Palin, Washington Post, and the End of Newspapers
I’m not going to link to Sarah Palin’s Washington Post op-ed on why unrestricted pollution should be allowed to destroy the planet. Let’s just observe that the Post’s habit of publishing this kind of material is part of the reason why, adverse consequences for a number of writers I like, I wouldn’t shed a tear if the Washington Post Company were to choose to shutter it’s money-losing newspaper and focus on its core competency in the field of standardized test preparation. After all, why does Sarah Palin have an op-ed on climate legislation in the Washington Post? Does she have scientific expertise? Economic expertise? Knowledge of the state of international climate negotiations?
Perhaps during her brief time in the public spotlight she developed a reputation for an unusually solid grasp of complicated policy details? Or is the idea that she’s known for being honest? A good-faith participant in public policy debates?
Well, no. And the fact of the matter is that the Palin op-ed actually fits very comfortably alongside the established norms of Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and Robert Samuelson—words on paper that are neither paid advertisements nor serious efforts to improve people’s understanding of the world.
75 Responses to “Palin, Washington Post, and the End of Newspapers”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 14th, 2009 at 9:58 am
What’s up with the slam on Robert Samuelson?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:01 am
The fact that he pretends to an expert on a subject, economics, about which he knows nothing whatsoever? For starters.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am
The fact that he pretends to an expert on a subject, economics, about which he knows nothing whatsoever? For starters.
When did that become something Yglesias found objectionable?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:06 am
I saw Palin’s op-ed this morning and was horrified, even more so than scanning Alberto Gonzales’ hypothetical questions for Judge Sotomayor in yesterday’s New York Times.
Here’s my question: will the presence of Palin spike web traffic for the Post? I see no other reason to run it other than Right Said Fred’s desire to attract her fans and run up some numbers. Maybe your buddy Ezra can illuminate, now that he’s morphing into a WaPo insider.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Trainwreck journalism.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:11 am
If she is going to express opinions without knowing anything much about what she’s talking about, she can’t be any more out of place than Ross Douhat on the NY Times or Megan Mcardle at The Atlantic. Many bloggers talk about stuff they barely know anything. They aren’t experts but have read an article or two on the subject and BAM -500 or 1,000 words of opinion are posted. And we love them for it.
Sarah Palin is a born blogger. She can start up a Little Green Caribou site or something.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I didn’t want to be one of those old codgers who constantly threatened to cancel his subscription to the Post. But enough’s enough. I called them this morning to cancel, before I changed my mind.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Nailed. It. Thank you.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:17 am
What Helter said. I don’t really see Palin as any less qualified to write op-eds than Douthat, William Kristol, or Tom Friedman.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:19 am
After I read the op-ed, my first thought was, this is an instant Palin classic! My second thought was, Yglesias is gonna be pissed!
July 14th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Well said. A few months ago I finally quit reading the Post. It was just too obvious that their goal was not to support an informed electorate as the bedrock of democracy.
If newspapers can’t do more than mindless stenography for the powerful, let them go the way of the dodo bird.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I can hardly wait for Palin’s op/ed to appear in my money-losing newspaper. Today I was treated to a wonderfully researched column by Thomas Sowell that argued that legislating equal outcomes is bad because he was really bad at basketball.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Said the liberal policy blogger with the philosophy degree.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:26 am
The Washington Post loses credibility as an outlet for useful analysis when it repeatedly refuses to correct simple factual errors on its opinion pages. I’m not talking about George Will, either. They almost never run corrections on outside opinion columns like this one despite routine errors. It’s one thing to not hire competent fact checkers; it’s another thing to ignore corrections when they’re dropped in your lap.
And at this point the Obsbud is sick of it; any message to him about Opinion results in a response to go talk w/ Fred.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I’m guessing the conservative blogs have already started claiming that she’s “getting serious” and that this shows some “real expertise.” Some bullshit like that.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I’d have to agree with those who compare Palin to Douthat, Krauthammer, and Kristol. It’s not like there’s some right-wing expert on climate change whose interesting contribution to the debate is being crowded out by Palin’s star power. The conservative movement simply has no ideas aside from preserving the power of wealthy white males, so given that every mainstream newspaper in this country has decided that its opinion page ought to include some conservatives, they are essentially cordoning off a chunk of their real estate for establishment dreck.
Douthat, by the way, is really unbelievable. He just isn’t quite comfortable with the idea that women can have sex without his permission. Where do these people come from?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Mr. Yglesias,
Isn’t this a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? Listen, I personally happen to think you’re much more intelligent than Sarah Palin (that’s an understatement), but I’m sure there’s a lot of people who wouldn’t share that opinion. You both continuously opine on subjects of which you know very little. Your only qualifications to do so are popularity.
On what would you base your greater credibility? Your education? Perhaps, and you do tend to bring up Harvard frequently (IMHO partially becuase you’re aware that you’re unqualified to write about most of things you do, except in the most general sense). A proven track record? I personally am not familiar with the history of your opinions, except I do know that on one of the great questions of our time, the Iraq War, you were dead wrong. Expertise? Certainly not. You have a BA in a field of liberal arts (I’m guessing) and otherwise have not worked in any field besides journalism and the media, giving you no first hand experience or training in 99% of the topics on which you opine.
What am I missing here? Is is just me or is your credibility to write on a myriad of topics based entirely on people’s willingness to read your posts and agree with them? Well, Sarah Palin has those credentials in spades.
As a blogger, I think you should be the first person who should advocate for anyone having a venue to make their opinion known in any medium, then having the audience decide what’s worth reading. And as much as I think she is the second coming of George W. and thus despise everything she stands for, the American people are voting with their bandwidth, and heading over to the washingpost.com right now to read that op-ed.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I wouldn’t shed a tear if the Washington Post Company were to choose to shutter its money-losing newspaper and focus on its core competency in the field of standardized test preparation.
Hahahaha…
As a former Kaplan employee, I am familiar with where that corporation’s actual profit center lies. Their test prep business generates vast income by 1) charging very high prices and 2) nickel-and-diming staff.
As a teacher, I was strongly encouraged to offer extra help to students outside of class, but forbidden to put those hours on my timesheet. Later, as an editorial staffer, I (like many others) was kept at 37.5 hours a week, so that I could be classified as “part-time” and not given benefits or job security.
So the fact that the WaPoCo also runs a neocon newspaper (and a moronic newsweekly) is just the icing on the cake of my loathing for them.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Did anyone else notice that they published an Op-Ed on cap and trade without using the words global, warming, or climate.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Carlos: Matt isn’t saying that Palin doesn’t have a right to be published in the WaPo, alongside the drivel of Krauthammer, Will, Bolton, etc. He’s saying she should fit in quite well. He’s also saying that if the paper continues to lose money and readers, it won’t be surprising.
I, like Matt, absolutely support the Post’s right to publish idiots and drive their newspaper into the ground.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:39 am
@Carlos
I think you should go back and reread Yglesias’s post. Is he arguing that non-experts shouldn’t opine about topics they don’t have specific training/knowledge in? Or is he saying that a major newspaper shouldn’t publish said op-ed?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I read it. Really, it’s too vapid for Townhall.com.
It is unique in one respect: most essays opposing cap and trade deny that global warming is occurring. But Palin simply doesn’t mention global warming. She mentions energy independence numerous times, to the point where I think she thinks the point of cap and trade is to reduce dependence on imported oil (for the life of me, that’s the only sense I can make of it).
Suffice to say, even the Post would never have printed something so shoddy if it didn’t have Sarah Palin’s name on it.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:42 am
If you are suggesting that the journalistic credibility of the Washington Post has been reduced to that of the average blog, I agree. Unfortunately, it still has cachet among the Village.
As for Matt’s blog, as I suspect is the case with a lot of people, I don’t come here because Matt is smarter than most commentators, or has unusual policy expertise (except perhaps in the area of DC urban development), but because he brings up interesting issues about which I know little, and provides useful links to follow. In other words, Matt’s writing spurs thought, even if it is not the final word on issues.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Palin’s piece was pretty funny. I especially liked the way
it just completely and absolutely ignored the whole issue
of climate change (the consequences of which are already
much more apparent in Alaska than in most regions).
If you’re looking for any kind of substantive policy debate
over the next few years, it’s going to be between right-wing
Democrats (can we sop the charade of calling them “centrist”
?) and left-wing Democrats. Republicans live on some other planet altogether, and what they have to say is of no
relevance to the problems we face on this planet.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Ridiculous comparison. Will is a skillful writer. Krauthammer and Samuelson have basic grasps of English.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:45 am
MY doesn’t get his opinions published in the Washington Post.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:52 am
You both continuously opine on subjects of which you know very little. Your only qualifications to do so are popularity.
This is badly misunderstanding the situation. Its not about what Sarah Palin gets to say, its where she gets to say it.
Matt didn’t even get to be a CAP blogger until he’d done this blogging thing over a period of years. Plus he has written a book to bolster his credentials. Even so, major newspapers don’t call on him to write about policy presumably because they are able to get people they consider better qualified.
So why does the Washington Post want Sarah Palin’s opinions on climate change? The answer is fairly obvious but Matt is merely pointing out that there’s no possible substantive reason for it.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I guess I see the point some of the other commenters have made, but I’m still not convinced.
@23 Yes, I kind of am. It’s 2009; I don’t think the Washington Post Op-Ed page is inherently different than a Center for American Progress blog. Now, that’s different than the Washington Post itself. But as far as the op-ed and Matt’s Blog, they’re both labeled strictly as the author’s opinion but given the parent organizations passive acceptance as something interesting that people will read. That’s all. What’s the difference?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Considering that you shill for the education lobby on a regular basis, I find this critique by one media pundit who offers up authoritative statements on education policy and standardized assessments without bothering to do the homework of another newly minted media pundit making authoritative statements about which she has no expertise to be weak tea.
Sorry MY… Palin is an abomination, but you should really look in the mirror on this one.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Is it just me, or is the level of reading comprehension exhibited in this comment section really low today?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
@28:
Large magnitudes of readership and influence? Opportunity costs?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
@cleek Exactly. Plus, sometimes he posts 90s rock videos, which are always amusing. (STP!)
I still have my Sunday-only subscription, which I keep for the coupons (yeah, yeah, online coupons…that’s a PITA), the magazine (crossword! photo puzzle!), and Sunday Metro coverage, which can be quite useful. I just don’t open the A section or the Outlook section, and I’m happy!
Except when that bastard down the hall steals it.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Matt is absolutely nothing like Sarah Palin, as is obvious to any sentient being. Since commencing a career in blogging, Matt has become as expert in many areas as it’s possible to be with an inherently generalist job description. Most importantly, he’s quite clearly a genuinely curious person. Even when I don’t agree with his view, as in the case of education, it’s not a waste of time to read what he has to say.
Palin, on the other hand, is someone whose very cultivated persona is as an ignoramus. She’s just a regular Mom, lookin’ out for the regular folks when the elite experts get too high and mighty. Everything about her is predicated on the proposition that there is no such thing as knowledge.
The comparison of Matt and Palin is not a matter of number of books published, number of higher education credentials, or really anything that can be quantified. A single day’s worth of Matt’s posts evidences more curiosity, and the erudition that results therefrom, than everything Palin has ever said or even thought.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:05 am
The trouble with Palin’s op-ed is not that she’s unqualified:
it’s that it’s a blatantly shoddy piece of work. To write
about the Waxman-Markey bill without even acknowledging the
basic problem – climate change – that motivates it is just
mindless. And how the hell does any respectable newspaper
publish that kind of drivel ? Isn’t there some editor who
reads through it and talks to Palin and says “err, shouldn’t
you say something about climate change ?”.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I also like that today the NYTimes breaks a story about CIA kill teams – actual new news about the government – while the Post goes wall to wall on the Sotomayor hearing, an event whose outcome is predetermined.
New York Paper: breaking actual DC news.
DC Paper: covering pre-planned DC newsy, news-like, news-ish events.
Glorious.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:10 am
We need this woman to succeed. We need this woman to be stable. Another series of breakdowns and we won’t be able to face off against her in 2012. Let’s cheer her on.
Nice op-ed Sarah! Love you!
July 14th, 2009 at 11:10 am
I anxiously await Palin’s first interview where she answers detailed questions about climate policy. It will be the first interview in which she answers detailed questions about any policy. Including the VP debate.
I also wonder who ghost wrote the column. One of the Weekly Standard elves, presumably.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am
After all, why does Sarah Palin have an op-ed on climate legislation in the Washington Post? Does she have scientific expertise? Economic expertise? Knowledge of the state of international climate negotiations?
Just out of curiosity, since Matthew has been known to write op-eds for newspapers once in a while, exactly what expertise does Matthew have that qualifies him to do so?
July 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am
@28 the difference is that an Op-Ed in a prestigious national newspaper is in fact a completely different creature from a blog post on a partisan think-tank web site.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Just out of curiosity, since Matthew has been known to write op-eds for newspapers once in a while, exactly what expertise does Matthew have that qualifies him to do so?
You for one appear to think his blog is worth reading.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Ha – serves me right for commenting before reading the other comments. I see someone has already gotten to the pot/kettle subject first!
Oh, and in response to cleek (”MY doesn’t get his opinions published in the Washington Post.”), I suppose the LA Times doesn’t count.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Can the idiots on this page lambasting Ygliesias for “hypocrisy” really not tell the difference between a blog and the Washington Post?
You fools are the reason WaPo can pull this crap day after day. Congratulations!
July 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am
You for one appear to think his blog is worth reading.
Indeed. Even though he doesn’t have the expertise that he seems to think is necessary to qualify one to opine on random subjects.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:18 am
really not tell the difference between a blog and the Washington Post?
No, we can’t tell the difference between the LA Times and the Washington Post.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Since Al has once again refuted himself, this time by posting links to not one but TWO Yglesias pieces, you can see for yourself. Neither one is the disaster that Palin’s op ed is.
… which was the point.
Alleging hypocrisy requires an analogy. There is none here.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:21 am
… which is even more pathetic.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“A single day’s worth of Matt’s posts evidences more curiosity, and the erudition that results therefrom, than everything Palin has ever said or even thought.”
This comment, I think, nails it.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am
@41, AL
Did you even read the content of those op-eds?
The first is about DC Elites wanting to quiet left-wing criticism of the war in Iraq. I wonder how MY could possibly have an informed opinion about the matter? /snark
The second focuses on the financial disclosure of donations to Clinton’s Presidential Library. Here we have a topic that is not thoroughly complex wherein MY argues that the public should know who is giving massive amounts to the Clinton Library before the election. Not exactly a topic where one needs to have massive expertise in the area to have an opinion.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Demonstrated ability.
Look, I razz Yglesias’ writing all the time, and no one will ever forget that he got suckered into supporting the invasion of Iraq, but his blog remains an interesting source of information.
Can’t say the same for WaPo editorials.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:29 am
But … but … but … the Washington Post is just reporting the controversy! They are presenting alternative points of view! They are … um … informing the public! Yeah!
Right. More like the WP’s editorial page has been turned into the equivalent of a money laundering operation, where bad information and partisan hackery is given a stamp of legitimacy by virtue of being published in a storied newspaper with an aura of legitimacy. And then it is distributed as editorial content to other newspapers all over the country, as if this is REALLY GOOD, SAVVY, INFORMED STUFF from well-informed people.
Given the recent scandal about the WP organizing “salons” for lobbyists, I wonder if the editorial page now operates on a pay-to-play system as well.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Amen!
July 14th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Perhaps for some balance the Post should carry a column by the notorious Marcy Wheeler.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:53 am
New York Paper: breaking actual DC news.
DC Paper: covering pre-planned DC newsy, news-like, news-ish events.
I wouldn’t read too much into that. The news pages of the Post haven’t been the problem – certainly the Post reporters did a better job of covering the Iraq War. It’s the editorial pages of the Post that have been a trainwreck for the better part of a decade.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I’m waaay behind the times. I just heard the “Cariboo-hoo-hoo Barbie” joke.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Maybe your buddy Ezra can illuminate, now that he’s morphing into a WaPo insider.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/sarah_palin_one_of_us.html
July 14th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Look, I can get my hate on for Tom Friedman as much as the next dude. But comparing him to Sarah Palin is bizarre.
Tom Friedman, for all the mixed metaphors and inane analogies and lame big-think while taxi-ing from airport to hotel to golf course in Bangalore, knows where the fuck India is.
The same could not be said with any confidence about Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin is an ignorant ass. She is like Idiocracy come to roost in American politics. She has trouble articulating thoughts or arguments that extend past several minutes. And I’m being charitable.
So Republicans or Conservatives, or whatever the fuck you call yourselves, will you PLEASE stop defending this woman. Let her drift off into the world of Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Fox & Friends where she belongs.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Awww man, Castorp’s link to Ezra brings back memories.
Memories of my time at a newspaper, when I got to see people who actually wrote like that and I couldn’t ignore or mock them at work like I can online.
Sure, the WaPo sucks, but this makes me think about registering on their Web site so I can comment on Ezra’s blog again.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
On pollution, and Alaska or the Washington Post, my problem is in whose general direction do I fart in?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Did you even read the content of those op-eds?
Yes, I did. Matthew has no particular expertise regarding the war in Iraq or campaign finance disclosure.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“standarized test preparation”! Ha-Ha. Very funny.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Unless I see the original crayon copy of the Palin OpEd, I will refuse to believe she wrote it.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
re: Palin vs. Yglesias
For me, the proper credentials are:
-are the authors’ opinions informed and defended by factual findings?
-do the authors address detractors’ arguments at their strongest (do their arguments anticipate rebuttals)?
I have no problem with a lack of “expertise” as conventionally established. I have no problem with one’s ideology predetermining their opinions (a significant source of creative inspiration producing possible insights political, sociological, and economic) .
I have a problem with the arrogance that is displayed when opinions 1)show no deference to factual issues at hand and 2) ignore contrary positions.
In a word, the only expertise required is in intellectual humility, which is the basis for the 2 credentials cited above. The only fault is narcissism and arrogance, which is the basis for publishing a “look at me” piece that fails to establish the 2 proper credentials.
To equate Yglesias and Palin as both being equally qualified to call attention to their ideas is obscene.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Ah, I see Ezra beat me to it.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
It’s means “It is”. The possessive of IT is ITS, not IT’S. I find this error to be a common one by Mr. Yglesias, and he should know better.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
But Matt, don’t sugar-coat it – what do you really think?
(ouoooch!!)
July 14th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Anyone understand what Palin’s ghostwriter was getting at with this line?
“The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.”
Maybe I’m being slow today, but I didn’t get the connection that the writer was attempting to make.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Trainwreck journalism.
If you can’t find one to report on, stage your own?
July 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
[...] 14, 2009 · Leave a Comment yglesias: I’m not going to link to Sarah Palin’s Washington Post op-ed on why unrestricted pollution [...]
July 14th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
JM Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Can the idiots on this page lambasting Ygliesias for “hypocrisy” really not tell the difference between a blog and the Washington Post?
You fools are the reason WaPo can pull this crap day after day. Congratulations!
============================================================
Sorry, but Carlos @ 17 has MY dead to rights. You don’t even have to support or believe Palin to see it. It’s perfectly okay for a twenty-something Harvard philosophy major with no real world experience of anything to write insipid op-eds for the LA Times due to string-pulling by his JournoList buddies. But publish opinon pieces he disagrees with – it’s the END OF NEWSPAPERS
July 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
13@ Said the liberal policy blogger with the philosophy degree.
And six years experience studying and writing about policy for several respected national publications/organizations…
Not saying that Palin can’t have opinions, Mikey, just that The Post would be wise to side-step them until Palin’s proven elsewhere that she knows more than fuck-all about anything other than grifting Alaskan taxpayers out of ridiculous per-diems for the use of the house she and Todd already own.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Having taken the time to read through *all* of the comments for a change, in my own words I will reiterate the points b9n10nt (#62) made.
Matt Yglesias shows signs of being relatively well informed, participates in useful dialog, and fits Thomas Jefferson’s idea as an example of “informed citizenry.”
Sarah Palin, from her time as Mayor to the present, does not show signs of being at all informed, outside of what’s necessary to run her personal affairs.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Does she have scientific expertise? Economic expertise? Knowledge of the state of international climate negotiations?
Do you? And yet you are provided a medium with which you comment on climate issues, and economic issues…
(Not a defense of Palin, the less we hear from her, the better)
July 14th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I’m continually amazed to hear from intelligent people that it would be fine if the Washington Post simply went away. Actually I guess it’s only MY that fits that description. But whatever ideal form of journalism MY is imagining will replace the best newspapers, we can rest assured that it will give a forum to stupid but very important political figures like Sarah Palin; that the opinion writers will say ignorant things on subjects they know little about, like even the best liberal bloggers do presently (sometimes in print, too!); that it will sometimes be seen defending its own narrow economic self-interests, like political bloggers do as well as any newspaper.
If Dick Cheney made a speech on family law, the papers would reprint it, cover it, and discuss it. If John Edwards gave a speech about science policy, people would do the same. I fail to see the difference between that and printing an op-ed that a big time political figure submits. And they’re right to do this! I’m just as interested to see what arguments and claims Palin is committing herself to and asking her supporters to accept as I am hearing a conservative or liberal policy expert run down the for-and-against cap and trade.
“its money-losing newspaper”
Man, this is starting to sound like Bill O’Reilly. “You suck, and anyway your ratings are down.”?
July 14th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Colatina Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I’m continually amazed to hear from intelligent people that it would be fine if the Washington Post simply went away. Actually I guess it’s only MY that fits that description. But whatever ideal form of journalism MY is imagining will replace the best newspapers, we can rest assured that it will give a forum to stupid but very important political figures like Sarah Palin; that the opinion writers will say ignorant things on subjects they know little about, like even the best liberal bloggers do presently (sometimes in print, too!); that it will sometimes be seen defending its own narrow economic self-interests, like political bloggers do as well as any newspaper.
If Dick Cheney made a speech on family law, the papers would reprint it, cover it, and discuss it. If John Edwards gave a speech about science policy, people would do the same. I fail to see the difference between that and printing an op-ed that a big time political figure submits. And they’re right to do this! I’m just as interested to see what arguments and claims Palin is committing herself to and asking her supporters to accept as I am hearing a conservative or liberal policy expert run down the for-and-against cap and trade.
============================================================
A voice of reason. Thank you!
July 15th, 2009 at 3:21 am
[...] her for being stupid. I’m mad at the Washington Post for publishing this tripe. As Yglesias says: After all, why does Sarah Palin have an op-ed on climate legislation in the Washington Post? Does [...]