Ryan Blethen at the Seattle Times likes to talk about the value of local newspapers for a healthy public discourse (latest example here). He has a point to a degree, and I'll even acknowledge Seattle's media is more interesting with two different newsrooms in competition, regardless of critiques that might be offered of both. But, there is a real value to the blogosphere not to be overlooked.
Today, the Times unleashed a tart editorial, lambasting Paul Wolfowitz for supposed transgressions at the World Bank. In the days when the MSM owned such discourse, local readers might be left thinking, "yep, that Wolfowitz guy is a real bastard. Why shouldn't he be fired forthwith?"
Ah, but in the age of the new media, the same local reader can find alternate opinions, say here at Sound Politics for example, questioning the Times's pronouncement. The reader might be directed to other sources of information. Say, from Christopher Hitchens at Slate. Maybe from the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Or by chance from the op-ed page of the LA Times, with this operative summation:
Moreover, the case reveals the bank's executive board and its ethics committee as organs of haphazard judgment. In 2005, the ethics committee surprisingly denied Wolfowitz's written request that he be allowed to recuse himself from all decisions touching on Riza's status because of their relationship. Then it disqualified her from remaining at the bank yet insisted that she be compensated for this disruption to her career. Next, it insisted that Wolfowitz re-enter the chain of command to execute its advice concerning Riza. And now, board members apparently have criticized Wolfowitz for doing exactly what the ethics panel directed. ...The most amazing thing is that all the facts were reviewed for a second time by the World Bank ethics committee last year, and again it found nothing wrong. The chairman of the ethics committee pronounced in a Feb. 28, 2006, letter that "the ethics committee decided that the allegations ... do not appear to pose ethical issues."
As all three pieces above detail, the current charges against Wolfowitz reek of insincerity and appear devoid of substance, upon examination beyond the initial wire stories covering the matter. The Times's broadside spends nearly as much time needling the reader about Wolfowitz's past work at the Department of Defense as it does stating the case for offenses at the World Bank worthy of termination.
It would be better if the Times just declared Wolfowitz the neocon bum they deem him to be, unworthy of future positions of influence in their view thanks to their intense dislike of the Iraq war he supported. One could disagree with that line of thinking, violently perhaps, but at least it would be intellectually honest.
UPDATE: Link added and typo fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 17, 2007 10:39 PM | Email Thishttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002267097_fhlb08.html
Hey Paul. How is the Iraqi funded reconstruction, going straight to American companies going?
Why don't you send your girlfriend to Iraq Paul?
Posted by: Facts on April 18, 2007 07:26 AMTwo notable quotes related to Eric's post.
"Based on this paper trail, Mr. Wolfowitz's only real mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith. Yet when some of these details leaked to the media, nearly everyone else at the bank dodged responsibility and let Mr. Wolfowitz twist in the wind."
"Equally cynical has been the press corps, which slurred Mr. Wolfowitz with selective reporting and now says, in straight-faced solemnity, that the president must leave the bank because his "credibility" has been damaged. Paul Wolfowitz, meet the Duke lacrosse team."
There is real evil in this world, and certain publishers, editors, reporters, news producers and TV anchors, who misuse their soapbox to slander and smear good people for purely partisan political reasons, are right there at the top. Scooter Libby, Roberto Gonzalez and now Paul Wolfowitz are just the latest targets of this dangerous media attack machine.
Posted by: MJC on April 18, 2007 08:37 AMSupposed transgressions? He abused his power and ordered his girlfriend an obscene raise/promotion. That would never fly in any private company, why should it fly at the World Bank? I hope his wife gets a big settlement in the divorce.
"Moreover, the case reveals the bank's executive board and its ethics committee as organs of haphazard judgment. In 2005, the ethics committee surprisingly denied Wolfowitz's written request that he be allowed to recuse himself from all decisions touching on Riza's status because of their relationship. Then it disqualified her from remaining at the bank yet insisted that she be compensated for this disruption to her career. Next, it insisted that Wolfowitz re-enter the chain of command to execute its advice concerning Riza. And now, board members apparently have criticized Wolfowitz for doing exactly what the ethics panel directed. ...
The most amazing thing is that all the facts were reviewed for a second time by the World Bank ethics committee last year, and again it found nothing wrong. The chairman of the ethics committee pronounced in a Feb. 28, 2006, letter that "the ethics committee decided that the allegations ... do not appear to pose ethical issues."
Love, Hank
PS - read first, then comment.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on April 18, 2007 08:55 PM