Requiem for the Washington Post

Zachary A. Goldfarb wrote what can only be described as flagrantly one-sided "Special to The Washington Post" article about the new White House domestic policy advisor, Karl Zinsmeister. Zinsmeister was caught redhanded rewriting an article by Justin Park that originally appeared in the Syracuse New Times so that he could then "reprint" it elsewhere. The ethical implications of this are obvious to anyone with any semblence of a moral compass - liberal or conservative.

Goldfard reported (regurgitated?) Zinmeister's side of the story without, it would appear, making any effort to discern if Justin Park might have a different version. Hell, Park reportedly told the New York Sun that he was surprised by Zinmeister's contentions. I'm no friggin' Ben Bradlee but this is downright appalling. Go read the article linked above and draw your own conclusions.

But I blame this on the editor much more than the reporter. My journalism professor (I only have 3 credits so don't jump to any conclusions) told us this kind of journalistic malpractice is what editors are paid to prevent from happening.

Update: This is rather interesting. Mr. Goldfarb's article was posted under the washingtonpost.com > Politics > Federal Page section of washingtonpost.com but if you follow that link you won't find any reference to Mr. Goldfarb's article as of 10:07pm 05/30/06. I'm gonna do screen captures.

Update 2: Glenn Greenwald did a much more thorough job on this issue.

Update 3: Get this from Editor and Publisher:

NEW YORK The top editor of Syracuse (N.Y.) New Times, which saw its profile of President Bush's new chief domestic advisor altered and reposted on his Web site, calls the incident "insulting" and said she plans to consult a lawyer about possible legal action.

"What is getting lost here is that he changed quotes, that is getting lost here," Molly English, who has served as editor-in-chief of the alternative weekly for five years, told E&P today. "I find it insulting and his excuse is awfully lame."

Lame is putting it too kindly. Pathetic and despicable are more like it.