You're so right, Eric. I mostly think the Washington Post does great work but this puff piece was a mistake. I've given up on the NYT but I'm going to keep trying to enlighten the Post through my comments on articles like this puff piece :)
I was relieved to see that readers of the Washington Post roundly trashed that miserable piece on Ronna McDaniel. The Post is a good paper, and quality attracts good readers. Why on earth did the Post run that thing?
I am glad I missed that article. The Style section should be banned from writing about important figures except for articles about their fashion choices. The Church of the Savvy lives on.
I am frustrated by the media’s sins of omission. Why isn’t there more outrage over the emoluments case against Trump being dismissed by the Supreme Court? The case was dragged out for 3 years in lower courts then dismissed, apparently because Trump is no longer in office. This was done by a court dominated by people who claim to be constitutional originalists. The SC has made it clear that the emoluments clause can’t be enforced. That the media can’t be bothered having a serious discussion about what amounts to them rewriting the constitution is disgraceful.
Ronna McDaniel revealed herself as a tool when, at Trump's insistence, she stopped referring to herself as Ronna Romney McDaniel. The "liberal media" playbook is well established when administrations shift from R to D: (1) immediately question the Dem commitment to bipartisanship; (2) whitewash the lies and cynicism of the outgoing Rs; (3) amplify hypocritical calls for fiscal responsibility; and (4) give a platform to the clowns who enabled or engineered the bad faith actions of the outgoing administration. God forbid Rush and Sean say you're biased.
And...another good example of chorus before verse is Steely Dan's masterful Show Biz Kids.
Glad you highlighted misdeeds of the Washington Post Style section. Imagine my horror a few weeks ago opening its pages to see the ever somnolent Wilbur Ross stepping out with the Mrs.
Romney-McDaniels is a hack, and not a very interesting one at that. By the standards of celebrity/gossip rags, she doesn’t even qualify for attention.
Our national political press always finds new ways to fail. Puff pieces on apparatchiks seems entirely in character to remain with access to the person in question. The Sunday Talkies are not news, they regurgitate conventional wisdom: it’s a show for themselves, by themselves; it might as well be the society pages of yore.
First, I did email the managing editor at The Post to ask what they were doing. Of course I received no response; I have never believed that Dean Baquet is the only editor who believes himself incapable of error.
Second, this brings to mind something else about the Style section. In the late 1970s, Sally Quinn, not yet known as DC's hostess with the mostess--I don't mean that to sound sexist; it was the nickname given one of her predecessors as a DC party host, Perle Mesta--did a piece about the simply horrible behavior of the southerners Jimmy Carter had brought with him to Washington, how utterly gauche they were. That was the article that made Hamilton Jordan look disgusting, and I had no issue with that. But there was very much a tone to it of smug superiority.
Turn the clock ahead two decades. Quinn writes another piece, same tone and point, about the Clintons, including a line, "He trashed the place, and it's not his place," from David Broder, who was then in the process of devolving from respected political reporter to dishonest disgrace. Funny how it tends to be about southern Democrats, but I don't seem to recall that being said of the Bushes. Of course, the Bushes aren't real southerners or westerners, either.
But we need to remember that Marty Baron is a great editor, but even great editors make mistakes. Unfortunately, to the leadership of much of the MSM, especially in political coverage, only the first part of the previous sentence is acceptable.
I knew about Quinn’s piece about the Clintons but not that she also wrote disdainful things about the Carters. I am currently reading Jonathan Alter’s bio of Carter. It describes how the DC
media looked down on Carter and the southerners in his administration as rubes, just like they later viewed the Clintons. When Bob Woodward asked for confirmation about evidence that the US government had had King Hussein of Jordan on its payroll for several years Carter did what previous administrations wouldn’t have done — confirmed it. Carter asked Ben Bradlee to hold the story for a few days until Cyrus Vance could complete a trip to the Mideast. Bradlee published it anyway. You can bet he would never have done that to his close buddy JFK. Bradlee didn’t even reveal the fact that JFK was having an affair with Bradlee’s sister-in-law.
By the time Carter was elected Quinn and Bradlee were deeply into their affair. They married the next year after Bradlee divorced his 2nd wife. I remember just how appalled Miss Sally was by Clinton’s dalliance with Monica. By that time Bradlee’s memoir describing how a young twenty something cub reporter Quinn had set out to seduce the much older Bradlee, sending him anonymous flirty memos the eventually led to their affair. The journalists once called Quinn a successful Monica.
Most people don’t realize the powerful influence that Quinn and Bradley held over the Washington establishment journalists. David Ignatius wrote that he and he wife were thrilled to get their first invite to one of her soirées, calling Quinn and Bradley DC’s Bogie and Bacall.
Quinn was furious that Hillary didn’t accept an invitation, in effect turning her back on Sally’s advice. That has been used as the justification for Quinn’s treatment of the Clinton’s — as if that was justifiable.
Agreed, with one minor caveat: If Bradlee was telling the truth, he and his then-wife didn't find out about the affair until after both JFK and her sister had died.
I'll add something to build on what you said: I can live with hypocrisy if it's conscious. Sally Quinn is a hypocrite and clearly doesn't know it.
I have trouble believing Bradlee didn’t know since he was supposed to have been very close to Kennedy. I have read he claimed “...je knew little about the sexual proclivities of his close friend and former neighbor, John F. Kennedy...”
I have heard other reporters from that time say Kennedy’s love life was well know by them. What are the odds Bradlee didn’t know about it when they were close and were neighbors?
As for Sally being a hypocrite — which she clearly is — what infuriates me is all her sanctimonious sycophant friends in the media who followed her lead despite knowing how hypocritical it was. A lot of them — Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and many others who were appalled by Clinton’s dalliance had the adulterous Sally and Ben on a pedestal and still had JFK on a pedestal despite knowing how incredibly promiscuous and reckless he had been. But he was a wealthy east coaster so promiscuity only proved his sophistication to the Beltway snobs. Clinton’s just confirmed for them that he was a white trash hick.
Bradlee said he certainly had heard plenty of rumors and that he and JFK engaged in a little talk admiring certain women, but as he said, most of their social gatherings were with their wives, which made a discussion of affairs unlikely. I think he knew JFK was doing things, but I really don't think they knew about THAT affair.
And I'm with you all the way and then some on the hypocrisy of the people you talk about. Not only that, but how forgiving they are when it's one of their own. THEN it's all right.
I know it’s been awhile since this conversation about Sally Quinn but I just ran across this 2017 article about her memoir. I can’t believe that Quinn was even worse than and loonier than I thought. I love that the article is written by the no-nonsense Connie Schultz, Sherrod Brown’s wife.
How could all those top journalists have had this nut job on a pedestal? She clearly didn’t keep her nutty ideas secret.
I noticed Wapo and others, like the NYTimes (especially the NYTimes!), all copying each other on Biden's "lack of unity" before Joe had even sat down at his desk. I read this article and decided to subscribe to Press Run. I cancelled my subscription to the NYTimes weeks ago.
WAPO is a good source and touchpoint, that being said, this isn't the only blunder. A few weeks ago an op ed was written that I couldn't believe I was reading. This is when Trump was still in the Oval pretending to be president. It was about not painting everyone with a red T after they leave and I thought, oh here we go. No. None is forgiven. No Dancing with Stars or any other self effacing tricks they try. The enabled an authoritarian and practically burned down our democracy. No forgiving or forgetting.
I don’t subscribe to either the Washington Post or the NYT. I never watch the Sunday morning talk shows on either network ( though Chris Wallace on Fox seems to be the only one to call out the crazies). How else do we consumers let the main stream press know how they’re failing
I do subscribe to the Washington Post because they have excellent columnists. Jennifer Rubin, the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman and Margaret Sullivan have been holding the media’s and Republicans’ feet to the fire. Both Ruben and the Plum Line are daily columns with multiple posts. The more clicks those kinds of articles get, the more the people in charge will notice. If you Google Washington Post Plum Line you can see the list of articles they have posted. Ditto for Rubin and Sullivan.
I also like the fact that the Post allows comments and that commenters are very hard on articles that whitewash Republicans. In fact the most liked comment on the McDaniel article calls the article a “tongue bath” that belongs in the “source-polishing hall of fame”.
Do you think that putting this positive puff pieces in the Style section was a conscious decision by the editors to help the Post appear fair and balanced?
For years I have been saying that journalists need to put responsibility to our democracy over everything else. That is why our Founders explicitly included the press in the First Amendment of the Constitution. They didn’t do that to protect the press’s right to entertain the public — or themselves.
You're so right, Eric. I mostly think the Washington Post does great work but this puff piece was a mistake. I've given up on the NYT but I'm going to keep trying to enlighten the Post through my comments on articles like this puff piece :)
agreed on both; Post often does great work, and this puff piece was major blunder
I was relieved to see that readers of the Washington Post roundly trashed that miserable piece on Ronna McDaniel. The Post is a good paper, and quality attracts good readers. Why on earth did the Post run that thing?
I am glad I missed that article. The Style section should be banned from writing about important figures except for articles about their fashion choices. The Church of the Savvy lives on.
I am frustrated by the media’s sins of omission. Why isn’t there more outrage over the emoluments case against Trump being dismissed by the Supreme Court? The case was dragged out for 3 years in lower courts then dismissed, apparently because Trump is no longer in office. This was done by a court dominated by people who claim to be constitutional originalists. The SC has made it clear that the emoluments clause can’t be enforced. That the media can’t be bothered having a serious discussion about what amounts to them rewriting the constitution is disgraceful.
the Church of the Savvy, indeed
Ronna McDaniel revealed herself as a tool when, at Trump's insistence, she stopped referring to herself as Ronna Romney McDaniel. The "liberal media" playbook is well established when administrations shift from R to D: (1) immediately question the Dem commitment to bipartisanship; (2) whitewash the lies and cynicism of the outgoing Rs; (3) amplify hypocritical calls for fiscal responsibility; and (4) give a platform to the clowns who enabled or engineered the bad faith actions of the outgoing administration. God forbid Rush and Sean say you're biased.
And...another good example of chorus before verse is Steely Dan's masterful Show Biz Kids.
a *far* more interesting profile of her would reveal her complete lack of character and how it's essential to advance in today's GOP
Glad you highlighted misdeeds of the Washington Post Style section. Imagine my horror a few weeks ago opening its pages to see the ever somnolent Wilbur Ross stepping out with the Mrs.
for a "glamour" pose. A thousand words, indeed.
Romney-McDaniels is a hack, and not a very interesting one at that. By the standards of celebrity/gossip rags, she doesn’t even qualify for attention.
Our national political press always finds new ways to fail. Puff pieces on apparatchiks seems entirely in character to remain with access to the person in question. The Sunday Talkies are not news, they regurgitate conventional wisdom: it’s a show for themselves, by themselves; it might as well be the society pages of yore.
A couple of things.
First, I did email the managing editor at The Post to ask what they were doing. Of course I received no response; I have never believed that Dean Baquet is the only editor who believes himself incapable of error.
Second, this brings to mind something else about the Style section. In the late 1970s, Sally Quinn, not yet known as DC's hostess with the mostess--I don't mean that to sound sexist; it was the nickname given one of her predecessors as a DC party host, Perle Mesta--did a piece about the simply horrible behavior of the southerners Jimmy Carter had brought with him to Washington, how utterly gauche they were. That was the article that made Hamilton Jordan look disgusting, and I had no issue with that. But there was very much a tone to it of smug superiority.
Turn the clock ahead two decades. Quinn writes another piece, same tone and point, about the Clintons, including a line, "He trashed the place, and it's not his place," from David Broder, who was then in the process of devolving from respected political reporter to dishonest disgrace. Funny how it tends to be about southern Democrats, but I don't seem to recall that being said of the Bushes. Of course, the Bushes aren't real southerners or westerners, either.
But we need to remember that Marty Baron is a great editor, but even great editors make mistakes. Unfortunately, to the leadership of much of the MSM, especially in political coverage, only the first part of the previous sentence is acceptable.
I knew about Quinn’s piece about the Clintons but not that she also wrote disdainful things about the Carters. I am currently reading Jonathan Alter’s bio of Carter. It describes how the DC
media looked down on Carter and the southerners in his administration as rubes, just like they later viewed the Clintons. When Bob Woodward asked for confirmation about evidence that the US government had had King Hussein of Jordan on its payroll for several years Carter did what previous administrations wouldn’t have done — confirmed it. Carter asked Ben Bradlee to hold the story for a few days until Cyrus Vance could complete a trip to the Mideast. Bradlee published it anyway. You can bet he would never have done that to his close buddy JFK. Bradlee didn’t even reveal the fact that JFK was having an affair with Bradlee’s sister-in-law.
By the time Carter was elected Quinn and Bradlee were deeply into their affair. They married the next year after Bradlee divorced his 2nd wife. I remember just how appalled Miss Sally was by Clinton’s dalliance with Monica. By that time Bradlee’s memoir describing how a young twenty something cub reporter Quinn had set out to seduce the much older Bradlee, sending him anonymous flirty memos the eventually led to their affair. The journalists once called Quinn a successful Monica.
Most people don’t realize the powerful influence that Quinn and Bradley held over the Washington establishment journalists. David Ignatius wrote that he and he wife were thrilled to get their first invite to one of her soirées, calling Quinn and Bradley DC’s Bogie and Bacall.
Quinn was furious that Hillary didn’t accept an invitation, in effect turning her back on Sally’s advice. That has been used as the justification for Quinn’s treatment of the Clinton’s — as if that was justifiable.
Agreed, with one minor caveat: If Bradlee was telling the truth, he and his then-wife didn't find out about the affair until after both JFK and her sister had died.
I'll add something to build on what you said: I can live with hypocrisy if it's conscious. Sally Quinn is a hypocrite and clearly doesn't know it.
I have trouble believing Bradlee didn’t know since he was supposed to have been very close to Kennedy. I have read he claimed “...je knew little about the sexual proclivities of his close friend and former neighbor, John F. Kennedy...”
https://www.deseret.com/1995/9/22/19194279/jfk-affairs-could-have-sunk-presidency-publisher-says
I have heard other reporters from that time say Kennedy’s love life was well know by them. What are the odds Bradlee didn’t know about it when they were close and were neighbors?
As for Sally being a hypocrite — which she clearly is — what infuriates me is all her sanctimonious sycophant friends in the media who followed her lead despite knowing how hypocritical it was. A lot of them — Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and many others who were appalled by Clinton’s dalliance had the adulterous Sally and Ben on a pedestal and still had JFK on a pedestal despite knowing how incredibly promiscuous and reckless he had been. But he was a wealthy east coaster so promiscuity only proved his sophistication to the Beltway snobs. Clinton’s just confirmed for them that he was a white trash hick.
Bradlee said he certainly had heard plenty of rumors and that he and JFK engaged in a little talk admiring certain women, but as he said, most of their social gatherings were with their wives, which made a discussion of affairs unlikely. I think he knew JFK was doing things, but I really don't think they knew about THAT affair.
And I'm with you all the way and then some on the hypocrisy of the people you talk about. Not only that, but how forgiving they are when it's one of their own. THEN it's all right.
I know it’s been awhile since this conversation about Sally Quinn but I just ran across this 2017 article about her memoir. I can’t believe that Quinn was even worse than and loonier than I thought. I love that the article is written by the no-nonsense Connie Schultz, Sherrod Brown’s wife.
How could all those top journalists have had this nut job on a pedestal? She clearly didn’t keep her nutty ideas secret.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/sally-quinns-hexes-marital-ultimatums-and-visceral-love-of-her-son/2017/09/08/94694dfe-882b-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html
I noticed Wapo and others, like the NYTimes (especially the NYTimes!), all copying each other on Biden's "lack of unity" before Joe had even sat down at his desk. I read this article and decided to subscribe to Press Run. I cancelled my subscription to the NYTimes weeks ago.
WAPO is a good source and touchpoint, that being said, this isn't the only blunder. A few weeks ago an op ed was written that I couldn't believe I was reading. This is when Trump was still in the Oval pretending to be president. It was about not painting everyone with a red T after they leave and I thought, oh here we go. No. None is forgiven. No Dancing with Stars or any other self effacing tricks they try. The enabled an authoritarian and practically burned down our democracy. No forgiving or forgetting.
I don’t subscribe to either the Washington Post or the NYT. I never watch the Sunday morning talk shows on either network ( though Chris Wallace on Fox seems to be the only one to call out the crazies). How else do we consumers let the main stream press know how they’re failing
I do subscribe to the Washington Post because they have excellent columnists. Jennifer Rubin, the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman and Margaret Sullivan have been holding the media’s and Republicans’ feet to the fire. Both Ruben and the Plum Line are daily columns with multiple posts. The more clicks those kinds of articles get, the more the people in charge will notice. If you Google Washington Post Plum Line you can see the list of articles they have posted. Ditto for Rubin and Sullivan.
I also like the fact that the Post allows comments and that commenters are very hard on articles that whitewash Republicans. In fact the most liked comment on the McDaniel article calls the article a “tongue bath” that belongs in the “source-polishing hall of fame”.
I agree.
i think the newsroom looks around, realizes it has to fill Style section w/ articles abt D and Rs and just decides there are no guidelines for R's
Do you think that putting this positive puff pieces in the Style section was a conscious decision by the editors to help the Post appear fair and balanced?
For years I have been saying that journalists need to put responsibility to our democracy over everything else. That is why our Founders explicitly included the press in the First Amendment of the Constitution. They didn’t do that to protect the press’s right to entertain the public — or themselves.