I must take issue, at least in part, with my friend Paul
Chesser’s attack
on the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin. I have known
Juliet for some 15 years and know her to be a very hard-working
journalist who tries very hard to be fair. More on that in a
moment.
First, though: Yes, Juliet clearly leans left. And she clearly is
convinced that man-made global warming is a dire threat to
humanity — and she is wrong on that, while Paul is right. I also
seriously question the Post leaving her on a beat on which her
own husband has such a direct professional interest. While it is
NOT fair to say that a journalist should have to give up his or
her job because of family relationships, it IS fair to say that
if there is another beat for which the reporter is qualified,
editors ought to move that reporter to a beat that doesn’t put
the reporter in the unenviable (and unfair to the reporter
herself) position of reporting on a subject where somebody might
question her (or his) objectivity, no matter how many pains the
reporter takes to try to be fair. In this case, Juliet was a
superb and fair-minded reporter on politics (on Congress). She
may like the environmental beat better, but really, she has an
obvious APPARENT conflict of interest on it even if she is
scrupulously objective. If I were a Post editor, I would move her
somewhere else — with a promotion.
Also, it is worth noting that Juliet did a
great job reporting early last year about two scientific
studies showing that corn-based ethanol does more harm than good.
Somebody overly wedded to environmentalist conventional wisdom
would not have done such a good reporting job on that.
Now, it is always possible that somebody who wants to be fair
could nevertheless let strong ideological predilections bias his
reporting without being aware of it. I myself have read some of
Juliet’s environmental pieces and found that the underlying
assumptions were those of the left. My question is, to what
extent has Paul, or anybody else on the climate-change-skeptic
side, tried to approach Juliet as if she is fair-minded and as if
she will give the skeptic side a fair shake if provided enough
info? Maybe Paul has done so; I don’t know; I’m just asking. My
own experience with Juliet when I worked for Rep. Bob Livingston
and she wrote for Roll Call was that she was always willing to
listen. I could tell even then when she was skeptical,
philosophically, about what we were trying to do in limiting
government. But I never once had a problem with her copy. Her
reports were thorough and balanced. And I think that as a
reporter she is a pro’s pro. Unless I am wrong — and I might be
wrong, but I like to believe my judgment on Juliet is correct —
she will at least report the other side if given a chance. And
she will do so without any deliberately derogatory terms.
To repeat, I think this whole idea of a crisis of man-made global
warming is an absolute, irredeemable farce. I think Paul does
spectacular work on the subject. It’s just that I know that
Juliet Eilperin is not a joke. And I would be more than willing
to try to set up a meeting between Paul and Juliet if they
haven’t already met.
