from the Republican pundits/spokespeople appearing on the cable talk shows that evening.

Now, we hear them not only from the identified Republicans and conservatives, we hear them from Chris Matthews, high level DC reporters, even broadcast news figures.)

During the presidential campaign of 2000, I recall hearing the story of Al Gore claiming, per the NYTimes and WaPo, to have discovered Love Canal. He was called a "serial exaggerator" or words to that effect. I was truly disturbed, as I knew he had nothing to do with discovering Love Canal and could not fathom why he would claim to do so. Then, while x-country skiing and listening to This American Life, iirc, I heard the story from the point of view of the students and teacher who were there. They gave the actual story, they had Gore's words on tape, they told about trying to get the WaPo reporter to correct her version, getting a shrug and no action, again iirc.

I also learned the press had maligned ol' Poppy Bush about the amazement he had shown at a new version of checkout scanners at a grocery store. He was not unaware of scanners, but this was new version which did some faily nifty things. But, he was the "out of touch" president and bending this fact fit the press's story line.

When I came across Bob Somerby's DailyHowler, I finally understood just how badly Gore had been mauled by the Washington insider press people and how badly the public had been mislead. I saw, in Somerby's painstaking detail, how Bush had been fluffed by the same writers and TV journalists. I began to understand why my many carefully written letters to reporters and editors made no impression. How can one reader, even many readers, compare with those who grant "access"?

OK, very long rumination, but, Steve, this is why I value blogs which take writers and broadcasters to task, who hold them to a high journalistic standard. They ask why the knowable facts are ignored. Deborah Howell was just the most recent person, but because of a blog with comments, it became apparent how many readers are distressed by this cavalier attitude toward facts.

Perhaps you feel you can determine which reporters are being accurate as you also have connections with whom you can verify their versions. I do not. Most readers do not. We must depend on what is written, and we've found we cannot.

Thus, we value and read the blogs who point out discrepancies, who give context to the day's news, wno pull together all the known facts.

Such as yours.