WaPo scapegoating blogger

Discuss

19 Responses to “WaPo scapegoating blogger”

  1. jere7my says:

    You got yourself a bad bold closing tag there, after 6.

  2. Mike Johnson says:

    And hey, while you’re editing the post, the ombudsman name is Patrick Pexton — not Pexman, not Paxton. Or is it some sort of inside joke?

  3. koko szanel says:

    She was paid for writing 3000 words a day and complaining how hard it was? Where do I sign up?

  4. Speaking of journalistic oddities:

    Rob, you seem to have been going out of your way to avoid naming Elizabeth Flock in your write-up of the story – why is that? You name everyone else involved by their full names. When she is mentioned in the block quote, it’s jarring, because you hadn’t explained who Flock was yet.

    • I didn’t intentionally omit her name, but the reason I don’t talk about her is because the post isn’t really about about her. It’s about the Post, in whose content farming-style setup she is more or less an interchangeable component, readily scapegoated for the setup’s failures.

  5. Rob Knop says:

    Blaming the footsoldier when conditions lead footsoldiers to do bad things is just standard policy.  The same thing happened with torture at Abu Ghraib;  some of the individual soldiers who participated eventually got scapegoated and tried, but the brass that set the whole thing up, and the Administration that effectively pressured the military into doing this sort of thing, is off scot free.

  6. David Witt says:

    There’s a typo in the headline – it should be ‘WaPoo.’

  7. Jan Angevine says:

    No news is good news.

  8. Guest says:

    An environment where buyout offers are the norm would make for intense uncertainty and stress. It’s not hard to imagine someone making a mistake while fighting for their livelihood inside of an organization that is likely awash in eat-or-be-eaten attitude.

    I’m going a bit on what that ombudsman said, plus with the ridiculous number of times the word “professional” appears in the guidelines (LULZ!!!!), and with the ridiculous number of turn overs. It seems like this place is a giant corporate hatefest full of vipers who would throw you under the bus rather than face responsibility for their own inadequate editorial skills — or let me guess that you were too busy and stressed to initially notice the flaws in the writer’s two (of how many?) articles?

    I call for the editor’s head. The writer made two unrelated mistakes under what seems to be extreme pressure, and was then abandoned and steamrolled. Nice teamwork skills. Or let me guess, you’re going to blame your own corporate mess on the patriarchy? That would be fitting of the WaPo “professional” style, for certain. /me rolls eyes.

    So, I have to ask what’s slimier: The editorial hit squad, or the slippery slope that is the forgiveness of mistakes? And I’m the evil one? Give me a f**king break. Jeeze, I wonder why a near-extremist news organization was shunned by the Pulitzer committee.

    For what it’s worth, I hope that the writer finds a good job elsewhere and learns from their true mistake — corporate bulls**t is not something to be tolerated. I’m betting right now that there are a thousand people looking over the editor’s CV for unprofessional errors. Humans are mindlessly vicious like that when they perceive an injustice. It’s called the God archetype. Check it out.

Leave a Reply