I didn’t think much of accusations “against” news
columnist Ezra Klein that he had briefed some Senate
Democratic aides. I thought that, being a pundit, Klein did that
kind of thing all the time. I don’t think there’s anything wrong
about a reporter talking to a couple of Senate aides curious to
hear how certain messages are playing out in a reporter’s mind, or
for a reporter to sit in on a policy discussion of staffers.
But then Klein’s
scattered and mealymouthed response left me scratching my head,
and I wonder whether his editors are scratching their heads too.
And it’s probably because his response means that he is continuing
the charade of being some kind of objective news reporter, a
charade the Post’s editors are happy to allow considering how they
portray him.
You see, under
Jen Rubin’s name at the Washington Post, we have this:
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering
reported opinion from a conservative perspective. She covers a
range of domestic and foreign policy issues and provides insight
into the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
She’s not only reporting opinion from a conservative
perspective, she’s also providing insight into the conservative
movement and the Republican Party! If we could only cram the word
“conservative” in there one more time.
Klein on the other hand:
Ezra Klein is the editor of Wonkblog and a columnist at the
Washington Post, as well as a contributor to MSNBC and Bloomberg.
His work focuses on domestic and economic policymaking, as well as
the political system that’s constantly screwing it up. He really
likes graphs…
So, while Rubin is conspicuously called out as the conservative,
no such disclaimer is offered for Klein. And working for his
“WonkBlog” are people described as reporters, lending credence to
the fantasy that Klein’s work is objective. Which it ain’t.
Last week, Betsy Rothstein of FishbowlDC quoted an anonymous
Senate aide who claimed that Klein “briefed” him and a group of
Senate democratic chiefs of staff for 30 minutes about the
supercommittee. Fishbowl takes anonymous tips and reports the
living tar out of them, to a degree that some DC journalists find
annoying (and others find amusing). One of the high-level
Democratic aides said that “while people ‘enjoyed it’ and gave it
‘positive reviews’ this sort of thing is far from typical.”
Klein usually refrains from responding to posts by Rothstein, so
it was especially strange
to see him do so here. What he could have said was “This
anonymous source is unreliable.” But Klein actually verified the
story, meaning that the source is reliable on at least one
count:
I did go speak with a bunch of Senate Democratic chiefs of
staff. They said they occasionally invite journalists in to chat,
and we agreed I would attend for a free-ranging discussion — I
wasn’t delivering a presentation, much less a briefing on the
supercommittee. In fact, the supercommittee wasn’t a big part of
the discussion. The focus was much more on the 2012 race and
Congress’s low approval ratings. Their prior meeting had run late,
so we only talked for 30 minutes or so.
Everything in this statement conveys that he did, in fact, brief
some Democratic Senate chiefs of staff, except he would prefer to
use the less suggestive phrase “free-ranging discussion.” It’s an
important distinction for Klein, I think, because “briefings”
suggest that familiar Tom Clancy atmosphere where a single policy
scholar, armed only with a Powerpoint presentation that includes a
blast radius and a death count, is able to avert a global crisis
merely by saying, “Mr. President, we’ve got to do something.”
Briefings can also be “free-ranging discussions.” If you spend
any amount of time talking to people who want to know what you
know, it’s not ridiculous to call it a briefing. He had just such a
meeting with a group of very important Washington people. People
whose water he carries on the regular.
I’d love to get Klein’s thoughts on the ethics of this. Again, I
don’t think he did anything wrong except for wackiness of his post
– I’d think he’d be doing something wrong in turning down the
opportunity. But if he thinks it’s so important to clarify what’s
okay and what’s not okay, let’s get into the weeds:
- If you’re a senate staffer – and not just a staffer, but the
chief of staff to a senator, of which there are only 100
— and need to explain something to a reporter, you don’t
arrange a free-ranging discussion with several people and a
reporter. You yourself set up an appointment with the reporter
you’d like to reach, like the appointments Klein says he usually
has. Why were several Senate Democrat chiefs of staff gathered in a
single room for an off-the-record free-ranging
discussion?
(Usually, when I am the only journalist invited to speak to a bunch
of people who usually talk to each other and work together, I worry
that I’m expected to give a talk, and get a bit of anxiety over
public speaking. And when that happens, depending on whether I
actually have something to say, I pass the buck and open with… wait
for it…. “I’m hoping to have more of a free-ranging
discussion here…”)
- In saying “their prior meeting had run late, so we only talked
for 30 minutes or so,” Klein suggests that he expected to have a
full hour or more. Again, with this particularly large and
important group of Senate staffers who had been, collectively, in
“another meeting.” Was this part of a series of meetings with
reporters? Had Klein sat in on those? Was he initially invited to
speak, but had to open things up given the short amount of
time?
- The impending news at the time of the meeting was the failure
of the supercommittee, and that didn’t dominate discussion? Instead
it was merely the unpopularity of Congress heading into the
election? Isn’t that striking? During the mere 30 minutes Klein had
with several top level aides, he says he spent a minimal amount of
time on the issue. Isn’t that weird considering his latest
Bloomberg
column which explains that it’s the staffers who really do all
the law-making on the Hill? (As Mickey
Kaus writes, “It’s not like Klein turned around and wrote a
one-sided post, “In praise of congressional staff.” … Oh.”)
- Talking to Senate aides, even in a group, is pretty useful for
a journalist, it’s just that it’s hard to lock down that kind of
access. Fortunately for Klein, he writes for the Washington Post.
Which makes it even stranger: Klein has access to all of these
people individually. Why does he need to talk to all of them at
once? Unless… he’s saying something to all of them?
- Most importantly, if Rothstein’s source was telling the truth
about there being a meeting, then this quote needs to be addressed:
“‘It was kind of weird,’ said a longtime Senate Democratic aide,
explaining that while people ‘enjoyed it’ and gave it ‘positive
reviews’ this sort of thing is far from typical.” Enjoyed what? How
is it not typical? Why was it weird?
I’m sensitive to this mealy-mouthed
denial because when last people attempted to use communication
between Ezra and his colleagues (on Journolist) to “coordinate,”
Klein said he’d rather just have a “discussion.” Yet even if it
wasn’t a bulletpointed to-do list, as many conservatives suggested,
there’s no denying that such “discussions” breed certain kinds of
“coordination.”
Here’s what he said when asked by then senior editor of
Harper’s, Luke Mitchell, whether it would be possible to use the
list to coordinate:
“Open question: Would it be a good use of this list to
co-ordinate [sic] a message of the week along the lines of the GOP?
Or is that too loathsome? It certainly sounds loathsome. But so
does losing!”
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, the founder of Journolist,
quickly jumped in: “Nope, no message coordination. I’m not even
sure that would be legal. This is a discussion list, though, and I
want it to retain that character,” he wrote.
Coordination? Briefing? Free-ranging discussion? They’re all
very, very different things. Obviously. But remember! Ezra is the
objective columnist. Jen Rubin is the partisan.
