The Corner

They Did What?!

The Washington Post is getting grief for, as Stanley Fish might put it, publishing Hitler in 1939 — publishing a Sarah Palin Copenhagen oped piece. This is in The Huffington Post:

Shortly after the op-ed was published online,Post media reporter Howard Kurtz tweeted that his paper was being “ripped for running Palin op-ed.” Kurtz highlighted a blog post whose author refused to link to the op-ed because “[t]hey shouldn’t be rewarded with the clicks, which is pretty much what this is about, I figure.”

Politico’s Ben Smith wrote on Twitter that it “struck me as slightly odd [that the Post] published an expanded version of her Facebook piece.” He added later, “I agree she’s relevant and boycott call is news.”

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder begged to differ with Smith’s latter point. “Her boycott call is like a video press release,” he wrote. “She’s looking for a way to inject herself into this and found it.” Ambinder published a critical “annotated” version of Palin’s piece, noting at the onset, “Once again, the Washington Post has given Sarah Palin the chance to harness herself to the political story of the hour.”

The response to the op-ed was even more critical from science writers. ScienceBlogs.com’s Tim Lambert chose to headline his piece on Palin’s op-ed: “The Washington Post can’t go out of business fast enough.” He pointed out that the Post’s own reporting contradicted claims made by Palin in the op-ed. “The Washington Post simply does not care about the accuracy of the columns it publishes,” he concluded.

Recommended

The Latest

Rat Patrol

Rat Patrol

Illegal leaks of classified information should be treated as a serious offense. But they would be easier to prevent if less information were classified.
Why Obama Failed

Why Obama Failed

In a revealing interview, Obama tried to burnish his image for progressive posterity — but he still doesn’t understand his fundamental errors.