Ben Domenech Resigns

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.

Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

By Washingtonpost.com Editors |  March 24, 2006; 1:17 PM ET
Previous: Publisher's Note | Next: Washington Post Radio Website

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



As a Post reader, I don't mind opinion, and strong opinions. I do want real balance.
If you are going to have a Republican operative and movement conservative as a blogger, have a Democratic operative and movement progressive also. Is that so hard?

Posted by: Bill Alexander | March 24, 2006 01:36 PM

"We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area."

That's nice. Of course, when people criticized this hire initially, the paper stated that he wasn't being hired because he was a conservative, but because of his writing talent. So when you pick a replacement, it won't necessarily be a conservative, right? You'll pick someone from the left or the right with interesting ideas who writes (his or her own words) well, correct?

Posted by: MattT | March 24, 2006 01:39 PM

I think it was right for Mr. Domenech to resign. The Post.com should be more careful about who it decides to hire in the future and, since it is the website of a well-respected national newspaper, hire an actual journalist who reports news instead of a partisan who bloviates on behalf of his cronies.

The internet is chock-full of sites where readers can get obviously partisan writing. The Post and the The Post.com shouldn't endanger its own standing as a respected news outlet by hiring partisan bloggers from either side.

Posted by: Adam | March 24, 2006 01:40 PM

Woohoo! Another Dan Rather-esque ploy to rush to market with an unfinished product, eh Brady? Durn bloggers...durn internets.

What is it with twentysomething Bush appointees resigning in disgrace after lying about their professional backgrounds (see: Deutsch; Domenech)?

Ahh yes...they represent the views of the MAJORITY of Americans. Apparently, we're all okay with a little fibbery here and there, as long as we're ideologically pure.

Posted by: Drucifer | March 24, 2006 01:41 PM

don't hire another fool like him

Posted by: finally... | March 24, 2006 01:43 PM

I just want to say that I think the WaPo.com was wrong to hire this guy with little experience.

But I think this post is showing that they are currently handling it perfectly. They are still doing an investigation. They are not attacking those that discovered the plagiarism.

Props to the WaPo.com for doing the right thing now. I wish they would have from the beginning, but that's okay.

All is forgiven, from my viewpoint.

Posted by: Mike | March 24, 2006 01:44 PM

Is not being "aware of allegations" the same as not being aware of the facts?

Posted by: Honest Response | March 24, 2006 01:44 PM

Wow! Brady you've gotta feel pretty dumb hiring him, yeah? Especially after you trashed Jane Hamsher and other liberal bloggers for all the sins a guy in your organization just comitted. That's gotta sting a little. Can we get a little apology?

Posted by: Baby Snooks | March 24, 2006 01:44 PM

I agree with the first poster. The primary problem was not that you hired a hack, but that you hired him to tilt your opinion posting to the extreme right. It was unfair to mouthpiece one side without having REAL balance.

The secondary problem was that he was hired based on nepotism; he was obviously an untalented, unspectacular, mediocre young man, who spoke ineloquently and hatefully in an environment where real writers should be used. He should just go back to his amateur blog, where his immature and amateur blie-spewing is OK. It's inappropriate for what purports to be a real journalistic body. (*purports to be*.)

Plus, as we see, he's a plagiarist, apparently.

So Jim, be thankful. That allows you to can him without having to look like you bowed to Those Horrible Groundlings And Leftists. Call it the "Harriet Miers Excuse".

That way, we're happy that he's gone, and you're happy that you get off scot free, without looking like you were disobeying the Righty Masters who told you to hire him (and ONLY him, no Blue America).

Posted by: Taniwha | March 24, 2006 01:45 PM

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Posted by: chickens coming home to roost | March 24, 2006 01:45 PM

So...when will those responsible for this awful hire face consequences?

Or are you "accountable" in the Bush tradition of taking zero accountability for anything?

Don't go all wingnut on us, WaPo. You used to have a decent rep and serious cred.

Posted by: ThunderHawk | March 24, 2006 01:45 PM

Also, allow me to take this opportunity to say "Good Riddance!"


also,
PWNED.

Posted by: Taniwha | March 24, 2006 01:46 PM

The Detached and Disinterested Media: Detached from reality, disinterested in really doing their job. Way to go Brady!

Posted by: P. Gordon Diddy | March 24, 2006 01:46 PM

here's an idea for your next "red america" hire: have someone google his clip file. And if you ever get around to hiring a "blue america" blogger, you could do the same. And why would the Post hire anyone who called Coretta Scott King a communist?

Posted by: About time . . . | March 24, 2006 01:47 PM

Box Turtles everywhere are weeping.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein | March 24, 2006 01:47 PM

I think hiring someone with journalistic experience comparable with Froomkin's- but who leans right - would be a much better bet. The problem with his ethical conduct was a symptom of a hiring atmosphere that was itself poisoned.

Posted by: Eli Brennan | March 24, 2006 01:47 PM

How could an august institution like Washington Post with so many resources at its disposal make such a mistake?

Posted by: lib | March 24, 2006 01:47 PM

Hiring Plagiarizers now, are we? Next time try to hire an intelligent, articulate, interesting blogger, and not some right-wing hack. I am sure there are right-wing bloggers out there who aren't so deeply compromised and who have some sense of professionalism. Perhaps you can find one and pit him/her against a left-wing blogger. Let them duke it out in some red/blue corner of your site.

Posted by: Chas | March 24, 2006 01:48 PM

I think we should convene another hearing on blogger ethics. :D

LOL

The Washington Post's credability has been tarnished over this.

Posted by: Beelzebud | March 24, 2006 01:49 PM

It seems to me fundamental that when you hire someone you research there past writings in order to (a) determine their worth and (b) determmine their originality. Neither of these two things was done. It is true that Domenech is responsible for his transgressions but the Post also bears responsibility here. It hired someone who was easily discovered to have committed plagiarism. Not to mention that his original writings were at best sophomoric and at worst slanderous. This incident cannot be sloughed off as simply the post being misled. The post was a willing participant in this charade by placing a willingness to bow down before its right wing detractors before journalist ethics or good sense. A clue to the clueless: No apologist for the Bush administration is going to fare any better because one can only defend the indefensible through lies, half-truths, and deception - Domenech's tools of trade.

Posted by: James | March 24, 2006 01:49 PM

Wow, a "Young Republican" turns out to be a lying hack. What a surprise.

My question is when will the Post admonish Bob Woodward, who has disgraced the Post and himself far worse than Box Turtle?

Incidentally, bloggers found the Box Turtle theft within a day. Doesn't the Post have Google or Lexis/Nexis?

Posted by: Jon Glasser | March 24, 2006 01:50 PM

If you insist on having an additional right-wing voice on this site, here's hoping that you try to find someone with just a smidgen of integrity.

Posted by: Paul Dirks | March 24, 2006 01:50 PM

Geez - I hope for his sake that his mom doesn't go re-checking all his homeschooled papers.

Posted by: Jos. K | March 24, 2006 01:50 PM

Embarrassing, humiating. The Post I mean.

Resign Brady.

Posted by: Mike | March 24, 2006 01:50 PM

Mr. Brady's communication above is absolutely astounding. It reaches a height of irresponsibility that, in my opinion, disqualifies him from his position.

He is saying that the Washington Post has no responsibility to check the background of those whom it hires...that, in fact, they leave that responsibility to their readership.

Mr. Brady should resign immediately. Either before or after he apologizes for abusing the readers of the Post.

John Gage

Posted by: John Gage | March 24, 2006 01:50 PM

Wingnut fundamentalist helps prove natural selection

Cockroaches that venture into the light get stepped on.

Posted by: hadenough | March 24, 2006 01:50 PM

Wow, y'all really screwed up on this one.

Posted by: Mike | March 24, 2006 01:51 PM

We all look forward to the results of your investigation of this (now former) employee. As an alumnus of The College of William and Mary (Class of 1993), I would also ask that you forward your findings on to them. Mr Domenech has been accused of publishing a number of plagiarized articles in the school's newspaper. I believe that my school has an obligation to investgate and answer these charges, and I would ask that you provide them with any information that would assist them in doing so.

Sincerely yours,
Frank J Probst, MD, PhD
William and Mary Alumnus, Class of 1993

Posted by: Frank Probst | March 24, 2006 01:51 PM

As Sam Seder and Duncan Black "Atrios" just pointed out in a conversation on AirAmerica, Froomkin's job is to cover the White House. He doesn't blog, in general, about anything and everything. And, don't blame him if all the stories coming out of the White House are bad! If there was any good news there, he'd cover it!

Posted by: Honest Respons | March 24, 2006 01:51 PM

You Owe Us An Apology.

How dare you? And how dare Kurtz write an article in which he admits to knowing about the plagiarism and doesn't call for Domenech's removal?

What the hell is wrong with you people? Get your minds back.

Posted by: Earl | March 24, 2006 01:51 PM

I think it's a powerful statement on the state of media in general that a journalistic institution with a repute for investigative reporting does not have the resources to do a simple background check on a new employee.

It took a half dozen bloggers in their underwear a day and a half to discover Domenech's not-so-closeted skeletons. And this speaks nothing of the fact that he was an avowed bigot whose disdain for sourcing and factual argument was well-documented prior to the reveleations about his "creative" use of others' talents.

I'd agree with the principle that the Post should provide a venue for all views, but I would hope that in future the Post's editors will, at a minimum, require that even its conservative contributors adhere to the most basic standards of accuracy and ethics. Perhaps this is asking much given the current state of conservative punditocracy, but hopefully, the Post will figure out a way to rise above the froth.

Posted by: mateosf | March 24, 2006 01:51 PM

At Agitprop, we suggest Ben plagiarize this ...

Posted by: blogenfreude | March 24, 2006 01:51 PM

when you sleep w/ fleas....

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 01:52 PM

"We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area."
You're kidding, right? Because you can hardly claim that hiring an infant with neither writing skill nor journalistic integrity represents anything but supreme idiocy on your part. If you want to represent a "broad spectrum" don't just hire the first right-wing blow-hard you can get your hands on, and then stop with that side of the spectrum.

You have certainly lost what little remaining credibility you had over what can only be seen as brown-nosing the extreme right wing. What a bunch of fools you all are. Especially you, Jim. Your resignation should be next.

Posted by: Oy Vey! | March 24, 2006 01:52 PM

If you want to have "diversity" in ideology, start a Lib-Con cross-fire feature and hire a rotating cadre of libs and cons to write -- don't give it to one particularly obnoxious voice. There are plenty of lib-con bloggers out there, with names and reputations, who'd be happy to oblige. But give up the College Republicans idea, won't you?

Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies | March 24, 2006 01:52 PM

deleted

Posted by: matsyl | March 24, 2006 01:52 PM

PWNED? Nah --

WASHINGTONPWNED

P.S. Do a better job of vetting your job candidates next time. . .

Posted by: Krotos | March 24, 2006 01:53 PM

This guy not only plagiarised, he also made up quotes (ie Tim Russert to Bush).

He came from a section of the conservative blogosphere where factual truth is simply not treated with the same respect as it is by professional journalists.

There may be left-wing bloggers who play just as fast and loose with facts. They shouldn't be hired either.

I don't care about this guy calling MLK's wife a communist if he can back it up. Strong opinions are fine. Dodgy facts aren't.

Hire any fire-breathing nutter you like, WaPo, but make sure that they treat FACTS according to normal journalistic standards.

ie Not WMD-related journalistic standards.

Krauthammer, for example, is a madman in my opinion, but he's usually an honest madman these days.

Posted by: OD | March 24, 2006 01:53 PM

I hope that the washingtonpost.com will take a cold hard look at the blogospere(that up till now it has disdained) and realize that fast fact checking is one of its benefits.

IMHO the washingtonpost.com owes a debt of gratitude to those bloggers who care about uncovering the truth and holding people accountable - whatever position they might hold.

Posted by: susan | March 24, 2006 01:53 PM

shorter Jim Brady....

Hey, we intended to find ourselves a White Male with White House connections without giving anyone else a chance, and we wanted to hire a racist who wrote under a pseudonym, who engaged in vicious personal attacks against public figures, who made up quotes from actual journalists....

but when we found out he copied some film reviews, he had to go.

*************

Sorry Brady, but this doesn't cut it.

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 24, 2006 01:53 PM

Here's one thing for sure, the right wing bloviations have become quite a bore. Passe. The trend has borne again itself out, the 15 minutes are up. Just not new and fresh anymore.

Posted by: Val | March 24, 2006 01:54 PM

Hey Ben

Truly: Walk through this firestorm, check yourself, talk to someone, apologize, and heal yourself. Here's an honest wish for good things for you and your family.

Posted by: Earl | March 24, 2006 01:54 PM

I hear he's having beers with Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke.

Face it, Mr. Brady, you don't REMOTELY understand the blogosphere -- in fact, your contempt for it marks your every comment on it. You hired this third-rate hack without an ounce of real-world experience, doubtless because some Republicans spoke well of him over glasses of scotch at parties. Next time, how about finding somebody who actually has DONE something besides steal material?

Posted by: TMU | March 24, 2006 01:54 PM

Whoever hired Domenech should resign as well. It took just a couple of *days* for bloggers to find copious examples of his plagiarism. Did you not do even the slightest investigation into his writing?? Or did the thought not even cross your minds, since you were so interested in embracing right-wing fundamentalist propaganda that quality checks did not enter into it? It's an absolute disgrace that the newspaper that revealed Watergate has proven to be so incompetent and so willing to print such partisan drivel.

If you don't feel humiliated, you are not a journalist.

Posted by: mapantsula | March 24, 2006 01:54 PM

Who hired him personally and what consequeces will there be for lack of fact checking? Finally, what assurances can we have that future hires by this paper are not so tainted? Have you changed your hiring processes etc etc?

Posted by: Mikecan1978 | March 24, 2006 01:54 PM

What is not said is why the Post, which has become a center-right organ with hardly any willingness to challenge the outright lies of this government, felt it was necessary to put a racist, ultra-right wing bigot, with no counterbalance, on its website. Is the Post determined to become the Print Fox News?

Posted by: David Studhalter | March 24, 2006 01:55 PM

The original hiring was unforgiveable. Balance -- the WaPo's stated goal is not achieved with placing hacks -- regardless of perspective -- among its ranks of writers. It is achieved with thoughtful, probative analysis, investigating and reporting. Sometimes there are not two equally valid sides to a story. Sometimes a lie is simply a lie. And sometimes breaking the law . . . you get the idea.

Posted by: Ed | March 24, 2006 01:55 PM

I'm looking forward to the biopic on Lifetime.

Posted by: NTodd | March 24, 2006 01:55 PM

It's too bad WaPo could not be smart enough to fire this guy. This guy has actually saved face by resigning, and now the WaPo stand alone in its shame.

How did this guy get hired? There used to be a time when being hired by WaPo was an honor. Now apparently a twentysomething college TV and film critic could get an all-important political columnist job so long as his parents have a politician or two in their pocket! For shame, WaPo, for shame.

Posted by: Craig | March 24, 2006 01:55 PM

Mr. Brady,

It seems that since you hired Mr. Domenech, you should take more responsibility for this mess. A good way to take responsibility would be for you to actually answer the questions and comments posted in the other two threads on this topic.

It seems that by ignoring your readers here that you really don't get the Internet, nor I must add, journalism.

Posted by: ed | March 24, 2006 01:55 PM

Great. You have responded to the symptom, but not the underlying problem. Symptom: immature, unprofessional writer violates journalistic standards. Problem: WaPo does not believe WaPo.com writers need to be mature, professional writers.

What the heck is going on here? First WaPo takes its cues from Patrick Ruffani. Then it hands the reigns to punk that calls MLK, Jr. a "communist". Guess what? The world is more complicated than a late-night bull session at the frat house. Try acting like grownups.

One thing that I agree with Brady about: "this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism." Too bad that was such a painful lesson for Brady to learn.

Now, how about releasing that evidence that Abramoff "directed" donations to Democrats?

Posted by: space | March 24, 2006 01:55 PM

For perpetrating this hoax and discrediting what was once a reputable and highly esteemed newspaper, can we now expect Mr. Brady's resignation?

Posted by: Waldo | March 24, 2006 01:55 PM

Jim Brady:

How about a mea culpa, an apology to your readers, accountability for poor vetting, sloppy hiring practices?

What a disgrace!

I find your arrogance insufferable.

Posted by: Tango Belle | March 24, 2006 01:55 PM

Mr. Brady,

For four-plus years I wrote a weblog of center-right opinion, news analysis, media crit and original journalism, at my own eponymous blog site, www.billhobbs.com

Center-right may not quite describe me accurately. Pragmatic libertarian conservative is more like it.

I am a redstate resident (Tennessee) and a journalist by training, and more than a decade of experience, and I would love to replace Ben Domenech on the WashingtonPost.com site. I've never committed plagiarism. And because I'm not located "inside the Beltway" and have never worked for a Republican political campaign, I'm not likely to just repeat GOP talking points.

Bill Hobbs
Nashville, TN
www.billhobbs.com

Posted by: Bill Hobbs | March 24, 2006 01:56 PM

I agree with Beelzebud. The only real way to handle this is with another blogger ethics conference? However else will we find out where these nasty, attacking left wing b logs get their funding? /snark>

Posted by: Roman Totale | March 24, 2006 01:56 PM

As an adjunct professor at a local Philadelphia university who regularly teaches writing intensive courses and as an editor of two science journals, I am appalled that no one at the Post had the slightest inclination to make a simple Google search after noting obvious stylistic incongruities in this young man's writing. Shame. Somebody's head, other than the one on the shoulders of the conservative blogger, has to roll.

Posted by: suzanne | March 24, 2006 01:56 PM

Actually, it seemed like a perfect hire to represent "Red America": a hateful, no talent liar.

Posted by: Michaelben | March 24, 2006 01:56 PM

As you think about potential replacements, please remember this:

THE MEDIA ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED.
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LIBERAL.

'Liberal' means 'pertaining to freedom.' Your job as a major media outlet is to give your readers the information they need to make sure that their leaders are doing their jobs: running our cities, states, and country well, protecting our freedoms, and providing for our common defense. To do that, you have to be skeptical of everything that somebody in power tells you. Question authority, and all that.

'Conservative' means 'tending to support traditional values and authority.' A 'conservative journalist' does not have the skills or desire to do the job of a journalist.

Stop aiming for balance. Do your job.

Posted by: idahogie | March 24, 2006 01:56 PM

This is ridiculous. Are you going to force Froomkin to resign now, too? He's a plagiarist as well. But I guess you don't mind, since he's a libera like you are.

------------------------
Leonidas
http://scrutator.net

Posted by: Leonidas | March 24, 2006 01:57 PM

You might, then, consider filling whatever perceived demographic slot with somebody with actual journalistic experience, not the paid-GOP-shill son of a paid-GOP-shill.

Posted by: norbizness | March 24, 2006 01:57 PM

So, was that last sentiment a signal that you'll hire another frothing-at-the-mouth to replace this guy? If you feel WaPo needs a "social conservative" voice as Kurtz reports, can you tell me: who at the Post is a "social liberal" voice?

Posted by: Joel | March 24, 2006 01:57 PM

Maybe if you didn't spend so much time staring at your navels you'd catch this kind of stuff in the first place.

I use to recommend the WaPo to my students for coverage of Washington politics...

Not any more.

Amateur hour!

Posted by: Nazgul35 | March 24, 2006 01:57 PM

I would hire Glenn Greenwald. Great writer, and like all good Conservatives he sticks up for the rule of law and works for clean government.

Posted by: dave | March 24, 2006 01:57 PM

I appreciate the lack of spin in this announcement.

Hopefully the washingtonpost.com is turning over a new leaf.

Posted by: DR | March 24, 2006 01:57 PM

I don't understand why it took the blogosphere 48 hours to compile a seemingly endless archive of past trangressions, while the Washington Post appears to never have encountered any of it before hiring him.

I've been supportive of the Post in the past, but this is a severe blow to its journalistic integrity and editorial practice.

If you're going to hire another movement conservative for "Red America," why not check out his past? Why not then hire one of the many talented liberal bloggers for a "Blue America?" I don't understand why this is anything other than good common sense.

Posted by: Pete Huxley | March 24, 2006 01:57 PM

Thank you for doing the right thing in forcing this resignation. It can't be easy to admit a mistake in such a charged environment, even if it is partially charged because you have tried to lable all of your detractors as extremist know-nothings. I hope this is the first step in a genuine road to recovery. You have a long walk ahead to get your credibility back, but this is definitely the right first step. Congratulations.

Posted by: pughd | March 24, 2006 01:58 PM

I have a suggestion: hire bruce bartlett.

he's impeccably conservative, and unlike many of the conservatives who write for your oped page, he is an honest man. it would be a delight to see him posting at your online operation; it might even embarass some of the dishonest conservatives who dominate your op-ed discourse to clean up their acts a touch.

meanwhile, i'm delighted to learn that you are committed to a broad spectrum of ideas in your editorial commentary, since i'm sure that e.j. dionee feels mighty lonely. there are loads of honest, good writers who might keep him company and extend your broad spectrum so that it actually, you know, broadens.

Posted by: howard | March 24, 2006 01:58 PM

Once again, blogs have to do the Post's job.

Good job, Mr. Brady.

Posted by: Terry Welch | March 24, 2006 01:58 PM

I, of course, blame the media for ignoring the majority of Ben's work that was original and instead focusing on the ten or fifteen percent that he stole. This will clearly embolden the terrorists. It's what they want.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 01:58 PM

Well, I think we have all learned a lesson here.

Clearly, The Post feels the need to hire a rightwing partisan operative to placate the ceaseless claims of "bias" from the activist right (and naturally doesn't feel the need to actually "balance" such a hire with an equivalent person from the left.)

but next time, remember that rightwingers these days specialize in just MAKING STUFF UP to suit their ideology.

You hired someone so BAD at making up stuff that he had to cut and paste from other writers. Over and over again.

This was obviously a mistake. So, get a genuine ideological fabulist next time, OK? You know, someone with a secret and TOTALLY TRUE therory about Saddm's WMD's being hidden in Sandy Berger's pants or something.

Posted by: Olivier Strauch | March 24, 2006 01:59 PM

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings.

Did you vet any of his previous writings or simply lay down and bow to the inside the beltway pressure? 15 minutes of Googling would've been all that is neccessary.

You look like complete fools.

Posted by: simp | March 24, 2006 01:59 PM

Dear Mr. Brady:

I have been quick to criticize the Washington Post for its slow & antiquated handling of all things blog, and am glad to see that you took care of this quickly. Please take the lessons you've undoubtedly learned in this fiasco to heart. We want honesty, not spin. We want truth, not 'balance.' Give us the real thing and you can't go wrong. And for the love of God, do a little research into who you hire so you don't make complete fools of yourselves again.

Posted by: Chris | March 24, 2006 01:59 PM

Hi, Jim - good going. You recognized a problem and you investigated. I am grateful the problem took care if itself.

I encourage you to use Google tools to do a simple vetting of writers. All this could've been avoided.

Posted by: Mark | March 24, 2006 02:00 PM

Good for you guys. And thanks for giving the nation such a valuable learning opportunity on the matter of the personal integrity of well-connected conservatives!

Posted by: neil | March 24, 2006 02:00 PM

I think the most offensive comment I have read on the Washington post blogsite, besides all the absolutely disgusting comments coming from the redstate.com members who flocked to your site to cheer their leader, has been the claim by the editor of your paper that no one knew Ben Domenech was a serial plagiarist.

why this is offensive is that its just not credible because it seems to have taken the real blogoshere less then 24 hours to find at least a dozen examples of Domenech's crimes by searching on GOOGLE...so if a simple google search brought up the plagiarized work of the blogger of red America how am I to believe that the mighty Washington post didn't have the wherewithal to check this kid out before putting their brand name and their $$$ behind him?
I think more then just Ben Domenech needs to step up to the plate and RESIGN effective immediately.... I think Mr Bradley should resign, and anyone else who had a hand in dragging the once good name of the Washington post through the mud like this.

The excuse of 'we didn't know" is offensive..about as offensive as it gets.

Until someone at the Washington post comes forth and takes responsibility for this fiasco MY current opinion of the Washington Post will remain the same. You have lost any credibility you had...you know what you really have to do to try and get it back, dumping Ben Domenech is merely the first step.

Posted by: KnotIookin | March 24, 2006 02:00 PM

Buh-bye!

Posted by: salvage | March 24, 2006 02:00 PM

I hearby volunteer to take Ben's place. I'm just as qualified as Ben was, by which I mean that I've never published anything I've actually written in any major publication... but I do HATE HILLARY CLINTON.

I certainly wouldn't mind the $$$ though.

Posted by: plunge | March 24, 2006 02:00 PM

It speaks to the drastic diminishment in the quality of your organization, that no one thought to do a little journalistic investigating into this guy's background and qualifications. As you can plainly see, it wasn't hard to find out the truth, if only The Post.com had made an effort. Please, if you indeed search for another blogger, try to have some integrity in the process. First, make efforts to find and hire someone with real journalistic credentials. 2nd - do a basic background check, searching for any plagerism, or hateful, racist or bigoted attitudes. If you choose to repeat the process of hiring an obviously partisan non-journalist that leans to the right, then provide REAL BALANCE by hiring a second blogger, one that leans to the left. That would be balance my friend.

Posted by: One of 8 | March 24, 2006 02:00 PM

Mr. Brady:

First, what took so long? The evidence was clear and damning yesterday.

Second, why did you hire such a clear hatemonger? It's one thing to zing the other side, it's quite another to call them commies with no proof. I don't think other bloggers under your roof have called Bush an oven-stuffing Nazi. And I doubt you would stand for it if they did.

And third, hiring someone with no journalism experience and no interest in debating was a very bad idea. I'm sure that if that is what you wanted, you could have found someone as ignorant and hate-filled on the other side of the political spectrum and let the two of them have an ongoing food fight.

WP.com should be ashamed of itself. This ain't "fresh." It's revolting. I am sure there are conservatives out there who could present their case without calling their opponents commies and traitors.

Posted by: Mr. Mekon | March 24, 2006 02:01 PM

I'd like to point out that the investigative process by which Domenech's plagiarism was uncovered has applications in other areas of journalism. You folks may want to look into it.

Sometimes, the "two sides of the story" are that one person's lying, and one person isn't.

Posted by: Phila | March 24, 2006 02:01 PM

"When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings"

Well, Jimbo, in your defense, it was real hard to find out....

Posted by: Jim | March 24, 2006 02:01 PM

You know, Jim, if you're blind hatred of the mean ol' "liberal" bloggers who have already caught you with your pants down several times already hadn't gotten in the way, you might have seen the problems with this hire from the beginning. The racism, the hatred, the plagiarizing... all red flags I'm sure would have been caught if a kid his age was trying to get on the "print" side of the paper. But you were so goddamned determined to "stick it" to the liberals, you just picked the first little brownshirt you could find.

You f***ed up. Again. Eat it.

Posted by: dave | March 24, 2006 02:01 PM

"When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings."

Posted by: Editor, please! | March 24, 2006 02:01 PM

To John Gage

When did Brady say he had no responsibility to check out the background of who he hires? Did you actually read the letter?

Posted by: Brian | March 24, 2006 02:01 PM

This might be a good time in young Ben's life to consider enlisting in the Marine Corps. Several months of boot camp, infantry training, and a tour or two of western Iraq may help him overcome this disappointment. He might even grow up.

Might I assume that the person who "vetted" young Ben is currently exploring other career options as well? Maybe next time you're evaluating the writing talent of a prospective hire, you might want to ensure that it's really that person's own writing you're evaluating. That seems pretty basic to me.

Posted by: garryowen | March 24, 2006 02:01 PM

Jim Brady, Executive Editor, of washingtonpost.com seems unable to do his job. He can neither handle criticism, respond to readers, nor apparently vet new hires.

Mr. Brady should also resign.

His salary could be spent for an online omsbudsman.

Posted by: john | March 24, 2006 02:02 PM

The tone in some of these comments is more negative than I think is necessary. WaPo.com goofed, they investigated, the guy resigned. A better background check and more experience would be a plus in a future hire, but it's not for us to decide who the WaPo hires.

Posted by: Steve | March 24, 2006 02:02 PM

So it certainly wasn't the outlandish racism, the vitriolic partisan shilling, the complete and utter lack of journalistic experience, let alone life experience in general.....

no, we are to believe it was because he was actually a plagiarist. Sure Jim, splendid job finally catching onto and maintaining that "journalistic integrity" thingy you seemingly know so well.

"Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism."

Ahh yes, Jim, welcome to the new millenium. Suppose, just suppose the WaPost can actually get off their lazy asses for once and perform a bit of investigative journalism of their own, rather than being flat out embarrassed and shlacked by bloggers who have to do your damn homework for you?

Is that really too much to ask of our modern day media? Suppose you can finally realize that you need to dump the regurgitation of talking points and actually do what the people want and deserve from you - actual investigation of facts?

Or is that more of that darned wishful thinking?

Posted by: MisterOpus1 | March 24, 2006 02:02 PM

So if he had not resigned, would you have fired him? Somehow, I doubt it. After all, judging from Howard Kurtz's column, you were sticking by Domenech even when all signs pointed toward the fact that he was unqualified for thr position. In light of all your previous mishaps, perhaps the Washington Post organization needs to look into whether Jim Brady is qualified for his job.

Posted by: Tom | March 24, 2006 02:02 PM

I applaud you in that you "remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area." However, I fail to understand how having a conservative blogger and no liberal blogger represents "a broad spectrum of ideas."

Posted by: Beau | March 24, 2006 02:02 PM

Will you hire a left-leaning media critic to balance Kurtz? And a left-leaning ombudsman to balance Howell?

Posted by: ahab | March 24, 2006 02:02 PM

Allow me to suggest some sentences which would have appeared in your posting, Jim Brady, if you thought that wapo.com's integrity was important:

``And that's when I said, "You can't quit, you're fired!"''

Posted by: Greg Alexander | March 24, 2006 02:02 PM

It has been suggested elsewhere that young Mr. Domenech enlist immediately to serve his country as an effort to make amends and restore his reputation before he takes another position withing the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

May I suggest minesweeper?

Posted by: Eric Tompkins [Meander] | March 24, 2006 02:03 PM

Mr. Brady, will this finally--after all of the embarrassing missteps of the last several months--result in some introspection on your part and that of Deborah Howell's? Is there anything at all that would cause you to listen to your critics and actually consider that you may not have all the answers?

The bigger picture is not your lack of due diligence in hiring an unqualified and unvetted political hack. Your first mistake is in thinking the Post somehow lacks for Conservative voices. It does not, and your fallback position should not be to hire a "better qualified" Conservative. Rather, it should be to not hire another partisan Conservative at all.

Posted by: CityGirl | March 24, 2006 02:03 PM

Dear Jim Brady --

When are you going to hire someone to do your 'balance' thing on the crazy far-out right-wing stuff that Ron Nessen writes every day in his blog?

Based on today's installment from the old Nixon/Ford hand (abolishing Social Security, Medicare, the works...) you'll need at least a radical revolutionary Marxist.

Posted by: mz | March 24, 2006 02:03 PM

A nation grieves.

Posted by: shingles | March 24, 2006 02:03 PM

This is the danger of nepotism. You hire well-connected but unqualified young sleazeball because his dad works for the White House, and don't even bother to vet him before doing so because you're just so sure he's the "right kind of people."

What other explanation is there? It's not the guy's writing, that is certain. Just read some of it. Jesus. I could plagiarize better than that in the 7th grade. (And did, quite a bit.)

Posted by: Dumbo | March 24, 2006 02:03 PM

Jim, in an email I sent to you a while back I criticized you and many Post.com writers for their attempts at artificially balancing stories instead of printing the facts as they are known. I didn't believe that this is what reporters do. You replied to me that you disagreed with me on this point.

I guess this bears that comment out. You artificially tried to balance the output of the Post.com without regard to the quality of the material. You are the person who should resign. (I can forward you both of our emails if you need to have your memory refreshed.)

Posted by: Betsyb | March 24, 2006 02:03 PM

Can you follow some more of Debra H. suggestions. I really enjoyed the debacles she cause every time she makes a suggestion

Posted by: Dallas, Texas | March 24, 2006 02:04 PM

And this question should be asked until Brady comes up with an answer: WHERE'S THE LIBERAL BLOGGER?

Posted by: dave | March 24, 2006 02:04 PM

Mr. Brady:

I want a job, too!

Posted by: Jake | March 24, 2006 02:04 PM

All of the research on Domenech's plagiarism was done in the past 48 hours, and turned up a vast multitude of blatant pilfering from other authors.

Why couldn't the Washington Post have looked into this guy more carefully before trumpeting him as the great voice of Red America? I mean, you know Google exists, right?

Posted by: rising sign | March 24, 2006 02:04 PM

I'm very sorry to see Ben leave. I think its very important to balance Froomkin's facts and analysis with name-calling and plagerism. Who are you going to find that's as good as Ben?

And nice job, Brady. You're doing at least as good a job at the Post as Brownie did at FEMA. Man, to think how much I used to respect the Post....

Posted by: LowLife | March 24, 2006 02:04 PM

I too was disturbed that the Post was hiring a conservative blogger and yet had no plans to balance this with a liberal blogger. As much as we like Froomkin, he ain't no progressive liberal.
Why am I complaining? Well, I really don't know because I have many alternative sources of liberal news and I go to foreign newspapers to get away from your paper's bias.

I guess the Post isn't ever going to be one of those sources. Too bad. So sad.
However, it's your bed and you get to lay in it. I doubt I'll be watching. No one got to be a spectator when the Titanic sank, but this century it's a whole new ballgame. Good luck lying in bed on the deck.


Posted by: Buck Batard | March 24, 2006 02:04 PM

Out of interest, Jim, why was Domenech allowed to resign? Wouldn't a history of plagarism merit washingtonpost.com to FIRE him?

Posted by: Philo | March 24, 2006 02:05 PM

Hey, I've got an idea for a new rightwing blogger for you: Howie Kurtz.

Posted by: bling | March 24, 2006 02:05 PM

Jim says:

"We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area."

I say:

How about you hire a real blogger, not a plagiarizing hate-monger, maybe even a progressive blogger, to prove the veracity of the above statement... I don't know, maybe Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com...

Thanks, though we are still waiting for the evidence that Howell claimed the Post had re: Abramoff's supposed direction of funds by the Indian tribes to, rather than away from -- as all other evidence indicates, Democratic candidates.

Posted by: Gioele | March 24, 2006 02:05 PM

Thank you Mr. Brady for coming forward. Better late than never.

But you're really asking for trouble -- literally clasping an asp to your bosom -- when you hire people whose goal is to destroy you.

Do you really not understand that rightwingers in this country are neo-fascists who are bent on undermining the whole institution of journalism? They are systematically destroying your crediblity. Look at CBS. Look at what Judith Miller did to the New York Times. And now what this kid has done to you.

The really tragic thing for all of us is, you are helping them. They hand you a gun and tell you to shoot yourself in the foot -- and you do. Must be that beaten wife syndrom thing.

Posted by: Drindl | March 24, 2006 02:05 PM

As Charles Bukowski once wrote - 'the fools are fooled again'...

Posted by: rumple | March 24, 2006 02:05 PM

Since when did "surface" become a transitive verb?

"We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations."

I hate to be such a grammatical nit picker, but but this yet another case of Jim Brady's sloppiness.

I'd really like to know the decision-making process behind hiring Domenech. But I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: Brad Johnson | March 24, 2006 02:05 PM

By the way, let's take bets: which think tank or political magazine will hire our new martyr? Will it be Heritage? Perhaps he'll join Scooter at the Hudson Institute?

What color is your golden parachute?

Posted by: neil | March 24, 2006 02:06 PM

LOL ... WaPo's spiral downward continues apace.


LMFAO ...

Posted by: Mike | March 24, 2006 02:06 PM

Boyd and Raines resigned over Jayson Blair. Are you going to do the honorable thing, or will The Post force you to do it?

Posted by: mike | March 24, 2006 02:06 PM

Standard Rethug excuse these days: It wasn't me, it was my evil, twin clone Skippy. In Benny's case, it must have been his evil twin clone Lenny.

Posted by: Dr. Filbert | March 24, 2006 02:06 PM

Forget all the talk about left or right. Hire somebody that SPEAKS THE TRUTH!

"It's impossible to reach good conclusions with bad information. . . . We're all entitled to our own opinions. But none of us can afford to be wrong in our facts."

Mort Crim

Posted by: Ken in MN | March 24, 2006 02:06 PM

I think Mr. Brady forgot this sentence:

"I take full responsibility and on behalf of the Washington Post, I apologize for this whole mess. We can and will do better."

Posted by: Brad | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

With all the criticism that has been levied against liberal blogs by various voices of WashingtonPost.com and the Washington Post, will you directly acknowledge the role of places like Daily Kos in quickly calling attention to the questionable journalistic practices of Ben Domenech?

Second, what does this say about the Post's vetting process for hiring? Do you research the writing of 24 year olds offered prominent positions with WashPost.com?

Third, can you provide your perspective on Domenech's posting / writing of some rather racist material over the past several years?

While I tend 'conservative' in a classical sense, unlike these ChickhenHawks so dominant in today's Republican Party, I actually volunteered and put my life on the line when the nation went to war. This example of Domenech's rather questionable ethics (after all, plagiarism is stealing, and "Thou shalt not steal" remains, as far as I am aware, one of the 10 Commandments) is one of the reasons that I am a 'very troubled' conservative.

Posted by: A traditional -- troubled -- conservative | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

Mr. Brady-

All I can say is that this hurt the Post more than it hurt Mr. Domenech. It makes one ask who makes the decisions at the Post, and who actually protects the respect and gravitas the Post earned over the years.

Where is the journalistic enterprise that broke Watergate sir?

Posted by: Thucydides Jr. | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

I was more fully vetted for a job at Petrini's. You just wanted to appease the loonies of the right wing and you got caught--and as Cheney would say, "big time." A pox on you and that rag you call a newpaper.

Posted by: Joanne | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

Hey Jim,
Here's an idea. Why not just buy the rights to reprint from blogers already on the web? Sort of a best of the web comentary. And here's another idea. Why not include real bonified liberals as well as conservative bigots? Just a thought.

Posted by: Don | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

Hiring conservative writers to cover politics and government is like hiring flat-earth society members to cover science. Conservatives are generally ignorant, uncouth, uninformed, and dishonest.

Posted by: Miles Shaw | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

May I suggest you vet any future hires a tad more thoroughly?

May I suggest whoever hired Ben be taken to the woodshed?

May I suggest hiring a partisan flack to balance journalism is an inherently flawed policy?

Posted by: Aaron Adams | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM


The Domenech Debacle is your latest attempt to match the NYT in the race to
reach rock bottom in terms of journalistic integrity.

Your stonewalling on the plagiarism issue is consistent with every other egregious error you've committed in recent years -- the worst being that you reported as news Scott McClellan's statement that Rove &
Libby weren't involved in the Plame scandal when you knew full well that it
was a lie. You held this back until after the election. For that you deserve
eternal journalistic damnation.

The Domenech Plagiarism Debacle is a mere misdemeanor in comparison to the high
treason of altering the outcome of a presidential election.

Posted by: A. Moore | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

As a serious suggestion, you might hire someone like Bob Barr. He's very a strong conservative but he's intellectually honest enough to stand up for privacy rights when he thinks they're being violated.

I realize you're looking for someone who will articulate arguments in defense of the Bush administration. It is getting harder and harder to mount any sort of defense. If you can find a thoughtful and articulate voice to do so, you will not have quite the firestorm that was provoked.

But it is not the Post's job to make sure that every opinion, however silly or ignorant, is given a voice. When there is no defense of an action beyond the talking points, and the talking points are laughable, it is incumbent upon any serious journalist to say so.

Posted by: Michael Steven Schultz | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

"Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of."

Executive Editors shouldn't end sentences with prepositions... or hire racists for the sake of perceived balance.

Posted by: DB | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

The intellectual dishonesty that Mr. Domenech displayed from his first posts should have been a red flag to the Washpost hiring board, He described Democrats who win elections as being victorious because they had Republican ideas. His statement is a logical impossibility.
In our current political environment, we are forced to pretend that favored conservative ideas such as intelligent design or Democracy at the point of a gun are not nonsense.
The Washpost does Conservatives no favors when it assumes that intellectual rigor is liberal.

Posted by: Karen Ann | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

I would like to address any WaPo reporters who might happen upon this thread: If you don't like what is happening, you better do something about it.

I imagine you spent a considerable amount of time getting to where you are. Straight A's in high school. Late nights working at the Ivy League paper. Unpaid internships in the summer, gathering journalistic experience. Building a glowing resume, so that finally, after years of hard work, you obtain a position at one of the two premier newspapers in the country. And now, after you have reached your goal, you find that management is flushing the paper's reputation down the toilet.

Is that really what you have worked for?


Unlike many Republicans, who have a deep anti-intellectual streak, most Democrats take no pleasure in criticizing the premier journalistic institutions in this country. We understand that America NEEDS a healthy, active, questioning, ethical journalistic community. We don't want to destroy the Post or any other paper any more than we want to live under single party rule...even if it were the Democratic party. We relish alternative views, constructive criticism, and debate.

But, if the writers, editors, publishers, and ombudspersons of either the Washington Post or washingtonpost.com insist on making their publications embarasements to journalism, we will point it out. I suggest you all act before it is too late.

Posted by: space | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

Hey Ben,

I need some work, and I think I meet all your qualifications and come up to your high standards. My friend Jim Guckert says I have all the necessary qualifications for a right-wing journalist and blogger.

Please hire me to replace Domenech. I've got connections in the white House and I know they are real happy with all the "journalistic" favors you've done them
with the elections and this great war we're having

Claude Allen

Posted by: Claude Allen | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

Steve,
if this was the first time WaPo.com has goofed, as you put it, I think we would be a little more forgiving. As is, however, this is merely another chapter in a book full of errors made by Jim Brady. In light of that, I think it is appropriate to question whether or not he is more of a liability than an asset to the Washington Post organization.

Posted by: Tom | March 24, 2006 02:07 PM

The last line of Brady's announcement strikes me as lacking in contrition, and artelssly mired in self-justification. The decision to hire an overt partisan in the first place was wrong. It just happens to be incredibly wrong since it turns out one didn't have to dig very hard to discover the guys is a plagarist. So, under pressure from readers opposing the hire the response is to not even give the guy a careful review. It's as if since liberals and centrists opposed the guy, the response is to be even less critical in giving the platform of the Post over to partisan conservatives. It seems the Post is responding to reasoned critique the way the adminstration has-- with increasingly thoughtless, raw assertion of conservative power. But is it such a surprise that conservative mouthpieces at the Post are turning out to be unprincipled?

Posted by: mindwalkor | March 24, 2006 02:08 PM

"When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings."
Is that the same as not being aware of any facts?

Posted by: Texas Ex | March 24, 2006 02:08 PM

Mr. Brady, it really does seem you don't like us. The intelligent readers. You are so full of defensiveness (it wasn't on our watch, not our fault), that you can't see that your readers are owed an apology.

I agree completely with Earl above. It seems the Post is so worried about irritating the right, that it won't stand up for the huge proportion of its readers who are not right-wing partisans. You are blessed with the an increibly bright, progressive readership, and you seem to treat your readership with contempt.

Posted by: Vaughan | March 24, 2006 02:08 PM

So let me get this straight. If someone reports the facts, hard as they may be, they are a no-good liberal. But a morally upright real American has to lie, that would be a Conservative. Jeez, is there such a thing as an honest Republican?!

Posted by: Walt | March 24, 2006 02:08 PM

And the Post thinks this makes things okay? The blogosphere did their homework for them, and rooted out this rat. If it wasn't for the likes of Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, and Joshua Marshall, this guy would still be spewing GOP cant. The Post has some explaining to do.

Posted by: Yogsoggoth | March 24, 2006 02:08 PM

How embarrassing -- for the WaPo.

Did anyone even bother to check this guy's background? Are there no interns that know how to use Google?

Well, move forward. Hire two bloggers, both vetted, representing Left and Right.

And while you're at it, get some balance by hiring some progressive columnists.

Your unseemly sucking up to the current regime won't be treated well when this era's history is written.

Posted by: Jimi | March 24, 2006 02:09 PM

No, rumple. It's: "Fool me once, uhhh, shame on, uhhhhh, shame on you. Uhhhhh. Fool me, you can't, you can't get fooled again." George W. Bush

Posted by: Ken in MN | March 24, 2006 02:09 PM

I guess bigotry is forgivable if you make a half-hearted apology, but plagiarism is not?

And I don't think plagiarism is any worse that failure to scrutinize the president during a time of war.

Posted by: Rich Cohen | March 24, 2006 02:09 PM

Interesting defense of Ben from his buddies at Red State. Seems all those authors gave him permission to steal, but the dog ate all the permission slips. This is what we are dealing with on the far right...not just liars, but incompetent ones.

"And now those opposed to Ben have googled prior writings that on the surface appear suspicious, but only because permissions obtained and judgments made offline were not reflected online by an out dated and out of business campus newspaper. But that's all the opponents want - just enough to sabotage a career, though in the process they will sabotage themselves. Facts have no meaning. Only impressions have any bearing on this. The charges of plagarism are false, meant to bring down a good and honest man. The presented facts to prove plagarism are specious -- products of shoddy work. One could easily think the producers of 60 Minutes II were behind them. "

http://redstate.org/story/2006/3/23/22434/5436

Posted by: Mr. Mekon | March 24, 2006 02:09 PM

**********

The understanding is that WaPo hired an ultra-right-wing partisan like Ben to provide a "balance."

What needs to be balanced? The existing journalists who report based on facts? So the balance would be to report with Non-Facts (ie: LIES).

Might as well higher a theif to tell lies.

How about you just stick with the truth when it comes to your hiring practices.

Posted by: Peter | March 24, 2006 02:09 PM

By the way, I think it would really strike a blow in favor of openness and disclosure if the Post explains the decisions that led up to Domenech's hiring. The Post's readers deserve to know how he qualified for this position and why he was hired.

Posted by: neil | March 24, 2006 02:10 PM

I'm a dailykos-reading liberal, but I get turned off by all of salt-in-the-wound triumphant strutting. Domenech is gone, "RedAmerica" was an embarassing failure, and Jim Brady has thanked those who have worked to unearth all of this material.

Seems to me like a mutual understanding that this won't happen again is all we really need here. Gloating is ugly, no matter who does it.

Posted by: David | March 24, 2006 02:10 PM

Mr. Brady

well, if you are looking for a replacement for Ben, please consider me.

1) Like Ben, I've written under a psuedonym (actually, two --- "ami" over at Pressthink, and "bushsux" over at Kos)

2) I've engaged in ad hominem attacks like Ben (Just as Jay Rosen why I had to write under a pseudonym)

3) My opinions and ideas are well out of the mainstream, like Bens

4) Like Ben, as a "writer", I pretty much suck.

5) Unlike Ben, I don't plagarize. In fact, I have a reputation for doing original research, attributing quotes and citing sources, and giving credit where it is due....

Heck, I think I sound perfect for the job.... :)

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 24, 2006 02:10 PM

I cannot imagine an organization that would let an error of this magnitude, committed publicly, stand without serious reprisals for those responsible.

Mr. Brady, your tenure as Executive Editor must end today. And there must be a public analysis of this editorial and personnel practices failure. There is something seriously wrong with a news-gathering organization that was unable to lift up the rocks under which Ben's plagiarism lay. Mr. Brady, your pretension to understand the internet and online journalism are dashed by this failure.

I am wondering who ombuds Washington Post Online (or WPNI) now that Ms. Howell has removed herself from this fray. I hope WPNI's publisher can take a break from polishing all those exciting awards to address this issue, first internally and then with us, the readers.

We're not commenters, we are readers.

PS. There is a distinction with a difference between calling Mrs. King a "Communist" as Ben did, and a "communist." The capital C is all. Commenters here and elsewhere would do well to respect it; Howard Kurtz apparently doesn't.

Posted by: TeddySanFran | March 24, 2006 02:10 PM

Mr. Brady, you weren't aware of Ben's dishonesty because you weren't doing your own job.

You should resign, too.

Posted by: John | March 24, 2006 02:10 PM

Who knew that hiring a 24 year old, home-schooled, young-earth-creationist, racist, right-wing hack would turn out to be a bad thing...

At this rate it shouldn't be long before The Post is competing with the National Enquirer for rack space at the checkout lines in Wal-Mart.

Posted by: Boosterz | March 24, 2006 02:10 PM

The Post is crying crocodile tears. How could the post NOT have known about his poor writing skills? Simple web queries before his hiring would have immediately uncovered his inabiltiy to write original material. How could the post NOT have taken the time to proprly vet a potential employee?

In truth, after looking at the examples of plagiarism, it does not seem to be deliberate. These examples simply show someone with a lot of opinions but not a great deal of confidence is his writing skill. This is what I see from younger undergraduates.

*insert heavy sigh here*

Posted by: Tomcat | March 24, 2006 02:10 PM

This is why big money papers like the Post will be going the way of the dinosaur. Long live the blog!

Posted by: Walt | March 24, 2006 02:11 PM

"WAAAH! Those mean bloggers are picking on me."

Lame, Jim, lame.

Posted by: Figuratively Speaking | March 24, 2006 02:11 PM

this wasn't an honorable conservative with a fatal flaw. this kind of wingnuttery *breeds* behavior like this. He was 24, unfinished with college, with a history of getting advantages solely through connections. In other words, he was *taught* to coast, and his coasting (which includes plagiarism) was rewarded.

The Post needs to remember that that kind of laziness - which includes laziness in opinions, laziness in investigation, laziness in integrity - is NOT an ideology. It's just embarrassing incompetence, which is also something that The Post was guilty of itself in this case.

If you want an ideological balance, find a real, honest conservative. If you want a balanced newspaper, do some soul-searching already - it's long overdue - and relearn how to reconcile evenhandedness with fact and truth.

Posted by: tunesmith | March 24, 2006 02:11 PM

There should be some housecleaning at the Post, as well. I'd really like to see how the Post came to hire Domenech and what process was used.

As for Bill Hobbs not being "likely to just repeat GOP talking points"--that's pretty funny. Those of us familiar with Hobbs know that's all he does.

Posted by: JadeGold | March 24, 2006 02:11 PM

If'un y'all are a-lookin' fer a real, right wing patriot blogger, why don't you guys hire the Good Gin'rull J.C. Christian?

Posted by: Dr. Filbert | March 24, 2006 02:11 PM

"When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings."

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm going to have to jump on the "Then you should really learn to use Google" bandwagon here.

This is just absurd. Did you do any sort of background check on this guy at all? There's only one rational explanation for how you managed to miss this before hiring him: you didn't look for it.

Posted by: Thad | March 24, 2006 02:11 PM

Mr. Brady,
When can we expect your resignation?

Posted by: Shawn | March 24, 2006 02:12 PM

Why was this person allowed to resign? I would expect that someone who had lied and stolen his way into a prominent position would have been fired for doing so.

The Washington Post owes this thief nothing, and yet even when he's leaving disgraced, they still see fit to soften the blow.

One must wonder for the reason why.

Posted by: Gregory Hanigan | March 24, 2006 02:12 PM

"At this rate it shouldn't be long before The Post is competing with the National Enquirer for rack space at the checkout lines in Wal-Mart."

Buy the Enquirer. It's also full of you-know-what, but at least it doesn't make a pretense of doing serious journalism and it's a more entertaining read.

Posted by: garryowen | March 24, 2006 02:13 PM

Next time you want to hire someone as a perceived balance to Dan Froomkin, at least have them be somewhat more than half Froomkin's age.

Please SPARE ME THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA EQUIVOCATING! I'm sure you enjoyed "Good Night, and Good Luck." Here's something else from Ed Murrow you should pay heed to: Some journalists' idea of objectivity is giving Judas equal time with Jesus.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 02:13 PM

Doooooofus-nech's Red Dawn is over!

Posted by: Sullynyc | March 24, 2006 02:13 PM

space, that was an excellent argument, soiled only slightly by your spelling error near the very end.

i do hope that the executive editors realize that most people here are not Post-bashers. many of us read the Post every day, and most of us continue to think of it as THE premier newspaper in the country. the problems at the post have never had to do with the reporters: the likes of milbank, pincus, priest et al are hard to summit. we know you have great, hard hitting reporters and a great tradition of excellence. that's why your readers are so demanding that you hold yourself to the highest standards.

your previous omsbudman, michael getler, would understand. he, better than most, understood that WaPo readers are demanding because we *love* the Post.

Posted by: edward | March 24, 2006 02:14 PM

Tunesmith, no disrespect intended, but an honest conservative?! I really don't believe there is such a thing anymore. Show me a TRUE
honest conservative and I'll show you a Democrat. Any one that is Conservative and honest has left the GOP about 6 months ago.

Posted by: Walt | March 24, 2006 02:14 PM

Journalistic integrity?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Posted by: dredge | March 24, 2006 02:14 PM

You want "to maintain our journalistic integrity"? God, Brady, you gave that up long ago. Little Ben was just another symptom.

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 24, 2006 02:14 PM

Reporters report facts, and very often those do not fit a rightwing world view. Therefore it is necessary to hire a movement conservative to write lies ooops, from the rightwing point of view to balance out the facts coming from the "other side."

Will corporate media ever get this, or will they continue to turn their products into embarassing jokes that are turning the USA into a fascist corporatocracy?

Posted by: Jeany | March 24, 2006 02:15 PM

Hey Ben

Truly: Walk through this firestorm, check yourself, talk to someone, apologize, and shoot yourself. Here's an honest wish for good things for you and your family.

Posted by: My Name Is | March 24, 2006 02:15 PM

Did this debacle last a week? These internets are sho' powerful tools in the War Against Brains.

Posted by: Drinks on the House! | March 24, 2006 02:15 PM

One can't but wonder who pushed the WaPo to hire ben, especially in light of the public Fromkin-trashing and revelations that people from on high were upset with Fromkin's writing.

It certainly looks like Ben's name was tendered as someone the post should hire to counter Fromkin. Was it from the White House, or its agents, assigns, etc?

It looks like the GOP actually has a project going with the media much like the K street project, only instead of lobbyists and money, it's journalists/media figures and favorable coverage they lock down. This is separate from the administration's out-right paying of journalists to write favorable stuff.

One thing for sure, if they don't fire Jim, he's not going to be very effective at implementing in the future what he was attempting to with the hiring of Ben. Not after this blew up in his face the way it did. Even the Ombudsman is running away, even after all Jim did for her.

Posted by: db | March 24, 2006 02:15 PM

It's time for Jim Brady to resign as well.

Posted by: Holden Caulfield | March 24, 2006 02:15 PM

Mr.Brady,I thought how you worded your response was very professional. Please understand that alot of us liberals DO NOT MIND a conservative blogger,we were just freaked out when we found out how much this guy stole from real journalists,etc.

I havent read all of the comments above yet but any true political junkie left or right does not feel threatened by opposing opinions,as long as they are true to the facts. What was really shocking is the thought you hired him without knowing any of this?? Please vet your replacement with a fine tooth comb and hopefully he or she will be as fine a journalist as the excellent Froomkin,Kurtz,and Milbank!

Posted by: Nancy/Ca | March 24, 2006 02:15 PM

Thanks, Ben, for resigning. Mr. Brady - it's your turn, now. You should recognize the damage you are doing to The Post and be a man and step down.

Oh, and now that Ben is out of work, maybe he should think about supporting that war he loves so much.

Enlist, Ben. Enlist.

Posted by: DM White | March 24, 2006 02:15 PM

Jim Brady should resign.

Posted by: Steph | March 24, 2006 02:16 PM

I'll just echo everyone who already said that he should never have been hired in the first place. Also, if the purpose of hiring a right wing fundie fruitcake was to "balance" Dan Froomkin, don't you see that the very truth itself that Froomkin analyzes - IS the truth, and can never be "balanced"?

The truth is the truth. Bush's ratings are in the basement. The war is a quagmire rivaling Vietnam and was based on lies.

These are T R U T H S.

You can hire all the fundies in the world; their blatherings won't change reality. I urge the Post to face reality for a change.

Posted by: lily | March 24, 2006 02:16 PM

" ... we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism."

Well, yeah, if you mean doing your vetting (e.g. your JOB for you). Pathetic. Management has now passed the fail-safe point and appears to be committed to self-destruction. I wonder what it feels like to be laughed to death.

Posted by: Argonaut | March 24, 2006 02:16 PM

Perhaps the Post should now revisit the idea of
hiring an ombudsman to fill the post of ombudsman,
and some journalists to work as journalists.
God I sound so 20th century!

Posted by: AA | March 24, 2006 02:17 PM

The larger problem has to do with the newspaper industry's defensive reaction to conservative claims of liberal bias. This hire was made less to incorporate diverse opinions into the Washington Post than to appease conservatives critical of the paper.

Only when mass media outlets stop worrying about what Karl Rove thinks of them will they begin to regain their integrity.

Posted by: Tattered Matt | March 24, 2006 02:17 PM

"journalistic integrity at the washington post".
There's a contradiction in terms.

Posted by: brendan | March 24, 2006 02:17 PM

Mr. Brady:

It is just not possible to look at the
Domenech issue and not blame you
for this terrible, shameful and costly
mistake. What about your resignation?
Do you really believe you have
any credibility left?

Posted by: amf | March 24, 2006 02:17 PM

Does anyone at the Washington Post regret not having investigated Domenech's credibility before this fiasco?

Posted by: R. Wilson | March 24, 2006 02:18 PM

(Washington DC) Washington Post.com executive editor, James Brady, recently defended his decision to remain silent in response to criticism about Washington Post writer Ben Domenech.

"Let's just say that a lot of those commenter where shrill," stated Mr. Brady. "Liberals flooded the site and it was pretty ugly."

"Look," Mr. Brady continued, "I didn't put comments on my, I mean the Post's website so I'd have to talk with a bunch of shrill liberal losers. I didn't get into online publishing so I'd have to explain myself."

"It was pretty embarrassing," stated an Washington Post employee who wished to remain anonymous because he worked with Mr. Brady. "By not facing the comments, Mr. Brady made all of us look like cowards."

The Washington Post has recently come under fire for the hiring of 24-year old Domenech, who had no professional journalism experience. He did write for his university newspaper but is facing allegations that many of the articles he wrote for it were plagiarized from other sources.

Mr. Brady refused to answer when asked about the allegations of Mr. Domenech's plagiarism.

Washington Post publisher Caroline Little was unavailable for comment.

Posted by: ed | March 24, 2006 02:18 PM

Ha ha ha ha.... So you were "unaware of any allegations" of plagiarism, eh? Phila beat me to it, but I second the motion that you hook up with some of the folks over on the print side and ask them about a little thing called research. In fact, looking at the sheer scale of young Ben's transgressions and weighing it against his departure from W&M, one can't help but wonder whether some of his old perfessers might have hinted against hiring him, had you bothered to actually call any of them.

Anyway thanks. It has certainly been a couple of days of laugh-out-loud funny.

Posted by: radish | March 24, 2006 02:18 PM

I suppose we can trust WaPo to be sure they hire a racist who writes in his/her own words the next time.

Posted by: RevPhat | March 24, 2006 02:18 PM

Well, I appreciate that the executives at washingtonpost.com did the right thing and had a serious talk with Mr. Domenech. Kudos to Mr. Brady.
As for 'St. Augustine', I hope that this lesson won't hurt him to much. I'm sure he'll have a comeback, maybe at Foxnews or the Washington Times?
For us, the readers, the most important issue right now is that the Post still can be trusted to live up to his reputation. But let's hope that a more careful vetting process will avoid mishaps like this one in the future.

Posted by: Andy Ludwig a.k.a. Gray | March 24, 2006 02:18 PM

Glad to see you acknowledge the power of the Internet. Maybe the next time you get swarmed by the Inetrent blogging community about something you publish, you'll take it more seriously than you did with Deborah Howell.

But I disagree that plagiarism is the worst offence a journalist can commit. It's only the second worst.

The worst offence is simply "making stuff up" and passing it off as reporting - as you and Deborah did. That's why the bloggers burned you so badly. You were just making stuff up. Then you finally acknowledged a "poor choice of wording," but turned around and made even more stuff up!

America is on the brink. Its president is out of control, and blatantly ignoring the constitution and the laws of the land, improsing and torturing "suspects", and calling the majority of Americans unpatriotic because we disagree with him. Congress won't act. Instead, they want to retroactively legalize the president's crimes. To make a long story short: in our preesent circumstances America can ill afford to have so-called journalists who just "make stuff up."

Posted by: Libby Sosume | March 24, 2006 02:18 PM

99% of American political bloggers are guilty of Plagiarism.

Let any blogger who has not Plagiarized cast the first stone.

Posted by: Orikinla Osinachi | March 24, 2006 02:18 PM

See what happens when you're placed under the laser-like focus of the blogosphere's microscope?

The truth has no place to hide.

Posted by: Fletch | March 24, 2006 02:19 PM

If nothing else comes of this, I hope everyone has at least learned how to spell 'plagiarism'. I'm sure it's a word Domenech will remember, and even if he doesn't, I'm sure he can find another writer who does to copy from.

Posted by: Jones | March 24, 2006 02:19 PM

I will be moving to DC this summer. This whole episode simply proves to me how far the Washington Post has fallen in credibility and reputation. I was looking forward to getting not one, but two subscriptions to the Post (one for home and one for our small business). However, I will not be subscribing at all now. Time for the Post, and all major media, to wake up--your readers want the truth and facts, not all this partisan crud. Keep kowtowing to the far right and your paper will end up a cheap tabloid rag read by no one with an IQ over 75.

Posted by: Larry, New Orleans | March 24, 2006 02:19 PM

Conservatives who plagiarize and violent journalistic integrity?

Nah. Couldn't happen.

Especially not when the Conservative writer in question has the endorsement of – and carried the editorial water for – Ram Ponnuru and Michelle Malkin.

Never!

Not when the Conservative scribe in question has the backing, and shares the same employment skills, as Lucianne Goldberg's son and J.P. Normanson.

No sir!

Not when the Conservative author hails from such fine New Hampshire stock.

Just can't be true!

Why plagiarism and making things up, those are the inherent weaknesses of the Jayson Blair-Rick Bragg crowd.

A Conservative! Why, never!

Posted by: Mark | March 24, 2006 02:19 PM


Before you get about to replacing Ben Domenech with another right-wing blogger, you should agree to balance him out with a left-wing blogger.

Posted by: S. Mitchell | March 24, 2006 02:20 PM

"My Name Is" wrote: "Hey Ben Truly: Walk through this firestorm, check yourself, talk to someone, apologize, and shoot yourself. Here's an honest wish for good things for you and your family."

This is just gratuitous - even in jest it is a sick thing to write. Does he deserve to be fired? yes. Does he deserve to be shamed? Yes. Does the post need to be held responsible for it shoddy hiring practices? Absolutely. But to enjoin someone to commit suicide is twisted. Seek help immediately.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 02:20 PM

"We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations..."

So, you appreciate...journalism? Done by others?

Posted by: Raymondo Magnivico | March 24, 2006 02:20 PM

Jim Brady should go next.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 02:20 PM

I see no other way for the Washington Post organization to save just a thread of face over this than for Executive Editor Jim Brady to not only resign but to resign with a full and genuine apology for his incompetence. His incompetence was and stil is fully evident by his having allowed this to happen. This episode was not by far the first sign of gross incompetence shown by Mr. Brady, this should be the final straw. It's has been a very large straw, truly a backbreaker.

Posted by: Kitt | March 24, 2006 02:21 PM

Personally, I hope that they replace this guy with a conservative.

Posted by: Virginia Centrist | March 24, 2006 02:22 PM

Mr. Brady,

Just as Howell Raines stepped down as a result of the Jason Blair scandal, so should you take responsibility for this shameful affair and follow Domenech out the door.

You have brought disgrace to the Washington Post: first in your disingenuous and defensive response to the Deborah Howell/Abramoff fiasco, then in carelessly hiring this clearly unqualified partisan hack out of some still unexplained need to provide a voice to "Red America" and/or to counterbalance the experienced journalism of Dan Froomkin.

Do the right thing, not the Rightwing thing this time, and resign.

Posted by: Bragan | March 24, 2006 02:22 PM

I used to be a regular Post reader, it was the very model of what a paper should be. Dig for the facts, print the truth & damn the consequences. But it became obvious during the 90s that that was no longer the driving force of the paper. Their treatment on the Clinton admin & the right's - almost always silly - attempts at smearing them. It seemed to get even worse after their complete take over of the Federal govt.

The Post is now mostly a tool of the right (unwittingly I hope) as they treat any opinion as valid & fact are fungible. The Post should note however that has not stopped the right from attacking them. There will be no peace from the right until the Post ignores any 'inconvienient' facts and hews to the right's fantacy world. So you might just as well give up trying to appease them, just reprint the DC Times under your banner that might make them lay off a little.

In the meantime sir I am still waiting for your apology and an explination.

Posted by: Clear Thinking | March 24, 2006 02:22 PM

We are all plagiarists now.

Posted by: zudz | March 24, 2006 02:22 PM

Any résumé listing "Bush Administration" needs to be dumped onto the "Unqualified" pile. Bush sought to hire those who could prove that government doesn't work. He filled the federal govenment with Michael Browns.

I'll bet Executive Editor Brady won't get it. He's probably already returning K-Street Project messages on who should replace his boy Domenech. Plus he wants so badly to stick it to his critics, WaPo's reputation be damned.

At least that's how it appears out here, outside the beltway, in real America.

Posted by: deben | March 24, 2006 02:22 PM

I appreciate the attention, by the way." -- Ben Domenech

Always happy to help.

Posted by: The blogsphere | March 24, 2006 02:22 PM

Next time you should be a little more careful with your hires. And if you want to hire explicit partisans, there should be one for each side.

You don't need to balance reporters reporting facts with conservatives venting their ire.

Posted by: JoshA | March 24, 2006 02:22 PM

HOORAY!

Posted by: Sparky jr | March 24, 2006 02:23 PM

>

Sad to say, but the National Enquirer is more accurate and probing than today's WaPo and most other major newspapers.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 24, 2006 02:23 PM

Hey Brady, did a neo-con in the white house write that for you?

Posted by: beyond paranoid | March 24, 2006 02:23 PM

Look, EVERYTHING neo-con has been exposed as garbage. Isn't one of them smart enough to try some REAL reform and maybe look like a Hero and a Maverick. It's not like the ocean of filth that is the GOP is just going to evaporate and people will forget it. The neo-con movement is just about dead and it is just BEGINNING to be exposed for the lie factory it is. What is going to happen when it is totally naked?!

Posted by: Walt` | March 24, 2006 02:23 PM

Well thank goodness you at least find plagarism a firing-offense. Too bad you didn't find being an obnoxious idiot a non-hiring offense.

You'll be resigning when?

Posted by: gregariousred | March 24, 2006 02:23 PM

the wapoonline hires this hack to "balance" the alleged liberal leanings of froomkim...

why is anyone who questions the falsehoods, spinning, and incompetencies of the administration a "liberal"?

they used to be called journalists.

Posted by: dachoste | March 24, 2006 02:23 PM

I think the WaPo.com is doing the right thing - as well as Mr. Domenech.

And to those of you calling for Mr. Brady's resignation or ridiculing the mistake - I hope the same thing happens to you when you make a mistake at work - hundreds of people laughing at you.

Should be fun...for me to watch.

Posted by: Danielle from Gmail | March 24, 2006 02:24 PM

If Mr. Brady lacks the necessary cojones to resign for being such a stupid fool, then he should be fired. To have hired such a total nitwit in the first place was inexcusable, but not to have checked his bona fides before posting his bigoted vomitus is truly beyond the pale.
Apparently, Mr. Brady thinks that the closer WaPo is to the Moonie Times as a mouthpiece for the far right wingnuts, the better it will be as a paper. Right now, WaPo isn't fit to use as fishwrap. And if Brady is so keen on getting a rightwing hack to blog, all he has to do is use Howie the Putz, who already soils the pages of the Post with his infantile whining.
If Brady could get his head out of his own backside for a few minutes, he might be able to see that he is totally clueless about blogging, and probably about journalism as a whole. Whether he is capable of learning anything is another issue. His recent performance makes me doubt that he could find his butt with both hands, a flashlight, a search warrant and two people to help him. That must be why he hired Domenech---they have so much in common!

Posted by: shbish | March 24, 2006 02:24 PM

at least the post deals with its problems faster than the GOP and Bush people do. Maybe copycat can teach his pals something now.....

Posted by: Well.... | March 24, 2006 02:25 PM

Here is a novel idea: Instead of Mr. Brady resigning, how about he atones for his sins by devoting his life, and mission of the Washington Post Online, to the TRUTH, no matter where it takes the paper, and who is brings down with it? Enough of this left-spin, right-spin balancing-act garbage! Report the facts and quit worrying about what Karl Rove might think...

Posted by: Ken in MN | March 24, 2006 02:25 PM

No need for the Right WingNuts to attack the credibility of WaPo, you've done it to yourselves so efficiently that you don't have any left.

Posted by: BillFromPA | March 24, 2006 02:25 PM

why don't you hire Byron York? He's more or less the only movement conservative with actual journalism credentials.

Posted by: helpful observer | March 24, 2006 02:25 PM

Personally, my first reaction to the addition of a right-wing blog was "say, that's a good idea". There's no denying the Post's liberal bias(just look at which stories get pushed to the top of the webpage... I never thought things like "President's poll numbers at record low" was front-page news, but that's just me.) and I don't think the Post would suffer from publishing a few more authors from the right side of the line. Just... stay away from the O'Reillys. I KNOW there are conservatives out there with worthwhile things to say. Let's publish them instead of the hacks, please?

Posted by: I. Cole | March 24, 2006 02:25 PM

Hiring Jane Hamsher would be the smartest think you ever did. Not only would you get professional quality stuff, you would get her out of your grill. And I think the suggestion of hiring J.C. Christian, Patriot is a good one because he's heterosexual and not French.

Posted by: LowLife | March 24, 2006 02:26 PM

How in God's name did you get caught with your pants around your ankles so badly? Within hours a community of amateurs outed Domenech as a racist and a homophobe; within a day, they found out he was a plagiarist and a fabricator as well. Wasn't this YOUR job? Aren't YOU the journalists?

People keep saying that blogs will take over the job of newspapers, as the press proves itself more and more stupefyingly incompetent. You've just taken one large step closer to making that prediction come true. Congratulations, idiots.

Posted by: Max Black | March 24, 2006 02:26 PM

Thank you Washington Post for exposing the right wing for what it really stands for. This blogger regularly and plainly wrote about his racist, hateful views for all to see. Mr. Brady obviously upholds this ideology in such high regard as to tarnish The Post's reputation by giving Ben a voice.
I hope you offer your resignation next, Mr. Brady. I hear Talon News is looking for a replacement. Perhaps they will suit you better.

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | March 24, 2006 02:27 PM

Thank God Ben Domenech was exposed for the right-wing impostor that he is. But who can forget or forgive The Post for hiring him in the first place?

Posted by: Judy | March 24, 2006 02:27 PM

Leonidas wrote"

This is ridiculous. Are you going to force Froomkin to resign now, too? He's a plagiarist as well. But I guess you don't mind, since he's a libera like you are.

------------------------
Leonidas

Boy you really don't get it do you? It is no wonder so many "redstater" are the way they are, fact mean nothing to you people.

Posted by: fedup | March 24, 2006 02:27 PM

I'm glad he has resigned, but I think you made a mistake in the first place in hiring a mouthpiece and not a thinker. Ben did not bring either good writing or thoughtful opionions to the table.

There are tons of great conservative bloggers, they may be more expensive then Mr. Domenech, but they will server your needs far better.

Posted by: Ted | March 24, 2006 02:27 PM

My question is: Why didn't you do a more thorough background check and a summary check of his past writings?

Posted by: Katherine | March 24, 2006 02:27 PM

This is what I call a "cringer." I don't believe in telling people they should resign or apologize -- that's everyone's own decision. But I'm reminded of the scene in The Godfather, Part II where Tom Hagen visits Frankie Pentangeli in prison and has a little chat about the Roman emperors committing suicide when honor demanded it. Very subtle, but the message is clear.

The writing's on the wall, kids. It's better to just leave than stay on as a constant reminder of the disgrace you've brought to your employer.

And that's the word for it: disgraceful.

Posted by: Seth | March 24, 2006 02:27 PM

Weird. The Post did something right for a change.
You guys are starting to scare me.

Posted by: John. | March 24, 2006 02:27 PM

It appears that we no longer need the services of right wing media critics. The left can savage media outlets that appear to stray from the left-center quite well by themselves, thank you.

Posted by: CT | March 24, 2006 02:28 PM

That's great Brady.

NOW WHERE IS THE "EVIDENCE" you claim to have proving Abramhoff "directed" funds to Democrats?

Correct your error, or provide the evidence. Simple. WE ARE STILL WAITING JIMBO. WE ARE STILL WAITING LIL DEBBIE.

Posted by: Alaskan_Pete | March 24, 2006 02:28 PM

He did not seem to be a terribly interesting writer, so good riddance to bad rubbish. Well, at least he's wasn't a shoplifter, but his bad experience with the liberal media may well make one of him.

Posted by: Tom Canick | March 24, 2006 02:28 PM

Plagiarism is indeed a serious offense. Mr Domenech had no option but to resign, and The Post would have had no option but to fire him if he had refused to do so.

I hope that this sorry affair is not left at that, though.

The readers of the Washington Post deserve a full and transparent account of how and why Mr Domench was hired, and how and why his very easily detectable plagiarism went unnoticed.

This account should be written by an independent authority, by the way, a respected figure with extensive journalistic credentials who is NOT associated with the Washington Post. Unfortunately, the Washington Post's credibility has been so seriously damaged by this and previous incidents that no lesser action will restore it, for me and for many others as well.

I look forward to the publication of such a report.

Until that time, I am sorry to say that I have no faith whatsoever in the professionalism of those who run the Washington Post's web site.

Posted by: Thers | March 24, 2006 02:28 PM

I agree, now that young Ben has some time on hands, he can show his Red State, Conservative Patriotism and go join the armed forces, do some boot camp and head on over to Iraq. Put some of his bloviations where his pie hole is and show that he's a real man and not just some punk spewing crap.
Nahhhh, a sissy boy and couldn't handle boot camp much less a real tour of duty.

Posted by: val | March 24, 2006 02:29 PM

If this bozo hadn't "resigned" or *been* resigned, the media world in general would owe a big fat apology to Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair.

Posted by: PhylG | March 24, 2006 02:29 PM

Although I was just playing around with this whole 'plagarizing' thing one less Ben Dominech in the world is a good thing in my book.

And, lets face it, it's nothing that Ben wouldn't write to people he despised.

Posted by: My Name Is | March 24, 2006 02:29 PM

Can't say that I'm sad to see this happen. Never mind the schadenfreude that comes from seeing a conservative gas bag resign under embarassing circumstances. This is a stink bomb that blew up in WashPost.com's face as well. Mr. Brady, are you really all that surprised to find that someone who is simply a talking head, and not an actual journalist, can't/doesn't meet minimum thresholds of integrity that should apply to the work of all writers, journalist or otherwise? You know, WashPost.com does not employ a self-described, dyed-in-the-wool liberal Blue State blogger. Why the need to host the thoughts and comments of someone who specifically speaks to the Red State point of view? Why even contribute to the perpetuation of this poisonous divide?

Doug
Washington, DC

Posted by: Doug | March 24, 2006 02:29 PM

Bwhaaahahahahahahahah!!!

Posted by: FrEd | March 24, 2006 02:29 PM

Both Brady and Kurtz should resign. How pathetic. "Uhh. We didn't know... anything about his writing... that's why we hired him, for his fine sterling non-degree'd home-schooled redstate credentials." The Post is as professional as the current geniuses running the country." Wow. Heck've a job!

P.S. When will you balance out the debate on slavery? On the holocaust? Pederasty? What makes anyone think there is such a thing as balance on all topics? How stupid are the people seeking "balance?" on topics only marginalized losers claim to present the "other side?"

And all of this in public!

Posted by: kenny | March 24, 2006 02:29 PM

So...this (the announcement of resignation) means that you're not "sorry" for hiring this shill and plagarist. You're not "sorry" for hiring someone who was not vetted properly. You're simply not "sorry". Well, that's just great! It seems to me that editors used to be responsible for the actions of their publications...but, now, we can't even trust our 4th estate to do its job right. Excellent!

Posted by: YoungLeftist | March 24, 2006 02:29 PM

Let's see....you lay off reporters in the newsroom and hire this guy?

Bush economics! Great job! Now, in the spirit of the Bush Administration, how about hiring him back as....oh, I don't know...head of the editorial staff?!

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 02:29 PM

Whoever hired Ben Domenech should resign or be fired, too. What terrible judgement.

Oh wait. It was Jim Brady.

Never mind.

Posted by: Libby Sosume | March 24, 2006 02:30 PM

Yet another nail in the coffin of the establishment media.

The information revolution is at hand and unless you wake up, you will continue to be on the losing end.

Posted by: Rob | March 24, 2006 02:30 PM

Mr. Brady,

How was Domenech hired? You would do well to shine some light on that process. Did you find his resume on craigslist? What he recommended by someone? Did someone call in a favor? It's more than just poor vetting. That comes after you find your candidate. How did you find hime in the first place?

Posted by: brad | March 24, 2006 02:30 PM

Oh, and I notice you didn't bother to comment on the people suggesting he enlist?

Posted by: My Name Is | March 24, 2006 02:30 PM

Ben Domenech has resigned from the once-proud Washington Post. Who will be his replacement--JEFF GANNON?

Posted by: Johanna | March 24, 2006 02:30 PM

As I mentioned yesterday, I am also 24, with no credentials whatsoever. I grew up in a red state, too. However, my mama and daddy taught me that you never take credit for something you didn't do, so I have never plagiarized anything in my entire life. May I have my own Washington Post-sponsored blog, please? I'm almost sorry for y'all that something this ridiculous went down on your watch, but maybe this will be a lesson to use the Internet to your advantage. If the blogosphere figured this out, you should've as well. Let's hope you choose better next time.

And as for my blog, think about it! :)

Posted by: bamagirlinVA | March 24, 2006 02:31 PM

Q: What's black and white and red all over?

A: WaPo

Posted by: The Riddler | March 24, 2006 02:31 PM

Well done folks. Little late but whatever .

I nominate Noam Chomsky to replace Ben since political ideology is not the metric by which your columnists are chosen, and Mr. Chomsky tirelessly researches his claims and backs them all up usually from Government Documentary Sources. You won't ever have to fear he's lifting from others except where it's noted scrupulously. And he's always controversial.
I think also you might send some Dingaling, ( that's cash BTW, currency, checks, money orders , wire transfers) along to the left wing bloggers that normally get sneering condescension from the WAPO and in this case actually did the job that should have been done by your own staff long before young ( and now departed) Ben ever arrived in print.
Thanks to the readership who exposed your golden boy for a Bunko Artist , they deserve a long-term respect as vigilant citizens who value the tenants of journalism.
PS : They did not track down his grievous misdeeds because he was an inexperienced political appointee, but rather because they smelled a rat and were right.

Posted by: A.Scott | March 24, 2006 02:31 PM

Brady has to go.

The fact is that, even before the plagiarism proof showed up, there were tons of reasons why Ben D. should have been "suspended" --- the lies, the racism, the fake quote from Russert. etc.

Brady needs to answer the question: WHY Ben Domenech? What was the process by which he was chosen?

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 24, 2006 02:31 PM

That's great, maybe you can dump George Will next. You know, the guy who referred to Bill Clinton as a rapist, repeatedly, without anything appoaching evidence. I mean, does it get any slimier than that?

Posted by: Noam Sane | March 24, 2006 02:31 PM

Mr. Brady- it's the bloggers you should thank because they basically did your job for you with respect to finding these bits of plagiarized material. You know, the bloggers whom you frequently lash out at, probably for that very reason? Did it ever occur to you over these long months that much of the very harsh criticism of you, Howell and the Post is actually VALID?

Probably not.

The Ben situation raises serious questions about how you choose people for the post.blog- did you guys look into Ben's writing/posting history at all? Why did it take your readers/bloggers to figure this out- have you even bothered asking yourself this? Or was it simply enough that he was a right wing shill with connections in the White House and someone who would undoubtedly keep your conservative minders happy?

This is yet ANOTHER shameful chapter for the WaPo. Unfortunately, the way you try to distance yourself, and the WaPo from the revelations about Ben, shows that you haven't learned one damn thing throughout any of this.

You are a disgrace to journalism.
***
-Stacy
Cafe Politico

Posted by: Stacy | March 24, 2006 02:32 PM

What's up with the Washington Post, both print and online versions? It wasglaringly apparent in the cases of pre-Iraq War coverage that you people didn't know how to google. During the run up to the War, it usually took me about 10 minutes googling to disprove most of the adminstration's assertions that your paper ran unchallenged. That was pathetic and tragic.

And now this comedy of errors with Domenech. Here's what you do. Enter random quotes of your new hires into google within quotation marks. Voila! Due diligence is really, really, easy.

You know what they say, "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice... can't get fooled again."

Posted by: peter thom | March 24, 2006 02:32 PM

Hang in there Brady! Don't respond to these leftwing bloviators with their "you're an organ of the extreme right if you don't spend 24/7 advocating the overthrow of this administration" attitude. They're just po'd and frustrated.

Posted by: Stick | March 24, 2006 02:32 PM

When you step in something unpleasant, it makes sense to scrape it off your shoe as quickly as possible.

Now, how long can Brady restrain himself from tap-dancing in the right-wing dog run again?

Posted by: keepemflying | March 24, 2006 02:32 PM

You are unable even to properly vet someone you hire? No wonder you make a hash of that whole "investigative journalamism" thing.

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 24, 2006 02:32 PM

Good for you, Mr. Brady, now is your turn.

Resign, is way overdue.

Do you know about something called "background check"?

Do you practice elementary research on your workers' prior writings?

You are very unprofessional, Sir. The Washington Post had institutional prestige before people like you started to work for the paper.

"We were not aware of it..."

Please, Mr. Brady, how old are you?

Posted by: Raul Vergara | March 24, 2006 02:32 PM

Jim Brady should resign. This happened on his watch and he should take responsibility.

Posted by: steph | March 24, 2006 02:33 PM

How can I apply for the Post's Young Republican Affirmative Action Program?

Posted by: Teapot Dome | March 24, 2006 02:33 PM

Hey Brownie, oops I mean Brady "Doing a "heck of a job."

Posted by: PapaWahala | March 24, 2006 02:33 PM

Please continue to cancel your subscription unless those responsible for this conservative-affirmative-action hire also resign. This is a coordinated attempt by the Post and GOP to misinform the public so this corrupt administration can remain in power to pursue a disastrous foreign policy that will backrupt our economy. The Post's management have been a disservice to DC's black majority (Mr. Domenech called Ms. King a commie!) and the nation as a whole with its blatant biased Pravda-like reprinting of the GOP's war rhetoric and talking points without any vetting for the truth nor concern for objective reporting.

Posted by: Nigel Elliott | March 24, 2006 02:33 PM

Aren't the bloggers grand? They were on top of this for days. I have never felt more informed than from the bloggers of consequence.
Ameriblog, Firedoglake, Juan Cole, Kos, Talking Points Memo, The Raw Story, Digby, Firedoglake has very good writers.
Without the bloggers/reporters and their investigations America would be so out of touch. Thank you Bloggers.
Hire a real reporter for your blog. That is the future.

Posted by: dolly lanna | March 24, 2006 02:34 PM

The *WASHINGTON POST* hires a 20-something spoiled, home-schooled brat with no actual experience, accomplishments, credentials, college degrees and with a shady background of plagarizing and racism to write their own column!?! Anyone with that background who didn't have Demenesh's dad's connections would have been laughed out of the job interview. Pathetic, sad, stupid and unforgivable. I'm UNSUBSCRIBING TODAY!

Posted by: Pure Cronyism | March 24, 2006 02:34 PM

Journalistic integrity? May we sue the WaPo for deceptive business practices?

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 24, 2006 02:34 PM

Jim Brady does not owe YOU--readers, bloggers, left-wingers zealots, get-a-lifers--an apology.

Jim Brady does not owe YOU an explanation of the editorial dais of Post.com.

Jim Brady does not owe YOU his resignation.

Jim Brady does not owe YOU more than what he outlined in his letter, which he does not owe YOU. But he did anyhow.

It's just a stupid blog, people. Opinion. Mindless, in fact. But any experienced or old-school journalist--real journalists--not these loudmouth young, irresponsible wanna-bes who are too phat on their a-- to actually work nights, weekends, the beats--to learn how anything about the business.

And one bonehead blog does not tar Post.com, or the newspaper, or anything more than a few exasperating knuckleheads with nothing better to do during the day. If you believe otherwise, see my brochure on some great marlin fishing at Austin's Lake Travis.

Scream into the ether all you want, idiots.

Posted by: It's Opinion, Idiots | March 24, 2006 02:34 PM

Heck of a job, Brady.

Posted by: W | March 24, 2006 02:35 PM

If it weren't for those meddling kids!!

Posted by: Brady and Howell | March 24, 2006 02:35 PM

Too late loved I Thee, O Thou Integrity of ancient days, yet ever new! too late I loved Thee! And behold, Thou wert within, and I abroad, and there I searched for Thee; deformed I, plunging amid those fair forms which Thou hadst made. Thou wert with me, but I was not with Thee. Things held me far from Thee, which, unless they were in Thee, were not at all. Thou calledst, and shoutedst, and burstest my deafness. Thou flashedst, shonest, and scatteredst my blindness. Thou breathedst odours, and I drew in breath and panted for Thee. I tasted, and hunger and thirst. Thou touchedst me, and I burned for Thy honor.

....

Thou enjoinest honesty: give me what Thou enjoinest, and enjoin what Thou wilt.

Posted by: StonyPillow | March 24, 2006 02:35 PM

What kind of high standards can the public expect from a publication that can't do a thorough investigation of a new hire in the first place?

I'm sorry - but if you are looking for diverse opinions out there, how about looking at some opinions representing the 75% of Americans who are unhappy with Congress and the 60%+ Americans who are unhappy with the current Administration? Is there SOME reason why this newspaper, along with most others, can't seem to get any finger on the pulse of the growing anger of the American public with it's own governing institutions? WHERE is that point of view represented?

If the Post is so infantile in its definition of "liberal" and "social conservative" that it can only identify ideological demagogues as representation of "diverse" voices in this country, it isn't going to matter who you put up as that voice - the same overwhelming majority of people in this country are still not being addressed.

I am not interested in reading still another tantrum from some extremist viewpoint on any side of the spectrum. Period. It serves no purpose.

Posted by: Kevin | March 24, 2006 02:35 PM

Face it kids, Jim's not apologizing, he's SCOLDING us for being so MEAN to his little protege. If Benry Chickenhawk (where'd the nickname Box Turtle come from?) didn't resign because we were so MEAN to him, you know Jim Brady would have kept him on, and promoted his nepotistic home-schooled young-earther ass within months.

And Jimbo'd never hire anyone to balance Benry. Because Benry was hired to balance out THOSE LEFTIST MONSTERS who report criticism instead of just spewing criticism.

Jim and Benry are obviously in the field of Journalism like Leni Riefenstahl was a documentary maker.

Posted by: Taniwha | March 24, 2006 02:36 PM

This just in, Ben Domenech will be replacing Cheney as the new Vice President. No experience, no degree, no integrity, no mind.

"Perfect fit," said a senior Adminisration official. "Our President couldn't be happier. They'll be two peas in a pod."

More details soon.

Posted by: Washington Times Press Corp. | March 24, 2006 02:36 PM

it's time to clean house at WaPo! You losers are a disgrace to journalism. which is a shame, considering your history...

please bring us the evidence of Abramoff "directing" Indian Casino money to Democrats. we are all waiting for you to back up your claim with evidence. it's called journalism... or do you call it Faux news?

you are shills!
Jim Brady, please resign now before this gets anymore embarassing. and take Deborah Howell with you!

Posted by: truthseeker | March 24, 2006 02:36 PM

Man Dan Froomkin sure picked the wrong day to be "away."

Posted by: Larry, New Orleans | March 24, 2006 02:37 PM

Mr. Brady,

With some reservations, I applaud your stance on this matter. At least you didn't stick by your guns and defend the hire. I can only hope Mr. Domenech's "resignation" was in name only, in lieu of being summarily dismissed.

As many others have pointed out, Domenech's initial hiring was plainly handled poorly, and your motivation for seeking such a person in the first place is surely open to serious question. When someone writes about the Holocaust, you don't hire David Irving to present "the other side of the story."

Without a doubt Domenech will now be welcomed back to the reactionary fold as a "martyr" for his cause. You cannot hire someone like this to appease the right's calls for more "balance" to offset "liberal bias." They will NEVER stop accusing you of bias, because the accuracy of the accusation is irrelevant to them.

If you feel the need to hire another "right-wing" blogger, it really is incumbent on you to also hire a "left-wing" blogger. And no, Dan Froomkin doesn't count.

Posted by: Alek Hidell | March 24, 2006 02:37 PM

As someone else stated elsewhere, this is the outcome of using overt partisan opinion like that of Box Turtle Ben as a counterbalance to actual journalism in order to appease people who make careers out of being outraged over one thing or another.

the presentation of unflattering truths is not bias, the withholding or distortion of those facts to appease and assist those who can be damaged by those unflattering truths is

Posted by: The Crapture | March 24, 2006 02:37 PM

----------Blogs 1
Washington Post 0

Posted by: Score | March 24, 2006 02:38 PM

Mr. Brady, now is your turn to resign. The Washington Post used to have institutional prestige before people like you started to work there.

Time to get it back.

You unprofessional behavior and downright amateurism is causing a major debacle for the Post', Mr. Brady.

Go home, Mr. Brady, I am sure the White House can use you in some way, this is the lowest (yet) mark for the once decen Washington Post.

Posted by: Raul-V | March 24, 2006 02:38 PM

An earlier poster writes that he/she thinks the Post is handling this "perfectly." Nope, not even close. A "perfect" handling of this would have been if Brady would have done his homework FIRST--before hiring this 24-year-old, wet-behind-the-ears, no-talent, no-journalism-credentials, abusive, bigoted hack. Why is it so many right-wing nutcases, like this guy, are so hateful in their writing and speech? They never argue anything on merit--just fire away indiscriminately at the messengers.

Posted by: Petersjo | March 24, 2006 02:38 PM

to "It's Opinion":

"And one bonehead blog does not tar Post.com"

Yeah, it does. Deal.

Posted by: Taniwha | March 24, 2006 02:38 PM

The blogs were all over this while you Bu$hCo lovers were patting yourselves on the back about this great hire. When will your editor and most of the editorial board be resigning? The WP used to be a mostly good paper but now it's not even good enough to use for wrapping dead, stinking fish.

Posted by: tibor | March 24, 2006 02:38 PM

Since when is journalism a requirement to be a blogger? I thought the whole point of the blogesphere was that anyone can join.

Posted by: Hoorah | March 24, 2006 02:39 PM

And About those Documents Deb H has showing Abramoff directed donations to both parties from Casino Clients?

Haven't forgotten , not gonna.

So , About those Documents Deb H has showing ....So , about those Docs DebH Has , soabouthtosedocumentsDebHhasshowingAbramofdirected......

Posted by: A.Scott | March 24, 2006 02:39 PM

I'm sorry to hear that Ben is out of work. I'm not sorry to hear he is out of work for being aplagerizer though. But since he is out of work I am willing to offer him a tip on finding a new job.

Republicans and conservatives seems to be all gung ho over the war and the military. The military is facing a manpower shortage. Ben is a conservative and of the right age to serve. I found that while I was in the slightly older troops made for better soldiers due to their maturity. As a 24 year old Ben would be a perfect age for providing stability and guidance for those young tropps. So Ben give your local recruiter a call, the marines and Army are particularly short of recruits.

Posted by: Mark | March 24, 2006 02:39 PM

Had enough "moral values" yet, America?

Don't forget, these were "youthful indiscretions". I'm sure at some point Mr. Domenech will be "born again". Then his dishonest past won't matter because he'll be on a first-name basis with the Creator and therefore be more worthy than all the rest of us.

But first throw some illegal drugs in the mix and some failed businesses and then you're talking real GOP presidential material.

One more thing would really seal the deal - he needs a military draft to dodge. C'mon Cheney, get a move on with that Iran war!

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 24, 2006 02:39 PM

Plagiarism? This seems the least of the Post"s worries. If the Editorial Board feels it necessary to "balance" their coverage with a political hack, then they need re-examine their own journalistic credentials. The Post seems to hhave lost its way over the last ten years or so. Where once one could count on a relatively unbiased reporting of the facts as well as balanced analyis, today the Post has veered right in the erroneous belief that America is heading right. Wrong. America is not heading right just because the GOP has organized religious zealots (who by the way don't read the paper), America simply wants an honest paper that doesn't chase partisan opinions in the hopes of enhanced circulation and the riches theirin.
N.M. Acker

Posted by: N.M . Acker | March 24, 2006 02:39 PM

While the hiring of a 24 year old political operative and right-wing blogger to balance a career journalist is wildly problematic in and of itself, your conduct regarding Mr. Domenech's plagiarism has been pretty good. The dismissive attitude expressed by the WashingtonPost.com, toward those who felt that a “Blue State” blogger should have been hired at the same time, deeply troubled me. When the obvious instances of plagiarism came to light, I worried those would be similarly dismissed as sour grapes instead of legitimate criticism and concern.

I appreciate that you haven’t stooped to excuse-making for you new hire by claiming Mr. Domenech's obvious and on-going plagiarism was due to youthful indiscretion or that it’s so easy to accidentally plagiarize everybody does it. I’m relieved that you accepted Mr. Domenech's resignation and I look forward to your investigation of these instances of literary and journalistic theft.

Before you try to “balance” your .com operations by hiring another Republican political operative (presumably with thoroughly vetted credentials) please consider bringing actual balance to the .com side of things with a voice from each side of the political and cultural divide by hiring from both sides of that divide.

Posted by: SDK | March 24, 2006 02:39 PM

If I were you Mr. Brady, I'd send Jane Hamsher flowers.

Posted by: jinny | March 24, 2006 02:40 PM

If I ran my business with the same due diligence that the Post uses with its hiring of writers... well, I wouldn't have a business anymore.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Post was so desperate to appease the whiners on the right clamoring for polemic to balance journalism that it hired someone as obviously unqualified and toxic as Domenech to write under its once-proud masthead.

Domenech may be gone but the cancer at the Post remains.

Posted by: chris | March 24, 2006 02:40 PM

Dear Mr Brady, if I read your comments right, you appear to be saying that plagiarism is bad, but the other charges, such as racisim, are not a problem. Are you and the Washington Post going to take some responsibility and address these issues? And if not, what is it exactly that makes you part of and not the antithesis of the fourth estate?

Posted by: dtinca | March 24, 2006 02:40 PM

How on earth could you read one or two of his columns and hire him? That is the big question. Is that where you want to take the nation? Further down the road to right wing propaganda hell? By now can't you see where they are taking our once great nation? Isn't it obvious?

There are a lot of people out there with experience and an understanding of the world which goes beyond hack rightwing propaganda.

Does the WP now see it as its role to subsidize young right wing propaganda which had previously been Sun Myung Moon's job as the right's messiah?

You need to look a lot deeper to see what is wrong here, a whole lot deeper.

Posted by: Ann B. | March 24, 2006 02:40 PM

>The tone in some of these comments is more negative than I
>think is necessary. WaPo.com goofed, they investigated, the guy
>resigned. A better background check and more experience
>would be a plus in a future hire, but it's not for us to decide who
>the WaPo hires.

I agree except for the last bit--it's not to decide, but we can be insulted by who they hire. I agree with Josh Marshall that it was insulting to have a name-calling (former!) partisan operative put up under the Washington Post name, and be told it was NOT just to hire a "conservative" blogger to pacify right-wingers. Despite that Deborah Howell had suggested the post.com would do exactly that.

Now this last bit, "We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area." Brady, you have to throw a sop to people who would argue he was only forced out for serial plagiarism because he was a conservative? Surely those people exist, but you have to acknowledge them?

This isn't about ideology. Your sister publication on wood (the print Post) gives paychecks, health insurance, and offices to George Will and Charles Krauthammer, among others. Some of the comments from the left are too negative, but ask yourself who your friends are!

PS. I live in DC and subscribe to the print post and read it every day. And will continue to do so.

Posted by: Mike S. | March 24, 2006 02:40 PM

I think I'll stick with the Philadelphia Inquirer, if it isn't sold already. At least when I say I read the Inquirer, people hear "the Enquirer," and I give newspapers only as much credibility as the average checkout-lane rag anyway, so why bother correcting them by differentiating "Philadelphia" from "National" in the first place?

God, it's a sad day to be an editor.

Posted by: Spike Jonze | March 24, 2006 02:40 PM

Jim Brady: resign now.

Posted by: Jon Meltzer | March 24, 2006 02:40 PM

It seems to me the problem comes of hiring someone because of his predisposition rather than his experience. What on Ben Bernache's resume showed him to be ready for a position writing for a major publication such as the Post? Why woud you hire him over someone with a lifetime of experience, with a Ph. D. in economics or international affairs, with well-researched published works to his or her name?

Oh, right. Anyone who has actual experience like that is dismissed as a 'lefty blogger', and would not be allowed a voice here.

And that's the Post's problem. The Post has been intimidated from hiring anyone who actually knows what he's writing about, and is now purposefully hiring 24-year-old college dropouts who haven't even a whiff of knowledge or experience. I guess the assumption is that a large portion of the population is ignorant, and ignorant people's voices should be represented, too?

All you need to do is go back to hiring people who actually know what they are talking about. Do that and you won't have problems like this. Of course the Right will scream. But as I'm sure you realize by now, they're going to scream no matter what you do. It's what they do. Giving the public the best information available is what you do--or used to, anyway. How long must we wait for you to get back to doing that?

Posted by: Historicus | March 24, 2006 02:40 PM

We had a rat in our pantry...kept stealing, eating our food...but real sneaky like...he'd stay hidden under the floor. Then one day I threw the neighbor's little terrier under the house...

Posted by: Marrak | March 24, 2006 02:41 PM

So what finally brought you to your senses? Was it the many many progressive and moderate bloggers who figured out that a plagiarist/racist has no place in the Post? Or was it when conservative bloggers finally turned on him? Seems convenient that you basically ignored the criticism - Kurtz even resopnded by suggesting that there was no story here - until Michelle Malkin came out agreeing that plagiarism is in fact a bad thing. Did you think this was baseless partisanship until one of your own jumped in?

Posted by: polychrome | March 24, 2006 02:41 PM

Dear Jim,

You wrote:

"Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism."

Three comments:

1) The Internet shouldn't have to the place of a Human Resources Department, which should have vetted this guy.

2) Little whiny Bennie is a shallow right-wing nut case who has no journalistic expeience. That you even CONSIDERED hiring him in the fist place says a lot about your decision-making abilities.

3) If the Internet were so poweful, you would have been gone today as well for making the UNBELIEVABLYy stupid decision to hire him in the first place.

AND...

I hope you referred whiny, shallow little Bennie to THIS internet site:

www.marines.com

Maybe a stint with the Marines in Anbar province will put a little spine in that whiny yellow chicken hawk. I mean, REALLY! Blaming the college plagarism charges on his college paper editor! PUH-LEEZE!

Posted by: Anne | March 24, 2006 02:41 PM

Wow. What a totla f*ck up by the Post. Anybody associated with this hiring should be promptly fired. What were you thinking? If you want to give racists and America-haters a forum, at least make sure their hate is their own, not copied from another.

Posted by: Redglare | March 24, 2006 02:41 PM

***
Scream into the ether all you want, idiots.

Posted by: It's Opinion, Idiots | March 24, 2006 02:34 PM
***

I belive that sound you are hearing is thunderous laughter, not screaming. :-)

Also if you think this fiasco WON'T impact The Post's reputation, then I would suggest you pour the rest of your drink down the sink. You've clearly had too much already and it's clouding your thinking.

Posted by: Boosterz | March 24, 2006 02:42 PM

"Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of."

Ending a sentence with preposition is a pretty serious offense too, but I would think libel is the most serious offense that a writer could commit.

Posted by: J. M. Deutch | March 24, 2006 02:42 PM

Brady should take responsibility for this and explain his actions.

Or he should resign.

Posted by: Beady | March 24, 2006 02:42 PM

If you're going to hire someone to shill for the Bushies, couldn't you at least find someone who had a college degree?

This is as bad as that conservative kid at NASA who was editing the scientists' papers without any qualifications.

What's wrong with you? Are you all a bunch of hacks?

Posted by: Mike, Chicago | March 24, 2006 02:42 PM

"We were not aware of it..."?

Mr. Brady, please. These allegations did not "surface", they were the result of those "amateur bloggers" doing some basic journalistic research.

The Washington Post should be ashamed and try to regain some of its past institutional prestige.

Regards

Posted by: Raul VB | March 24, 2006 02:42 PM

You know, I'm beginning to understand why conservatives seem to get better jobs than liberals do - conservatives lie and no one checks them out. If only I'd known, I could be running General Electric by now.

Some commenters here have suggested getting a more honest conservative (as long as you make the rare decision to also add a liberal), like Glenn Greenwald; he would certainly be a fine addition to any publication.

But you're still left with the essential problem, which is that anyone who has any principles left no longer identifies with the modern GOP, and thus the remainder of the conservative movement dismisses them as "a liberal".

In other words, there is NO ONE who would be acceptable to movement conservatives who has integrity.

And that's your mistake. The further to the right The Washington Post has moved, the less reliable - less professional - its content has become.

At the same time it has increasingly represented an ideology that is anathema to the majority of Americans and is particularly hostile to its local subscribers - imagine hiring a racist to write for a paper in, of all cities, Washington, DC!

And there is your real problem: You simply don't recognize that the very ideology of the conservatives who attack you for being "liberal" is that they oppose the existance of good, responsible journalism, as well as American-style Democracy and the whole of the First Amendment. They have no business working at any respectable paper.

Posted by: Avedon | March 24, 2006 02:42 PM

"Maintain journalistic integrity"??
Huh?
One of the nation's leading newspapers hires a partisan opinion flinger with many political connections and no journalist experience and NOW you think a standard of journalistic integrity should be maintained?
Stop foolin' yourselves.

Posted by: Max | March 24, 2006 02:43 PM

----------Blogs 1
Washington Post 0

Posted by: Score | March 24, 2006 02:38 PM


Actually it's a rout and the blogs have run up the score.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 24, 2006 02:43 PM

Gee, Jim Brady:
you're doin' a Heckuva Job there !!!

You really should vet these right-wingers a little more.... they twist the truth a lot. (I call it lying). And in venues such as Fox (aka Faux) News and DrugRush Limbaugh, nobody ever calls them on their lies, so they get a false sense of righteousness.

Posted by: Michael D'Amico | March 24, 2006 02:43 PM

Cancel my subscription. The Post is dead to me.

Posted by: Pathetic. | March 24, 2006 02:43 PM

So, Jim, do you think that all these lefties who have lost respect for the WaPost and don't care for your stewardship of WaPo online are going to maybe just bag it and go somewhere else for their info? Man. what a bunch of liberal crybabies!

Posted by: Right Wingnut | March 24, 2006 02:44 PM

In light of Ben's principled response to these allegations, I have been inspired to come clean as well. For the past three and a half years, I have been fabricating quotes and entire "news" stories at my blog, ScrappleFace.com.

There, now, I feel much better.

Scott Ott, editor/anchor
http://www.ScrappleFace.com

Posted by: Scott Ott | March 24, 2006 02:45 PM

It's Opinion, Idiots - all you points about Brady not oweing us apologies 'n stuff is a very good point - if The Washington Post is just your fly-by-night outfit. And since Mr. Brady seems determined to make it so perhaps you're right.

Posted by: LowLife | March 24, 2006 02:45 PM

I'm glad he left. Good job WP.

Posted by: Dr. M | March 24, 2006 02:45 PM

To The Crapture: It's nice to see none of YOUR friends have exhibited any of that "outrage", eh? Rrrriiiight.

The left is fighting the war to KEEP the media in their camp by claiming that the media is already tilted to the right. Such blather is either intellectual dishonesty or myopia.

I encourage the post(.com) to hire another person of conservative nature to replace Mr. Domenech. The world (that is, the world of reality) could use the balance.

Posted by: idgit | March 24, 2006 02:45 PM

Why does The Washington Post hate Washington, DC? Is WaPo racist or just hire them?

Posted by: Nigel Elliott | March 24, 2006 02:46 PM

If I were susceptible to conspiracy theories, I could find it easy to believe that the WaPo has royally been set up ... by someone. The question is who.

2 Possibilities:

Jim Brady is leftist infiltrator, playing the role of a "dumb editor" while making decisions that make the right look as looney as possible.

2) Jim Brady has been set up by the rabid right. Convince a "dumb editor" to hire a plagerizing hack, knowing that when he is unmasked the WaPo will be forced to cut him loose in under a week so that they can once again loose their swarms on the MSM for its liberal media.

Other than those 2 ideas, I have absolutely no clue how the WaPo could've hired such an abysmal writer in the first place ... who couldn't write, only copy and paste. I am a terrible writer, but I can read and I could've seen that he completely unable to write a coherent paragraph, nevermind an entire blog post.

PS: And if you decide to replace Ben Domenech, please, please, please hire a REAL conservative, one who would present conservative ideas in a rational manner and whom everyone (right or left) would enjoy reading.

How about Christopher Buckley?

Posted by: phasis | March 24, 2006 02:46 PM

"We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area."

Because with only Charles Krauthammer George Will and Fred Hiatt to echo the Administration's spin-du-jour and rail against actual journalism, how can we continue to maintain our "balance?" Puh-leeze. If we want the non-answers and the rubber stamps, we can get all that and more color photos from the Moon-Bat Times.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 02:46 PM

"We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area."

As long as the ideology distribution doesn't skew right, I find nothing wrong with a broad range of political opinions. However, I read Red America in its entirety, and the level of insight was obviously not what you would call a bestseller in the marketplace of ideas.

Had you guys read this guy's work at all? Of all the blog communities in all the ideologies in all the world, he walks into yours. Coincidence? Fortuitous chance? I think not. What really happened? How did he walk into the gin joint?

Posted by: The missing link | March 24, 2006 02:46 PM

I don't want the Post to hire a right-wing ideologue to represent the so-called "red state" point of view. Stop trying to convince the public that there are always two equally valid sides to every story, idea, fact. As I said yesterday when I posted to complain about this travesty I don't need "fair and balanced" reporting, I just need a FAIR presentation of the relevent FACTS!

The Fact that the President broke the law by authorizing warrantless wiretaps of American citizens doesn't have two sides. The fact that over 2300 American Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen have been killed because of the inept and ideologically motivated designs of a corrupt cabal doesn't have two sides. Stop telling me it does because this war and most things the corrupt Republicans who run this country say are indefensible and are hurting America (Blue and Red).

Posted by: Robin Farley | March 24, 2006 02:46 PM

I recommend Michelle Malkin. She's crazy like Ben, but is a good writer, although you might want to put her husband on the payroll just in case.

Posted by: Righteous Bubba | March 24, 2006 02:46 PM

How low can the Post go? If Jim Brady isn't fired -- and quick -- your paper's jousnalistic integrity is finished! This is a matter of basic professionalism, folks. You're giving "journalism" a bad name at the Post. SHAME ON YOU!!!

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 02:47 PM

If he was a liberal, he would be getting hired over at the NY Times right now...

Posted by: jimmyb | March 24, 2006 02:48 PM

Ben, you're always running here and there
You feel you're not wanted anywhere
If you ever look behind
And don't like what you find
There's one thing you should know
You've got a place to go
(you've got a place to go)

--It's Fox News not the Wapo!--

Lyrics Ben (the rat)
by Michael Jackson

Posted by: Blinky | March 24, 2006 02:48 PM

Okay, I have a nominee for "Post of the Day":

"Ben Domenech has resigned from the once-proud Washington Post. Who will be his replacement--JEFF GANNON?

Posted by: Johanna | March 24, 2006 02:30 PM"

Wow.

Posted by: garryowen | March 24, 2006 02:49 PM

It would appear that we no longer need the services of right wing media critics. We can instead rely upon "our own" among the left to stand at the gates and scream invective. Rush Limbaugh & Co. can go on vacation.

Posted by: CT | March 24, 2006 02:49 PM

We all know you guys want to be just like the New York Times, but hiring this guy might have taken things a bit too far.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | March 24, 2006 02:49 PM

"Jim Brady does not owe YOU--readers, bloggers, left-wingers zealots, get-a-lifers--an apology.

Jim Brady does not owe YOU an explanation of the editorial dais of Post.com.

Jim Brady does not owe YOU his resignation.

Jim Brady does not owe YOU more than what he outlined in his letter, which he does not owe YOU. But he did anyhow."

Don't you hate it when people refer to themselves by their full name?

Posted by: dave | March 24, 2006 02:49 PM

May be Mr. Brady should consider joining Domenech and while he is at it, take that Dr. Krauthhamer or whatever he is called.

But what would you expect from the Post? It supported Iraq war instead of providing balanced views for and against the war. Woodward is knee deep in Plame scandal with the full knowledge of Mr. Brady.

By the way, Mr. Brady should go and retain some of the muslim clergy from Afghanistan to assure the "full spectrum" of views are presented in the Post.

Posted by: KV | March 24, 2006 02:49 PM

Could we see that evidence that Abramoff directed contributions to democrats?

Posted by: Dr. M again | March 24, 2006 02:50 PM


I agree that this is yet another example of a sadly dying Washington Post. Every section of the paper- and its online companion- are suffering with low quality stories written by ill-qualified journalists. It was nice knowing ya, WaPo!

Posted by: Dupont Circle | March 24, 2006 02:50 PM

I find it fascinating that the Post will allow conservative Republican shills in their pages, but still doesn't cover have the major news stories incriminating Republicans. Easy, simple stories that are so easy to prove irrefutably factually correct,but still refuse to cover them

Once again, it's proven that Republicans are liars and criminals, how many more times does it have to be done? WHy isn't every paper in the country blaring "Once more, Bush declares he's above the law and Congress in writing, yet he's not impeached and imprisoned"?

Posted by: WickyWoo | March 24, 2006 02:50 PM

And yet, the likely plagiarist is a Bush appointee.

Hmmm...

You guys had the stupidity to hire him, a political appointee where there's clearly a conflict of interest in a newspaper that's suppose to be suspicious of all things presidential. You had egg on your face for hiring him, now with further proof that Bu$hCo people are mucking things up for everyone, you have more.

Maybe someone on your paper should investigate how this guy got appointed by a President who clearly like appointing fake journalists and planting fake news stories all over creation. How, why and "follow the money." Find that stuff out and you may yet become independant journalists again.

You ought to recognize that "follow the money" phrase. Do you remember it? It dates to a time when you had some real investigative chutzpah and represented what newspapers are suppose to be all about. You don't anymore and this rather shows that in all it's horrible light.

Posted by: gmknobl | March 24, 2006 02:50 PM

Mr. Brady:

If this sordid Domenech episode exemplifies the Washington Post's commitment to journalistic thoroughness, then please explain to me why I need the Washington Post at all.

I mean, if the bloggers can out this guy in 24 hours, why would I bother reading your Web site, or your print version? What exactly do you offer that I can't get elsewhere, and be just as certain that it is legitimate information?

I have some knowledge of metropolitan daily newspaper journalism, having worked in the field for 30-plus years, during which time I read the Washington Post, seven days a week, from cover to cover.

No more, though. I can't trust you, ever again. Life is too short to further enable such incompetence.

Posted by: ivan | March 24, 2006 02:51 PM

Perhaps the Post can hire Joe Biden to replace Ben.

Posted by: Sinbad | March 24, 2006 02:51 PM

Ben, don't let the bastards get you down. Your willingness to proudly say what most of us only think is still an inspiration to us all. Anyone who isn't blinded by a pathological, virulent hatred for George Bush can clearly see that this is all Clinton's fault.

Posted by: RedState4Eva! | March 24, 2006 02:51 PM

"we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism."

What does hiring this guy have to do with journalism? Who are you people? What has happened to you? Where is your integrity? Your professionalism? Have you no shame?

Posted by: Jane Lueders | March 24, 2006 02:51 PM

Scrappleface would be a good right-wing hire! He's the only wingnut in the world that's funny and when he hits you it leaves a mark.

Posted by: LowLife | March 24, 2006 02:52 PM

This isn't about "balance'. The Post has proved time and again, as in the Froomkin flap, that it isn't interested in 'balance'.

It would be nice, however, if the Post was more interested in integrity. I think many of your journalists would like that as well. The Post has some fine ones. Too bad you had to insult them all by hiring Ben in the first place.

Posted by: ww | March 24, 2006 02:52 PM

Hey I can copy from others and claim it as my own work, I can tell the lies of the right, I can even say Bushco is doing a heck of a job, can I get a job at the Post? That might be the one job this American is willing to do (hold off on that last comment, I better check with dubha and ben first)

Posted by: New hire | March 24, 2006 02:52 PM

It is good to see that the Post takes plagiarism so seriously.

But, there are some lingering questions.

Such as, Jim Brady stated in Kurtz' column that Domenech was hired because he felt that the website needed the viewpoint of a "social conservative".

Given that Domenech is both a racist and a homophobe, as revealed by people like Jane Hamsher and Steve Gilliard, among others, does this mean that Brady considers these to be essential aspects of social conservatism?

Hence, will Brady be trolling through the deep recesses of Klan cyberspace to find another Domenech?

Along these lines, does Brady believe that the future profitability of washingtonpost.com is more dependent upon reaching this audience, and providing it with mainstream legitimacy and expression, than he does the growing communities of color around DC, and throughout the US?

Also, Domenech's blog was called "Red America". Assuming that we believe in the ideological construct of "Red" and "Blue" America (fairly dubious, from a sociological perspective), does Brady believe that the people in these places actually find the bigotry, homophobia and xenophobia of Domenech, as expressed in a his juvenile style, appealling, and representative of their values?

If so, this is fascinating, as it would constitute an inversion of the old saw from Nixon days that East Coast elites "just don't understand Middle America". Back then, it meant that the elites were too liberal. Now, it apparently means that people like Brady consider residents of "Red" America fundamentalist racist lunatics.

Did Brady also believe that Domenech would appeal to young readers. If so, why would he believe that they would find Domenech's loathsome values any more appealing than anyone else?

My guess is that Brady was just ectastic about hiring someone who would appall his liberal blogosphere critics, and who has a history of personally insulting Dan Froomkin.

The fact that he was so excited to do it, and had no concern about hiring a bigot like Domenech, should be alarming to everyone.

Assuming, of course, that he's not a bigot just like Domenech.


Posted by: Richard Estes | March 24, 2006 02:52 PM

OMG! an intellectually dishonest Republican. Stop the presses!

OK, so who vouched for this guy? Who pushed for him to be hired? Who were his professional references? Did the Post call these references? We have a right to know as he was thrust on us to influence our opinion.

Posted by: want the full story | March 24, 2006 02:52 PM

Jim,

It looks to me that you have a regular fustercluck going here. Do you specialize in this, because I gotta admit it is rather amusing? First we have Debbie Howell stepping all over her crank, then we have both you and her doing the phallic terpsichorean. What an auspicious debute. And so now to set things right you hire Ben and go through a Bushesque explanation to justify his hiring. And once again demonstrate an inability to thoroughly research the case before acting. Sloppy work for an organization that once had a reputation for being a source you could rely on.

Rich

Posted by: Rich McVey | March 24, 2006 02:53 PM

If his bio can be trusted , Domenech worked for Human Events and contributed to
The Washington Post(previously), National Review Online,the Washington Times , Reason Magazine,The American Conservative, McSweeneys ,Redstate and the
William & Mary publication where much
of the plagiarism appeared.

Why?

Posted by: rflanagan | March 24, 2006 02:53 PM

With legitimate journalists around the country being laid off seemingly daily (including some at the Post who are being offered buyouts), why in the world would you hire a 24-year-old kid with no credentials? Or were the only "credentials" that mattered being rude, crude, and a far-right zealot?

I realize that washingtonpost.com is separate from the newspaper, but both have lost a lot of credibility over this moronic hiring decision and the subsequent debacle. You will lose even more if heads don't roll.

Posted by: Bruce | March 24, 2006 02:53 PM

Don' worry Mr. Brady. Perhaps Andy Card or Karl Rove have a son you could hire to represent Red State America on WP online. Or better yet, maybe the Bush twins would like to represent the conservative view in the online version of the Post.

Posted by: EarthMerm | March 24, 2006 02:53 PM

So how are your circulation numbers doing these days?

Posted by: Leviathan | March 24, 2006 02:53 PM

Howie Kurtz should put out a spin on this resignation before the whole thing gets out of control don't ya' think?

Posted by: Philip | March 24, 2006 02:55 PM

Here is a hint for you next try - you are getting very bad advice and your understanding of the blogoshere is seriously partisan and flawed.

If you are going to continue to follow the lead of Powerline and LGF and Redstate, your current lack of credibility will remani, and you will remain a laughingstock.

Don't blame Ben for this - he was the creature you selected.

Blame those who advised you to hire him, and get some new advisors.

Posted by: Patrick ONeill | March 24, 2006 02:55 PM

All i have to say is, ha ha ha ha. The post has plenty of conservative voices. George Will and Darth Krauthammer to name a couple. And I have no problem with another coming on board, but lets make sure he isn't just a partisan hack, lets try to get someone with credentials who can admit when the right has made a mistake and doesn't follow Bush lockstep. Also a blogger who doesn't insult 50% of his audience with his first sentence would be nice.

Posted by: Mike | March 24, 2006 02:56 PM

Jim Brady, I think, has good intentions. He's opening up WaPo.com to comments, to Technorati tags, and daily bloggers. He's making an effort to make WaPo.com a web site, rather than just an electronic version of the print edition.

The problem is that he misunderstands the nature of the blogosphere, especially its emphasis on candor and self-appraisal and feedback. Thousands of folks, many with very well-articulated comments, expressed dismay at Domenech's hiring. Not deigning to even address their complaints is an act that is easily perceived as being contemptuous of its readership.

Worse, he can't figure out what constitutes quality blogging. Was there an uproar at Time.com when they signed on Andrew Sullivan? For that matter, did folks cancel Newsweek because MSNBC associated with Instapundit?

Why the difference in reaction? Ask yourself that, Mr. Brady. Is it possible that liberal bloggers aren't waging online campaigns against every single conservative added to mainstream media? That maybe the hostility to Domenech has to do with Domenech (and also this cave-in to some phony ideal of "balance")?

And I'll add to the chorus has no problem with you hiring some *qualified* winger as long as you hire a qualified moonbat for balance. I recommend Hunter from DailyKos, who's easily the finest high-profile writer on the left side of the blogosphere.

Posted by: Ryan | March 24, 2006 02:56 PM

Hi, Washington Post! How you doing? Ever hear of Google and/or Lexis Nexis? Maybe you should look into that. Bye for now!

Posted by: YourPal | March 24, 2006 02:56 PM

I think you should write about your initial search process. Apparently, it was highly flawed.

Posted by: HR Guy | March 24, 2006 02:56 PM

Here's a permalink to many instances of apparent plagiarism by Domenech, as collected by a diarist at the blog Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/24/13724/1544

Posted by: Rita in DC | March 24, 2006 02:57 PM

The Washington Post's Impact on the World:

1974: NIXON RESIGNS
2006: Domenech Resigns

Posted by: Redglare | March 24, 2006 02:57 PM

This is what happens when you try to appease the right-wing that has taken over the Republican Party.

As long as you keep worrying about right-wing charges of bias, things like this will inevitably happen. You hire a right-wing political operative to practice journalism, please don't be surprised when he doesn't actually practice journalism.

I think the Post should worry a lot more about the facts and worry a lot less about who gets hurt by them. Journalism isn't actually about keeping score, it's about telling people the truth about what's going on.

But if you think it's a good idea to give political operatives space to write in a news publication (I think it's a lousy idea), then you DO have to start keeping score. Because it's about spin, not facts. So for every red political operative, you have to add a blue one. One red, one blue. One red, one blue.

Posted by: Neville Chamberlain | March 24, 2006 02:57 PM

My liberal friends have one take on your hiring of this boy as your "conservative" view. I have one that is ENTIRELY different.

There WAS a day when "conservative" meant something entirely different than it does today. If one person embodied the real conservative, it was Barry Goldwater.

Barry Goldwater also embodied something else that seems to be missing: character. Whether one agreed with him or saw him as the "other side," no one ever could demean his character or accuse him of any unethical conduct.

I read the shallow, callow, uneducated child that the Washingtonpost.com chose to represent the "conservative voice" and I was disgusted -- even before he turned out to be a serial plagarist. I look at others who are promoted as being "conservative" - and all I see is that "conservative" now means that you speak from the same talking points handed down by Central Command, ignore any events that don't fit your preconceptions, ignore any part of the Constitution which isn't convenient, poke your nose into your neighbor's sex life in the name of God, and instead of tax-and-spend, borrow-and-loot.

There is NOTHING conservative about any of this. There is no philosophy to any of this, which is, I suppose, why a 24-year-old home-schooled child whose "accomplishments" all seem to flow from being born to the right father could represent the "conservative voice" to you.

Posted by: Conscience of a Conservative | March 24, 2006 02:58 PM

Mr Brady,
The Washington Post is one of the three most important papers in this country. What were you thinking hiring a shrill right wing idealogue to ostensibly practise journalism. If you want to have a competitive screamer site like those on cable with a right screamer and a left screamer that's fine, but this was absurd. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A SERIOUS NEWSPAPER, NOT FOX NEWS.

Posted by: John | March 24, 2006 02:58 PM

Do you people perform due diligence on new hires? If so, you did a miserable job with this one.

Whatever possessed you to hire someone with such close ties to the Bush administration, someone who has a history of posting slanderous, racist comments on the Internet?

Whoever is responsible for this hire should resign.

Posted by: John Brennan | March 24, 2006 02:58 PM

Next time anyone gets hired in such a public role will be vetted a little better...

Posted by: S.D. | March 24, 2006 02:58 PM

Good riddance to bad rubbish! Mr. Domenech's blog appeared to be nothing more than his personal forum to make ad hominem attacks on Democrats, liberals, or any other group that doesn't think exactly as he does, without any sort of proof or factual foundation. If I wanted that sort of thing in a news outlet, I'd just tune in to the Fox News Channel, and watch all of their know-nothing opinionists.

Posted by: Kay Decker | March 24, 2006 02:58 PM

So , about those documents Deb H has showing Abramof Directed contributions to both parties via casino clients he ripped off?

Haven't forgotten, not gonna.

Posted by: A.Scott | March 24, 2006 02:59 PM

Shame! shame! shame!

Oh the schadenfreude. Heckuva job, Jimbo!

(P.S. "Heckuva job"... not my words. But I didn't think you would mind given this site's new journalistic standard.)

Posted by: DarwinP | March 24, 2006 02:59 PM

Jim Brady should take responsibility for this mess, something he has yet to do.

Apologize, resign, be a man, do something, dude.

Posted by: Luke 4.3 | March 24, 2006 02:59 PM

This fiasco is just the latest demonstration of the new "Fairness Doctrine" in media: Balance the news with GOP propoganda.

I might even take a peek at Fox if they balanced their propoganda with some news once in a while.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 24, 2006 03:00 PM

Did anyone at the post read redstate prior to hiring this guy? And if so, at what point did you think he provided "balance"?

This comments section is neat. How come Red America didn't have a comment section? Can't tell me wapo.com couldn't set up a comment section as soon as this blog was published.

This whole thing smelled wrong from the beginning...it would take a complete moron not to see it.

Posted by: jenniferm | March 24, 2006 03:00 PM

I am a regular reader of the washingtonpost.com website but someone who rarely offers comments on-line.

I was stunned by the decision to hire Ben Domenech when I learned about him, and even more stunned that Jim Brady would refer to Domenech's slander that the late Coretta Scott King was a communist was "a silly comment." For Brady not to realize how charges of communism were used against MLK when he was alive to undermine the Civil Rights movement tells me that Brady does not belong in his job.

Brady must go and, until he does, I will not return to this site.

By the way, does anyone think the Washington Post will cover this story in its entirety? It would be a great statement of independence, which is claimed by the Post, for them to do so - and do so thoroughly. Sadly, I doubt that will happen.

Posted by: Paul | March 24, 2006 03:01 PM

Mr. Brady,

I too would like to apply for Mr. Domenech's old job. My writing, like Ben's, is long on rhetoric and short on evidence and fact. Here is a sample of my writing:

"This is a blog for the majority of Americans.

Since the election of 1992, the extreme political left has fought a losing battle. Their views on the economy, marriage, abortion, guns, the death penalty, health care, welfare, taxes, and a dozen other major domestic policy issues have been exposed as unpopular, unmarketable and unquestioned losers at the ballot box."

Whaddya think? Am I hired?

Posted by: LM | March 24, 2006 03:01 PM

I have an idea, Mr. Brady, instead of hiring someone who parrots (and plagiarizes) the ideas of others, why not just get the Republican talking points directly from the horse's mouth. Hire Karl Rove to write your Red America blog.

Oh, and by the way, Domenech apologizing for calling Coretta Scott King a communist, and then explaining she was associated with communists is like me apologizing for calling you a fool, and then explaining that you act like a fool. Fool? Or just being played for one?

Posted by: epistemology | March 24, 2006 03:01 PM

I hope you're applying the same standards you would (/wil) to a reporter or blogger of any political stripe.

Posted by: MaryCh | March 24, 2006 03:01 PM

May we now finally dispense with the notion that Dan Froomkin is some kind of liberal loose cannon who requires a conservative counterpoise?

Suffice it to say, to launch "Red America" and not have plans for "Blue America" was an outrage. I'm sorry the little brat got his hat handed to him, but I'm mainly sorry that the Post will now avoid any accountability for having tilted the balance of the organization so blatantly.

Posted by: Mr Blifil | March 24, 2006 03:02 PM

So the WaPo has become kind of a beta organization, huh? Hires people and then sees how they fly, what qualifications they have, whether they are racists -- and depends on bloggers to do due diligence.

Posted by: Prof | March 24, 2006 03:02 PM

It's opinion, Idiots -

And one bonehead blog does not tar Post.com, or the newspaper, or anything more than a few exasperating knuckleheads with nothing better to do during the day. If you believe otherwise, see my brochure on some great marlin fishing at Austin's Lake Travis.

Scream into the ether all you want, idiots.

--------------------------

Exactly how many bonehead blogs are necessary to damage a newspaper's reputation?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:02 PM

"this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism."

no, it doesn't. if the internet, in your opinion, is about elevating mediocre writers of questionable ethical background, then it is in fact a bad thing.

what i don't understand is this: there are writers on the conservative side who are quite good. they make cogent arguments, bring up relevant points, and so on. John Cole at Balloon Juice, Rick Moran, and many others. many of them, like mr. hobbs above, are "outside the beltway", don't "regurgitate RNC talking points" and so on. that is, these writers might actually add something to the discourse.

Ben was never ever ever ever going to be able to do so. his writing is poor, his editing is atrocious (so many mistakes of fact in Michelle Malkin's last screed it beggars the mind), and other than family connections there is no explanation for his elevation.

so on the contrary, the fact that he had started a website gave you an excuse to hire him. and that makes the internet a bad thing, as far as you are concerned.

Posted by: Robert Green | March 24, 2006 03:02 PM

I think this was the right decision. Although Jim Brady has taken a lot of heat from the bloggers, I think in this statement he has been very gracious, showing class after taking a well warranted barrage of criticism.

Bridges need to be built and mended, and I think Brady's humility is step one! Its the blogosphere's turn to reciprocate.

Posted by: PatSprouseYo | March 24, 2006 03:03 PM

Yet another example of how intellectually bankrupt conservatives are.

Posted by: vj | March 24, 2006 03:03 PM

"My guess is that Brady was just ectastic about hiring someone who would appall his liberal blogosphere critics, and who has a history of personally insulting Dan Froomkin."

DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!!!

Brady's main concern is proving to Jane Hamsher that his penis is bigger than hers...

Posted by: dave | March 24, 2006 03:03 PM

If you're wondering why your journalistic controls didn't hold, it's because you didn't hire a journalist.

Man, how much more pathetic can you get?

Posted by: Jimmah | March 24, 2006 03:04 PM

Extending a suggestion made above, you should seriously consider this:

- hire two accomplished blog readers, one covering liberal blogs, one covering conservative blogs.

- have them link to the best of the political blog posts available that day on the web, each in their own liberal or conservative realm. (ala Dan Froomkin's superb work on the White House beat, but tightly focused on what the political bloggers are saying.)

- open up online comments on both the liberal blog review and the conservative blog review, with appropriate monitoring for your standards. When a post is fully or partly deleted, so mark it and indicate why, don't just make it disappear.

There many literate, informed voices in the political blogs. Open your readership to these voices and political discourse will surely benefit. You have an audience, which can only get bigger if it gets better.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | March 24, 2006 03:04 PM

Congratulations on doing the right thing, albeit after a series of mistakes.

May I suggest that, if you are determined to hire a sharply partisan conservative blogger, you also hire a sharply partisan liberal blogger? There is plenty of real talent out there. It would make for an interesting exchange, and insulate you from a good deal of the outrage you've stirred up.

Or, you could return to a committment to supporting quality, well-sourced, nonpartisan journalism such as that practiced by Froomkin, and refuse to bend to those in the right-wing movement who demand you "balance" fact with rhetoric, and who will never be satisfied with your coverage until you devote yourselves entirely to telling them everything they want to hear, and nothing else.

Posted by: Paul Curtis | March 24, 2006 03:05 PM

Dear Mr. Brady:
I heartily concur with you that plagiarism is the worst thing a journalist can do, other than simply making things up. There was, it now appears, ample evidence that Mr. Domenech engaged in both prior to his hiring by the post.

It is difficult to see how a newspaper with the Post's reputation could possible have hired Mr. Domenech under such circumstances, and it is impossible to imagine the Post hiring such an unqualified, ethically compromised person whose political beliefs were liberal.

Posted by: MLH | March 24, 2006 03:05 PM

Jim,

I am sure you understand that a newspaper has nothing if it doesnt have its credibility. When Ben Domenech was hired you struck another blow to the shrinking credibility of the paper you lead.

It is insulting for you to try now to claim that you had no idea that Ben Domenech was a plagiarist when it was your JOB to check out the credibility of the people who work for you.

It is equally offensive that you have such deep seeded distain for 'liberals' and you dont even make an attempt to hide that distain.

I think you have harmed the reputation of the Washington Post and harmed the credibility of every honest journalist who works here by foisting Ben Domenech on your readers.

When other great papers of record have found themselves in your position the leaders took the heat and resigned, you seem to think that Ben's resignation is all that needs to happen in order for the thousands of angry readers who posted on this blog yesterday to put aside their anger and disappointment.

I say that YOU need to step up to the same plate Ben Domenech was forced to step up to, admit your incompetence and bias and do the right thing for the washington post..RESIGN.

Posted by: ex reader | March 24, 2006 03:06 PM

Hey, liberals. What on earth do you have to complain about? His column was gold-plated faux-Conservative musclehead blog fodder... this news is dipped in platinum... and The Post served him to you on a silver platter -- and free of charge, besides...

Posted by: Burnsie | March 24, 2006 03:06 PM

I said it before, I'll say it again. Don't mind if I do:


The saddest thing about all this is wondering whether Mr. and Mrs. Doug Domenech are home now, silently weeping, wondering where they went wrong with all those years of home-schooling. Perhaps it was the cheap Chinese rip-off "Hooked on Phonics" lesson they purchased after getting a spam email offer. After they diligently spent hours on E-Bay searching for flash cards to enhance their teaching abilities, no one could blame them now, could they, if they forgot to count the cards first to see if they'd been cheated? One must also feel Mrs. Ben's pain, as she watches her husband getting ripped to shreds here. I wonder if she will home-school her own children? Oh the humanity of it all...

How long will we have to wait, for one of the young Santorum's, home-schooled as well, to pick up some of Ben's slack?

These are the things on my mind, as I fight back the sympathetic tears of anguish...


Posted by: Philip | March 24, 2006 03:06 PM

for the evidence needers on Abramoff
http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff#dorgan

http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff#reid

Love that Google.

Posted by: Stick | March 24, 2006 03:07 PM

"We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations."

Hey Jim, no need to protect your sources. We all know it was the DailyKos, specifically Kos member Oregon Guy who dug up the dirt on ol' Ben and got the ball rolling. Gosh, was it just yesterday???

So, a big hip-hip-hooray for the blogosphere! We're better at fact-checking than the Washington Post. Gotta love it.

Posted by: Elizabeth | March 24, 2006 03:07 PM

Mr. Brady, your willingness to hire someone who lied about Corretta Scott King is simply unacceptable. Your errors in judgement insult the hard working men and women who write for the Washington Post.

Shame on you.

Posted by: dc | March 24, 2006 03:08 PM

Way to do your homework, Jimmy. A simple web search and about a day of checking and you could have avoided having egg on your face.

And you have the temerity to call yourself an editor? Instead of trying for "a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies", why don't you try to hire someone who's a competent, ORIGINAL journalist instead?

Posted by: J. P. Spencer | March 24, 2006 03:08 PM

Jim Brady writes that he is concerned about maintaining "...our journalistic integrity" at The Washington Post.

Oh, baby! That intergrity got sold off some time back, for a few tickets to a White House cocktail party.

Posted by: TOC | March 24, 2006 03:08 PM

NOW, WAPO, IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO HIRE AND PROMOTE A LEFT-WING BLOGGER.

Posted by: ConcernedCitizen | March 24, 2006 03:08 PM

WaPo = irrelevant

Posted by: gruaud larose | March 24, 2006 03:08 PM

In academia we sometimes use turnitin.com. It works well. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to find space for an additional intern or two to scour potential hires' past works.

http://www.turnitin.com/static/plagiarism.html

Posted by: sirpants | March 24, 2006 03:08 PM

hope you guys learned a lesson. this comment section is great for letting everyone have their say. but when you give someone a featured spot on your site, he has the WaPo seal of approval you better do a little bit of a background check. even if there weren't plagerism questions, he was a lightweight mind and having him be you voice of the "red states" (besides fostering that ridiculous red/blue divide garbage) wouldn't seem to do any favors to conservatives either.

Posted by: greg | March 24, 2006 03:09 PM

Plagiarism like what Biden did. Don't hear about that much from our liberal friends

Posted by: brian larson | March 24, 2006 03:09 PM

"Exactly how many bonehead blogs are necessary to damage a newspaper's reputation?"

Dunno. But afaik it takes three to make Jim Brady notice that his new blogger has a skeleton in the closet: Americablog, Atrios, and Firedoglake. Ok, I have to admit that Michelle Malkin weighing in accelerates the process :(

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 03:09 PM

Thanks for the acknowledgement of self-appointed web watchdogs, Mr. Brady, but we were doing your job for you; a simple google search turned up these mountains of plagiarism. Who advised you to hire this guy and why? It obviously was not for his writing skill, which outside the ethical issues is still non-existent. Domenech would make Tucker Carlson look like Edward R. Murrow.

Posted by: sponson | March 24, 2006 03:10 PM

Looks like all those liberal bloggers got what they wanted, i.e. Domenech's resignation. While I don't feel the WP should have kept Domenech on after evidence of plagiarism came to light, I do agree with their initial decision to hire a conservative blogger. The WP is a at heart a liberal paper, and as such it does a fairly indepth job of presenting a blue state perspective in its other articles and columns (save for the occassional hysteria of Charles Krauthammer). Besides, I would think that most liberals would welcome this opportunity to examine the beliefs and motivations of the enemy, so as to better defeat red-state conservatism.

Posted by: LB | March 24, 2006 03:10 PM

Being that this hire has failed so miserably, how about atoning with a quick dose of transperancy? Answer the following question in detail: How did Ben Domenech get the job?

Posted by: mike innocenzi | March 24, 2006 03:10 PM

can i be the 400 hundreth person to say "hahaha"

Posted by: meangrl | March 24, 2006 03:10 PM

It's interesting that the Post hires a guy from "RED STATE" in order to strike some sort of a "balance," but I would propose that in the future, why not hire a blogger that writes articles that are factually correct and employs NO plagiarism? Oh, I see now! That would mean hring a "lefty" blogger.

Then so be it, WAPO. We want the reality based opinion, not the lying cheating stealing falsified version of it.

Posted by: Donailin | March 24, 2006 03:11 PM

Mr. Brady, how about David Duke next time? I'm sure he's available. The KKK rates him quite highly. And Michelle Malkin loves him.

Posted by: Crod | March 24, 2006 03:12 PM

A bit of advice to The Washington Post. . .

If a Democrat tells you that the Earth is round, you're under no obligation to represent a "balanced" point of view from a Republican who tells you that the Earth is flat.

Please, please stop humiliating yourself with this "false equivalence" doctrine.

For years, Republicans have argued that your paper is "biased" -- and they were right. It was biased in favor of facts and truth.

Please stop being Karl Rove's stenographer. Please stop lying for this Administration. Please stop telling us that 2 + 2 = 5, because George W. Bush says so.

You're quickly becoming a national joke.

Posted by: Scott | March 24, 2006 03:12 PM

I cannot imagine what the Post was thinking when they hired this doofus. Maybe the Post can replace him with Jayson Blair.

I think whoever was involved in this hiring decision should also resign, immediately.

What other kind of shoddy, half-wit decisions are made by those who hire writers at the Post? What will be the next public display of abject boobery we can expect?

Posted by: Joel Davies | March 24, 2006 03:12 PM

Wow. After reading these comments, I can see why there's all this talk about the "unhinged."

Posted by: hinge | March 24, 2006 03:12 PM

"WaPo = irrelevant"

I really wouldn't say that. The massive outcry about the misguided decission shows how relevant the paper and its website are. Ok, they failed, but this hasn't been as bad as that Judy Miller Iraq 'coverage' at the gray lady.

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 03:12 PM

So, in your zeal to be "fair and balanced", you hired a right wing blogger who is accused of plagerizing. I guess that is a step above the Jeff Gannon saga. Stop trying to appease people who will always accuse your paper of having a liberal bias ( I can't even imagine why) and just get back to some serious investigative journalism.

Posted by: babylon_grrl | March 24, 2006 03:13 PM

He said he was not a journalist, so how can hiring him advance journalism? If he's also a plagarist, he's demonstrating his disrespect for his audience and he doesn't like to play by the rules. Journalism doesn't need him and neither does the public.

Posted by: Sherrill | March 24, 2006 03:13 PM

What a bad day for journalism in general and the Post specifically. The post really is getting what it deserves, however. Brady should be FIRED with all possible speed.

Posted by: Saddened. | March 24, 2006 03:14 PM

Dear Mr. Brady,

As regards your statement above, "Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commor or be accused of".

A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.

Shame on you, sir.

Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com
Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.

Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

Posted by: Jimm Omodt | March 24, 2006 03:14 PM

So let me get this straight, The Post hires a plagarist to write a biased blog, does not hire anyone to balance, says he wasn't hired based on his beliefs, but rather based on his skills, then liberal bloggers do the investigation that The Post failed to do (because i imagine y'all wouldn't hire a plagarist on purpose)and remind everyone about his racist, misogynistic, bigoted past as a writer, The Post doesn't fire him, then it's discovered he's a plagarist and he resigns. Not fired.

What a joke WaPo has become. You all should be ashamed.

Posted by: OnShakedown | March 24, 2006 03:15 PM

There are tens of thousands of talented honest journalists in the United States. The Post hires a hack like Domenech. Like so many pundits he does not even have the intelligence to write his own material. The Washington Post used to be a real newspaper.

Posted by: Jim - a Florida Scientist | March 24, 2006 03:16 PM

"WaPo = irrelevant"

I really wouldn't say that. The massive outcry here is evidence of the importance of the Post for a huge number of people. Ok, they failed with this misguided hiring, but it hasn't been as devastating as the Judy Miller Iraq 'coverage' at the gray lady.

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 03:16 PM

some advice to Ben.

You're young and made some stupid mistakes. It happens to a lot of people. Now you have a chance to grow up and rectify them. I know just the place. A place that will accept you. A place that you know, love, respect, and, through your words, support.

The Army.

A 24 year-old with high-profile plagarism on the resume will probably never have another job "writing." Lucky for you the Army has an open door.

Since you can no longer bravely (heh) support the war with your keyboard-commando rhetoric - you can do the next best thing and actually support it with your actions.

Your integrity demands you join! Welcome private Domenech.

Posted by: Advice | March 24, 2006 03:16 PM

So Jim Brady posts the news that Ben Domenech has resigned due to plagarism.

Who will post the news that Jim Brady has resigned for inept leadership of washingtonpost.com and the sullying of the Washington Post brand?

I realize that journalists these days don't do much research, but jeez, you'd think they could at least check a resume.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:17 PM

mr brady

resign

the washington post for some time has made a mockery of any substantive form of journalism

Posted by: remembereringgiap | March 24, 2006 03:17 PM

What about the "GOOD NEWS"? Always so negative, stupid liberal media...

Posted by: Frankie | March 24, 2006 03:17 PM

nice to see the silver-spoon-fed domenech get exposed for the charlatan he is. if only the wapo had the cajones to admit it gave him the job as an act of partisan patronage in the first place.

guess it's back to redstate for not-so-gentle ben. his pathetic ill-informed ramblings will continue to be gobbled up like manna from heaven over there. one word of advice to other redstate posters: guard your sad little neocon-inspired words carefully, as ben might appropriate them for his own 'original posts.'

but do enjoy the intellectual vacuum together; you all deserve each other.

Posted by: litmus | March 24, 2006 03:18 PM

How does one become Ultra-Republican by their early 20's? Should not the fact he remained 'home schooled' (reminds me of the apartheid politics of the old South Africa) until entering college have triggered a bit of background checking. Was there no curiousity about this persons broad views of the world as a writer. The Ultra Republican does not reach that level of cyniscism by their ewarly 20's unless by way of indoctrination.

Posted by: C. Gilbert | March 24, 2006 03:18 PM

Well, if Ben really wants to work at a Newspaper, there's always the CIRCULATION department, they'll hire just about anybody.

I should know, I'm in Circulation Management.

Posted by: Just a Nobody | March 24, 2006 03:18 PM

There certainly are a lot of angry people here. I am heartily amused by the downfall of Mr. Domenech. It is always entertaining to catch the ethical lapses of the holier-than-thou.

Contrary to a lot of the crankiness, I'd be pleased to see someone else on WaPo.com who can present a conservative viewpoint as an opinion blogger -- although it would be good if it were someone who sticks to verifiable reality and can write about it in his own words. Most of the "conservative thought" that I encounter, in the Post and elsewhere, is just rote recitation of an approved party line. Someone who can actually logically articulate a conservative point would be useful. Liberal guys like me will never be able to persuade America's moderates and sort-of-righties unless we can learn the language that they speak and the ideas that they believe in.

Posted by: Tim | March 24, 2006 03:18 PM

So the Post 1) lied about the reasons they hired this joke of a writer 2) did a HORRIBLE job looking into his background as a writer (other wise you would have found the same things Daily Kos, Atrios, Raw Story et al discovered) or perhaps you didn't care how good of a writer he was, The Post was hell-bent on hiring a liar?

Just call it a day and shut this rag of a paper down. A discrace to journalism is what you are.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:19 PM


Please don't go the CNN route - leftie and rightie screaming at each other. There's content and there's news. Stick to news.

If you want some commentar with bite hire the original Wonkette, Anna Marie Cox.

Pretty Please?

Posted by: Mark Pilon | March 24, 2006 03:19 PM

If they're looking for someone to match Domenech's integrity ounce for ounce, I hear Jack Abramoff is looking for work...

I love stories like this -- where someone who never should have gotten hired in the first place manages to commit an embarrassing and glaring enough error to get fired! And so fast, too!

This guy was a reactionary, talentless, gutless, politically connected, overprivileged little turd. And he was put in place to "offset" Froomkin? That is appalling. It shows what little respect the Post has for its own journalists.

Memo to Brady: Not everybody who tells the truth about Bush is some left-wing screed in need of an "offset" on the right. If you want to further compromise your credibility by hiring another right-wing nutball, at least find a left-wing counterpart.

Posted by: keatonfan | March 24, 2006 03:20 PM

Wha wha, Biden, wha wha.

Biden was scolded for his actions. Oh! And he didn't pass it off as a journalistic article; it was a speech. And guess what? I killed his chances for teh Presidency.

Benry Chickenhawk! Bawk!

Posted by: Taniwha | March 24, 2006 03:20 PM

I just want to say that it was right to weed out crap like this. I also wan to say that it makes sense to have the point of view from the right. I just hope that it's the right that I in the past, have respected. A true conservative, fiscally and socially. Not one of these neocons that hate everthing for the people and support a coporate owned government.

Posted by: DEMaz | March 24, 2006 03:20 PM

I hope the Post takes this as an opportunity to try this experiment in the right way. There has got to be a conservative that can clearly articulate a position without insult, and who doesn't have the history of brainless, thoughtless, racist remarks like your Red State" blogger did. He was a poor reflection of the standards the Post maintains even before the plagarism allegations; my overall problems with him are the same as the problems I have with Deborah Howell - both represent a journalistic laziness that does a disservice to the reporters at the Post as well as its readers. I am happy to see the situation being handled so quickly and in such a transparent way - this makes me feel good about continuing to rely on the Post.

One other thought (somewhat related) - I really wish this nonsense over Froomkin's column would end. He's a journalist asking questions. It's hardly his fault that no one at the white House addresses his legitimate questions. If they did, he would put it in his column. In fact, I get the sense that he'd be thrilled - I would be as a reader. If you really wanted to balance his column, you would get someone who could adequately addres the questions/issues he raises, and could really explain why decisions in the White House have been made the way have in coherent, logical way. I won't go into why I think this is impossible, but that is what balance would look like in this case.

This was like hiring G. Gordon Liddy to "balance" Woodward and Bernstein.

Posted by: LongtimeReader | March 24, 2006 03:21 PM

"Did I stumble upon the Daily Kos here? Oops, its just a bunch of whining liberals taking glee in the detruction of another human being."

Hmm, dunno, I'm here via AMERICAblog.
And afaik St. Augustine is still alive and well. He's looking forward to the possibility of a great career at a Murdoch company. Don't forget, this has been a boost for his name recognition.

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 03:21 PM

I saw some comments asking how Mr. Domenech could become Ultra-Republican so young. My observation, based on limited samples, is that rock-rib Republicanism is a young man's philosophy. When you're young, you can maintain the fantasy that you're making it in life based on your own abilities alone, and that great things will come to you in proportion to your value. It takes time to learn that life is unfair. Then, you can start to get some empathy.

Posted by: Tim | March 24, 2006 03:21 PM

Dear Mr. Brady:

I realize that the real reason you hired Mr. Domenech to curry favor with the present administration and to retain the paper's "access."

I am sure you will replace him with another token movement conservative for the same reason. I wonder when you will realize that these movement conservatives favored by the White House are not representative of the wider American public, who are primarily moderate centrists.

Your hiring of Mr. Domenech completely indicates that you have been taken in by GOP spin, which argues most Americans are as radical as the administration. But polls and common sense show this is not true.

I do wish you would attempt to broaden the experience of yourself and your staff on a regional basis. Americans are not "red state/blue state," but they do have regional concerns that you at the Post seem incapable of understanding.

Your failure to see that America has regionalized is what has led to this debacle, as well as your need to curry access with the White House.

The Post needs at this time to rethink its independence from the Administration and its relation to its readers outside Washington in a new way.

However, this reconsideration must be done with new staff. I'm afraid the principle of journalistic accountability also requires you to resign as well.

Sincerely,

1heart

Posted by: 1heart | March 24, 2006 03:21 PM

If you decide you still want a rightwing blogger, I think you all ought to check out Dennis the Peasant. He manages to outrage nearly everyone and is an amazingly articulate dude.

Left wing? I'd go with the firedoglake person that Mr. Brady doesn't like.
Jane Hamsher (had to look up her name)

They are both articulate and opinionated and capable of thinking and arguing with great, original spittle-fleckage, always an advantage with a blogger. And going on with Jane H would mean you appease a fair number of outraged liberals.

If you want to overlook RED vs. BLUE crud and are looking for brains, go with Glenn Greenwald. Really you should have gone with him anyway.

Posted by: Kate R | March 24, 2006 03:22 PM

So much for choosing bloggers based on their merits. More like by their demerits. Maybe the WP should stick to employing real journalists.

Posted by: Halle Burton | March 24, 2006 03:22 PM

Lie down with the dogs, get up with the fleas.

Posted by: BB | March 24, 2006 03:22 PM

Today, I'd be more proud to call myself a dkosser than a writer for the Washington Post. Why? Dkossers have MORE credibillity!

Posted by: dkoser | March 24, 2006 03:22 PM

As a life-long Post reader (and former Wash Post paperboy, damn it!), I am ashamed that the Post even hired this fool in the inane pursuit of "balance"....well, if you want balance try hiring TWO people with opposite viewpoints, instead of one plagarizing, conservative hack. geez.

I'm about ready to end my subscription, but I need the Post to clean up my dog's poo in the yard.

Posted by: Bryan | March 24, 2006 03:23 PM

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Most of the American press are just

Posted by: Sam Leopold | March 24, 2006 03:23 PM

Biden? "D-MBNA" ? The netroots invented that one, friend.

Get out much, Brian?

Posted by: lambert strether | March 24, 2006 03:24 PM

We all know that the GOP has been on a long campaign to subvert and destroy legitimate news media.

But do you have to make it so gdamn easy for them?

Heckuvajob, Brady!

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 24, 2006 03:25 PM

Hey Jim,

There's this great new tool out there on the internets called "Google." It allows you to look up just about anything - all the on-line archives of a specific writer, etc., to see if they've made defamatory comments about dead civil rights leaders and stuff. You can even crosscheck key sentences or paragraphs to see if they appear anywhere else under another writer's byline. You may want to try it next time you're considering hiring someone to give the "consrvative" point of view.

In fact, you may just want to run a standard background check to see if, you know, there are any skeletons in the ol' closet before you hire another 24-year-old home-schooled college dropout with serious connections to the Republican party hierarchy but not much integrity or journalistic talent, other then when he's copying other people's stuff. Just sayin.'

Ben - we hardly knew ye.

Posted by: commie atheist | March 24, 2006 03:25 PM

This is ridiculous. Are you going to force Froomkin to resign now, too? He's a plagiarist as well. But I guess you don't mind, since he's a libera like you are.

------------------------
Leonidas
http://scrutator.net

I think you meant to say "Libra"? I myself was born in August, which makes me a Leonidas like you!

Posted by: CMO | March 24, 2006 03:25 PM

I just want to second what JimPortlandOR said above:

"Please, please drop this stupid, unintellible line between the Washington Post (newspaper) and Washington Post-Newsweek online. Both entities look like fools (Howell disclaiming responsibility for Domenech, for instance).

If you want two separate entities, take the WaPo logo off your pages. Your content material is not clearly labelled as to origin, so readers are rightly confused (almost by design, it seems, by the publishers)."

Seriously, this has become an embarrassing excuse put forward by your organization and the omsbudsman.

If they are not the same organization, why don't you label on every page as such?

Posted by: mike | March 24, 2006 03:25 PM

Greenwald is great. That's a good blogger.
Why hire a blogger just because he can throw more irrational, undocumented, outrageous accusations than others can? Stirring passions to go hang somebody from the nearest tree is no particular trick when you are willing to lie to get the reaction, like O'Reilly. WaPo doesn't need that.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:26 PM

Oh - and I've heard there are these things called Lexis and Nexis (no, they're not cars, or Henry Miller novels - at least I don't think so) that can also help you get more information about prospective blog candidates. Check it out.

Posted by: commie atheist | March 24, 2006 03:27 PM

Get a clue people. NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and other MSM outlets are to the left of center. Fox, Washington Times and the New York Post are to the right of center. I think what the Washington Post is doing is good. They are being like Fox when they have Jaun Williams from NPR give the liberal arguements.

There's a reason that liberals read the Washington post instead of the Washington Times. It's not because it's fair and balanced. It's because it's slanted to the liberal viewpoint and you liberals are scared of hearing the truth.

Posted by: Pepsiholic | March 24, 2006 03:28 PM

And how long now before the Ann Coulters and Bill O'Reilly's of the world begin proclaiming this ridiculous bit of fluff a martyr? Unfortunately, you can expect that to occur long before the management of this paper learn that coddling right-wing bigots only decreases the publication's value as a journalistic entity...

Posted by: Tom Yamada | March 24, 2006 03:28 PM

I do not see what all the fuss is about. For the past six year the press, including the Post, has been afraid of the Bush Administration and to question their lies. Why not just skip the middleman and directly hire liars as you journalists? Domenech was a good start. Jeff Gannon would be a great way to continue.

Posted by: Sam Leopold | March 24, 2006 03:29 PM

HAA-haa!

Posted by: Nelson Muntz | March 24, 2006 03:29 PM

TOOOOOO FUNNNYYYY...

The repukeliscum party is full of people who don't care how they get ahead, who lie, who cheat and who do anything to win.

Thank goodness for the liberal media. In the liberal media, playing by the rules still has some value.

Posted by: POed Lib | March 24, 2006 03:29 PM

BRADY RESIGN!

Posted by: Plagerists HEART The Post | March 24, 2006 03:29 PM

So what should the role of ombudsman be in this? Wash her hands of it? Obviously, the washington post has more explaining to do. When can we expect an open discussion of this and other actions that appear to be partisan?

Posted by: Valeo | March 24, 2006 03:29 PM

Domenech is out? Good!

I wonder who the WP's lumunaries will hire next to balance Dan Froomkin's bad habit of making his arguments using truth, logic, and facts. Ann Coulter? Michelle Malkin?

In any event, the Washington Post is now as reliable a publication as the Washington Times.

Boycott the WP!

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | March 24, 2006 03:30 PM

This entire episode has been foolish at best from the start.

Katherine Graham looks down from journalism heaven--and she weeps!

Posted by: A *former* subscriber! | March 24, 2006 03:31 PM

Newspapers cannot be blog sources. You guys are way too politically correct, which prevents honesty on the blogger's part. Just go back to doing what you do best; condescending the general public and promoting outdated social engineering programs such as "Diversity" (what ever in the hell that is supposed to mean).

Posted by: barellic@htomail.com | March 24, 2006 03:31 PM

"The Washington Post's Impact on the World:

1974: NIXON RESIGNS
2006: Domenech Resigns

Posted by: Redglare | March 24, 2006 02:57 PM"

Nominee #2 for "Post of the Day". Succinct but it really captures the decline of a once-great newspaper into irrelevance. Yeah, I know, I'm here but I only came for the wake.

Posted by: garryowen | March 24, 2006 03:32 PM

The New York Times. Now the Washington Post. Where can liberals go? (And, Mr. Brady, RESIGN!)

Posted by: tokyosue | March 24, 2006 03:32 PM

Uh, Mr. Brady? Does this mean that recommendations from Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin will carry less weight with you in the future?

Posted by: nobody | March 24, 2006 03:32 PM

Send the plagerist to Iraq. He's 24? His country needs him. Brady can go to.

Posted by: Post = Plagerism | March 24, 2006 03:32 PM

I saw some comments asking how Mr. Domenech could become Ultra-Republican so young. My observation, based on limited samples, is that rock-rib Republicanism is a young man's philosophy. When you're young, you can maintain the fantasy that you're making it in life based on your own abilities alone, and that great things will come to you in proportion to your value. It takes time to learn that life is unfair. Then, you can start to get some empathy.

Posted by: Tim | March 24, 2006 03:21 PM


Actually, he was home-schooled. Need I say more?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:32 PM

Well, Well...another ethics issue for the almighty conservatives!

Now, who's the embarrassment Benny? Victory for Froomkin!

Posted by: Pete Atha | March 24, 2006 03:33 PM

Neo-Cons are SOOOO last year.

Posted by: Still Shouting | March 24, 2006 03:33 PM

Hello admins!
May I point out two problems with this page?
Firstly, Trackback is finally working, but the Americablog link doesn't show up. Afaik the blog has a higher ranking than any of the sites listed, that's not a deliberate trick to ignore liberal sites, no?
Secondly, this page isn't linked to post.blog. So far, I haven't found a way how to find it via washingtonpost.com. Pls correct this! Thx.

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 03:33 PM

Just one more spoiled Republican who has lied and cheated his way to the top...

Are you hiring Gannon to replace him?

Posted by: gnipgnop | March 24, 2006 03:34 PM

Tim, sounds like your making excuses for you own failures. Don't project your deficient views upon others. It makes you look stupid.

Posted by: Fluoric | March 24, 2006 03:34 PM

Well, that was quick. But you still have your D. Howell problem. So why don't you just shift Ms. Howell over from her position as Post ombudsbush to blogger for "Red State America"?

Posted by: kdj | March 24, 2006 03:35 PM

Newspapers cannot be blog sources. You guys are way too politically correct, which prevents honesty on the blogger's part. Just go back to doing what you do best; condescending the general public and promoting outdated social engineering programs such as "Diversity" (what ever in the hell that is supposed to mean).

Posted by: barellic@htomail.com | March 24, 2006 03:31 PM

Gee, Jim, attacked from the left AND the right. Guess that means you're doing a good job, huh? Not.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:35 PM

The only credit I can give to the Washington Post is that at least they are leaving all these comments up and taking their medicine like they should.

I was listening to Sam Seder on The Al Franken Show this morning, and a caller brought up the disappearance of the traditional muckraking journalist. The blogs are taking up this role, even as the traditional media disavow themselves of it. Which is why I get my news (and context!) from trusted bloggers, such as Glenn Greenwald, Juan Cole, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, etc. These are the true journalists of our day, people with the analytical ability to dissect modern events and the courage to tell the truth, even when it goes against the grain of what society, business, or government want to hear.

It takes no courage for the Washington Post to promote a "red state" blogger who is really just an administration shill. This was really just a way for the Post to try to market themselves to a demographic they feel they are missing out on.

Journalism is not the same as every other business. At some point, they should put the marketing aside and tell the truth, no matter the repercussions. The Post is unwilling to do that, and that is what disappoints me the most, not just that they hired some no-talent, plagiarizing, political shill to speak on behalf of regular working folks in the hinterlands.

So, I will continue to get my information (and context!) from the blogs.

Posted by: Paul | March 24, 2006 03:35 PM

My name is Mark Judge. I have freelanced for the Post, even if only a couple-few times a year, for ten years. I am a conservative. I have written four books (two were awful). I was born and raised in DC - my grandfather played baseball for the Senators fer Pete's sake. I have written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and everything in between. I like to think my conservatism is thoughful and reasoned. Um...Jimbo, think I may have been a better candidate?

Posted by: Mark | March 24, 2006 03:35 PM

Gee, where is the Post going to find a left-wing nut to balance the "right-winger" slot they've committed to? Oh, that's right, how about ANYONE else on their staff! And how many present Post "reporters" or columnists have had their high school paper contributions examined? Any? Oh, but that's all right because they're collectivist fools. I guess it does go to show what "fact-checking" means to a left-wing news outlet: Scrutinize right-wingers but wave lefties through.

Posted by: Robert Speirs | March 24, 2006 03:35 PM

saved $.25 today because of the fool (pick one) at the Post

Posted by: good bye | March 24, 2006 03:36 PM

Where were all these indignant writers when Molly Ivins was plagiarizing?

Posted by: Molly Coddling | March 24, 2006 03:36 PM

Well, you're getting your butts handed too you. Might I join in, with some thoughts:

1) Was Domenech hired as a writer? If so, who looked at his portfolio and what was the assessment? I've hired a number of writers and I always looked over the portfolio.
2) Or was Domenech hired as a blogger? Is there a difference in your mind? If so are you the problem rather than Domenech?

Here's the smell test: if Mr. Froomkin were to be replaced tomorrow, would you look over the prior written work of the person who was to replace him?

Same question for Mr. Domenech.

Posted by: cvcobb | March 24, 2006 03:36 PM

This is negligence in hiring. Someone at Wapo should lose their job for this. Domenech has destroyed the last bit of journalistic integrity that Wapo once represented.

Wapo needs a makeover. Instead of resting on its laurels and cozying up to the Bush administration, Wapo should be doing serious investigative journalism and real analysis of what is being done by the Bush Administration in our name.

Posted by: amcg | March 24, 2006 03:36 PM

Jim Frey is available.

Posted by: Tired of it all | March 24, 2006 03:37 PM

Little Ben resigned? He wasn't fired? Plagiarism is OK with the WaPo?

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 24, 2006 03:38 PM

Well, I'm surprised and impressed that you guys ran the bum out -- I had y'all picked for holding on to him for dear life as proof to your GOP buddies that you were still faithful and loyal. So good for you...

BUT not entirely good for you. After all, you hired a guy after doing, apparently, ZERO research on him or his background. The Post was shocked, SHOCKED that they'd hired a plagiarist, a liar, a weasel, a racist!

Frankly, Mr. Brady, I don't think you should resign. I think you should be fired. Someone who's mismanaged a department as badly as you have doesn't deserve the dignity of getting to walk out under his own power...

Posted by: Wally Whateley | March 24, 2006 03:38 PM

I am happy that Ben Domenech is no longer writing for the Washington Post. I only with that The Post was able to fire him before he resigned.

In the future, I hope that The Post will refrain from hiring right wing hacks to "balance" real journalists. If The Post wants opinion columns, the right and left should both be represented and presented as such.


Posted by: Jim | March 24, 2006 03:38 PM

Plagiarism is an offense deserving termination, but the Post shouldn't overlook the fact that Ben was a lousy blogger. He could be reliably counted upon to toe the party line. And he wasn't a particularly gifted writer.

Posted by: Don't overlook the important thing | March 24, 2006 03:38 PM

Mr. Brady should apologize and take responsiblity for Domenech.

Posted by: ed | March 24, 2006 03:39 PM

I want to know three things. First, who suggested Ben as the best person for the job? I want the specific name. We are all concerned that Brady is unduly influenced by certain Republican operatives. Two, what did Brady think made Ben more qualified over other candidates? See Milbank for his own doubts about Ben's qualifications. Presumably there were other candidates. Three, what kind of standards for verifying resume statements and doing background checks exist at the Post? Given the debacle over Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair (NYT I know but still a valid reference) and the lack of editorial knowledge and control of Woodward, the fact that there continues to be lax standards and casual editorial practices is disturbing.

Posted by: Pete_Ottawa | March 24, 2006 03:39 PM

That was one swift boat that plowed over that shrill little hack. Reap, meet sow.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:40 PM

Mr. Brady,

We're not suprised at all to see Ben Domenech has been fired.

I found this very amusing, personally. I want to thank the Washington Post for a very amusing couple of days.

We're all grinning ear to ear on this side of the fence.

:D

Posted by: Balzac | March 24, 2006 03:41 PM

You know, this whole idea of having extreme nut-cases from the left and right deliver their
rants to produce "balanced" coverage of issues
is a brain-damaged concept.
If it were valid, then next the Washington Post should hire a left-wing lunatic who screams that Laura Bush is a ni**er-killing Nazi.

That would be "fair and balanced" coverage.

Oh well, have a good day anyway.

Posted by: Orange | March 24, 2006 03:43 PM

Dear Mr. Brady,

This is a serious stain on the Washington Post.

Either your judgment was seriously flawed in the hiring process or you succumbed to a witch hunt.

The man faced a lynch mob from the other side of political tracks which happens to be a most vocal if not a majority of your readership. You built the gallows and they strung him up. And then you dignified them with your gratitude.

Do you seriously think that the scrutiny on Ben that gave rise to these (any many other allegations, eg. MediaMatters.org) was motivated by anything other than partisanship? How will you respond if/when the same scrutiny is unleashed from Ben's side of the tracks upon your present journalists?

Ooops. Never mind. I am recalling that the answer to that is evident from past experience. When it comes from that side the MSM regularly dismisses it as partisan sniping.

Hmm...the stain shows in such stark contrast...out, out, dark spot. Nay, we need not redeem the right. The left will bear us to our destination and will bargain to cover our stain.

Sail away and may you meet with justice where you are going. Bon Voyage...

Posted by: John E. | March 24, 2006 03:43 PM

"Frankly, Mr. Brady, I don't think you should resign."

Hey, don't escalate things! Ok, Domenech was strong-armed to resign, to save that little bit of face that was left for WaPo, but pls appreciate that Brady finally did the right thing. Sure, he is a stubborn fellow and awful slow at learning, but give him a chance! After all, he can't do many more screwups without serious consequences. Even cats have only seven lifes...

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 03:43 PM

Dear Mr. Brady:

I'll kindly ask you again -- please refrain from referring to me in the future. As you know, I haven't wanted anything to do with you and the Post for years.

Sincerely,
Journalistic Integrity

Posted by: Mr. Smith | March 24, 2006 03:44 PM

What? Red State blogger isn't part of the Brady bunch?

Posted by: kayakbiker | March 24, 2006 03:45 PM

Dear Mr. Brady & WashPost,

This is a deeply disturbing turn of events -- first: that you hired a man without checking even slightly into his background, second: that you hired an overt racist and bigot under the guise of fair reporting of all sides, and third: that you did not do it under a "he said she said" column idea, but as a one-sided extremist view given good credence and respect by being published under your banner.

This leads the country to further divide, proving how in fact, the so-called "liberal" media is indeed more right-wing than the right-wing wants people to think. It seems to reflect a level of corruption and irresponsibility on your paper that is more damaging than anything else could be. You have done a great disservice to yourself and the public. I hope you will consider deeply before doing something like this again, and that you will publish a clearer apology to ressure us that the paper is worth reading.

Posted by: concerned reader | March 24, 2006 03:45 PM

Mr Brady

Will you please explain why you hired a non-journalist for this job?

If being a non-journalist is a prerequiste, where should I send my non-resume?

Thank you.
derf

Posted by: derf | March 24, 2006 03:45 PM

This has been pointed out by others (wish I could remember whom): By hiring an unapologetic rightwing hit man to 'balance' a journalist who might be saying things that makes the administration uncomfortable, you position the reporter by default as a political advocate of 'liberal' values - and thus untrustworthy, subversive, traitorous, etc. to the average brainwashed Fox News viewer.

If a journalist offers his opinion or analysis, he has a professional duty to base it on actual facts. A political advocate (whether or not he is a serial plagirist) is under no such obligation; your REAL mistake was to put the two on equal footing on your website.

Posted by: Miscweant | March 24, 2006 03:45 PM

I’m simply writing to note my relief at the resignation of Ben Domenech and the still birth of his extremist column “Red America.” I had planned to cancel my subscription and stick with the NYT only, but I’ll not do that even though the WP just isn’t the same staunchly independent and investigative paper it once was.

Michael Roehm
A Subscriber

Posted by: Michael Roehm | March 24, 2006 03:45 PM

Pepsiholic, you read the Washington Times and you are telling us 'we' are afraid of the truth?

That is rich.

The WT was created by Moon to manipulate the nation. Moon brags about using it to do just that and give his band of con artists credibility around the world. Conservatives have helped him by reading and sucking in its propaganda. Moon is a mind molder but you see him as your savior. He's using you.

excerpt from the once mighty WP:

"With journalism, we have now reached success by establishing The Washington Times,” Moon said, according to Soejima. “We now have a direct influence on Reagan through The Washington Times.” (John Burgess and Michael Isikoff, “Moon’s Profits Bolster Efforts in U.S.” Washington Post, Sunday, Sept, 16, 1984, pg. A01.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/unification/profit.htm
---

I influenced America through the Washington Times and so many different activities. Do you want Father in America. (YES !! The ministers responded)…The Last Days are coming to America. Be careful. Those that oppose Rev. Moon will perish. Since I came here, I didn’t get anything from America.
(Sun Myung Moon, Sun Myung MoonSeptember 13, 2002 “The Last Days Are Coming to America.” An address by Moon given at East Garden to clergy planning the Sept. 14 “blessing.”) http://www.tparents.org/UNews/Unws0209/SM020913.htm

Posted by: Nate | March 24, 2006 03:45 PM

Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of.

Shouldn't that be "Deliberately lying to the public to further political agendas of those in power is the most serious offense a writer can be accused of"?

If the worst thing that can happen to a journalist is being accused of stealing words, maybe that shows why the country is in such sorry shape right now.

Posted by: Gen | March 24, 2006 03:46 PM

"That was one swift boat that plowed over that shrill little hack."

Well, where and when did we learn that?
No more Mr. Nice Guy!

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 03:46 PM

My understanding is deploying this right wing, lying, amazingly "misunder"-educated 24 yr old ideologue (well, when he was actually using "ideas" that weren't someone elses)was to balance the truthful, and thus incredibly unflattering to Bush, reporting of Froomkin. Where I was brought up speaking the truth carries no obligation that it be balanced with lies. Is there not ONE honest person at the Post that knows this??

Posted by: James R. | March 24, 2006 03:46 PM

More evidence that:

Competence is not a Republican Value.

Posted by: Teapot Dome | March 24, 2006 03:46 PM

Ben has published his response to all this over at RedState. My jaw is hanging open. He nitpicks, denies, points fingers, supplies fishy cover stories for himself, and does everything but just own up to being a plagiarist. Or apologize to anyone.

It makes me almost start to believe that this really is a vast left-wing conspiracy to make right-wingers look bad.

Posted by: Seth | March 24, 2006 03:47 PM

All right, I confess. It was me. I hired Ben Domenech. It was all my idea. I knew he was inexperienced and kind of cocky. But I admired his rakish good looks, and those eyes. Sigh.

I very very very sorry I've caused so much pain to everyone. I've damaged so many lives, mine has become forfeit. Goodbye.

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Posted by: Dead Man | March 24, 2006 03:47 PM

Pepsiholic

You are being used...

more form the once might WP:

“The Washington Times was the top priority of the entire Unification Church worldwide,” said Soejima, who was editor of Sekai Nippo (World Daily News), a church-controlled Tokyo newspaper, before being fired last October following a dispute with church officials over control of the paper. …

But he (Moon) spoke with pride of The Washington Times, bragging of important officials who had attended its opening ceremonies. Moon said that James Whelan, then publisher of The Washington Times, “listens to what I say and makes the newspaper as I tell him,” according to Soejima…“With journalism, we have now reached success by establishing The Washington Times,” Moon said, according to Soejima. “We now have a direct influence on Reagan through The Washington Times.” (John Burgess and Michael Isikoff, “Moon’s Profits Bolster Efforts in U.S.” Washington Post, Sunday, Sept, 16, 1984, pg. A01.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/unification/profit.htm
___

With the Washington Times as the core, we are establishing preeminence in the American print media, a field of more than 1,750 American newspapers. By doing so we can include all fields of intelligence. Today we have in this area surpassed the liberal New York Times and Washington Post, and continually gaining important confidential information not only from America but also from other governments all over the world.

(The Words of Reverend Sun Myung Moon from 1986. “Absolute Values and The New Cultural Revolution - True Love and the Unified World.” Sun Myung Moon Founder's Address, Fifteenth International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, November 28, 1986. J. W. Marriott Hotel, Washington, D.C.)http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/sunmyungmoon86/861128.htm

___

Posted by: Nate | March 24, 2006 03:48 PM

Could I have little Ben's job? I promise I'll just copy from White House and Pentagon news releases.

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 24, 2006 03:48 PM

Why is this such a big deal with you people? The Post hired a neo-con Republican, they got someone with neo-con Republican ethics.

Can we please put some energy into actual NEWS now?

Posted by: TJ | March 24, 2006 03:48 PM

In not-so-loving memory of the rather short writing career of Ben Domenech, I submit the following critique of him and the WaPo in Benny's inimatable style:

"You. Both. Screwed. The. Pooch."

Fear not, young Ben. You sound like perfect material for Fox News. Give Rupert a call!

Posted by: Za | March 24, 2006 03:48 PM

I just called the White House comment line 1-202-456-1111. I told the operator that a President and Vice President with approval ratings in the teens and twenties should spare the Presidency and Vice Presidency further embarrasment and step down, resign, and call for new Presidential elections. If the next administration is Clinton/Obabma or McCain/Rice, former President Bush should not be put on trial for war crimes, but made ambassador to Iraq. The White House Operator broke out laughing! Bush could work come of that "uniter not a divider" magic on the Shiite and Sunni Iraqis! Why is it up to CNN's showbiz tonight and Comedy Central to investigate the 9/11 coverup, and Government spying without a warrant? I've noticed Charlie Sheen's theories about the wargames on 911 are being smeared because he used to drink and do a lot of Coke. Um so did George AWOL Bush and no ones slagging on him! I woke up Charlie Sheen's car once!

Posted by: Brian Fejer | March 24, 2006 03:49 PM

Sort of suprised too. I'm getting so used to not getting an inch of slack from the corporate media.

Posted by: I'm glad comments are open here | March 24, 2006 03:49 PM

It doesn't matter, resign or not resign... plagiarize or not plagiarize... Bottom line is really quite simple; the Washington Post is a right-wing HACK "news"paper, and we all know it.

Posted by: GOPHater | March 24, 2006 03:50 PM


Your rag is pathetic. Even my bird won't crap on your pages anymore.

Sad sad sad sad sad.

Posted by: loser | March 24, 2006 03:51 PM

It is a relief to know that Red America column has been stopped with the writer's resignation. Now it is important that the Washington Post "never again hire(s) right wing hacks to "balance" journalists who are doing their job by practicing strong watchdog journalism. If they want opinion columns, the right and left should both be represented, but it is unacceptable to continue "Red America" by itself." (Quote from MoveOn.org)

Posted by: Nancy Anderson | March 24, 2006 03:51 PM

Good riddance.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:52 PM

"If you are going to have a Republican operative and movement conservative as a blogger, have a Democratic operative and movement progressive also."

It's safe now. There are no longer any of the former at The Post. What a relief.

Posted by: Timmy D | March 24, 2006 03:52 PM

Lessons for the WaPo to learn from it's Ben Domenech fiasco:

1), It is NEVER a good idea to attempt to balance
honest watchdog journalism with partisan hackery.
2), In the long run, background checks pay for
themselves.
3), No-name plagiarizing bigots make poor hires. Who
knew?
4), See 1.

Posted by: McSnatherson | March 24, 2006 03:54 PM

Maybe the real scandal is how over-sensitive the MSM is to the shrieking and hysterics of the blogosphere. For heaven's sake, it was a dumb move. But the histrionics and the "you don't get the blogosphere, nyah nyah" bit is just silly. Grow up. You don't like it? Don't read it.

And for the last time, THE PAPER DIDN'T HIRE THE GUY!!! Geez -- you people wonder why you aren't credible and they keep taking away your posting abilities. Go pout in the corner.

Posted by: Washington, DC | March 24, 2006 03:54 PM

re: "We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area."

Although I do not see the value in adding to the mud slinging that has become our political discourse today, I hope that you will balance any future right wing blogger with a left wing blogger.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Fuller

Posted by: Carolyn Fuller | March 24, 2006 03:55 PM

I work at a credit union in Kansas City ($300 million in assets) and they promoted an AP clerk to staff accountant. The lady had about 6 hours accounting education and never closed the books or did GL entries before. She is way, way over her head. Mistakes happen daily. Costs the CU money regularly. But the person that promoted her really, really doesn't want to look like an idiot for promoting this clueless individual. So this lady will continue to fail and will eventually be sent away as a scapecoat in order to hide the incompetence of the manager (however, it will take a couple of years before this happens).

Hiring and promoting failures happen all the time in the real world. I will give washingtonpost.com credit at least for cutting the cord quickly.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:56 PM

Unfortunately, its just another sad chapter in the Washington Post's downward spiral. I mourn the great newspaper it once was. I wish the main stream media would stop worrying about pleasing the right, the left, the administration, corporate owners and return to actual journalism.

Posted by: the dane | March 24, 2006 03:56 PM

What inspired you at WaPo to hire such an immature little person? I heard about his hire and looked at his blog.. it was a wasteland of namecalling and self-satisfied verbal smirks. How in the name of God did you settle on such a specimen to host an official WaPo blog? Couldn't have been his hereditary connections to the Bush administration, eh?

You pays yer money, you takes yer chances. He who lie down with dogs, etc...

Posted by: bthwaithe | March 24, 2006 03:57 PM

Please, take this as an opportunity to give the whole "red vs. blue" thing a rest. You have plenty of readers in the so-called red states who rely on the Post and other major newspaper web sites as a lifeline, with serious national and international coverage of the issues that impact all Americans, no matter where they happen to live. Local newspapers all over America are a joke--don't let the Post sink to their level. Cover the news.

Posted by: a reader writes | March 24, 2006 03:57 PM

What Lukasiak said.
-

Posted by: QuentinCompson | March 24, 2006 03:57 PM

""If you are going to have a Republican operative and movement conservative as a blogger, have a Democratic operative and movement progressive also."

It's safe now. There are no longer any of the former at The Post. What a relief."

Well, I don't believe this. Imho the executive ranks of WaPo are full of closet republicans. And since it's much more difficult to get them out into the open, they're much more dangerous.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:57 PM

The Ben Domenech Haiku Contest is now in progress. Syllabic rules shall be strictly enforced! Have fun, kids!

Posted by: Silly Person | March 24, 2006 03:59 PM

"You have plenty of readers in the so-called red states who rely on the Post and other major newspaper web sites as a lifeline, with serious national and international coverage of the issues that impact all Americans, no matter where they happen to live."

Yup. There were lots of them posting in the threads. This isn't a victory for liberals only, it's a victory for all readers.

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 04:00 PM

Jim

Now that you have an opening to fill, how about Judy Miller ?

She could tilt your coverage pro-Bush without thinking twice.

She had super super super super super secrect clearance to see stuff only Cheney and God could see.

She's available and she hates blogs (left leaning ones anyway).

If not Judy, have you thought about Jeff Gannon?

Posted by: Lee | March 24, 2006 04:02 PM

Balance is important - bloviating from a non-journalist partisan man-child isn't helpful. Its playground stuff.

Find an actual journalist to represent the right who won't embarras them. One with journalism experience and credentials who is the first to call his party wrong when they are - not the first to trumpet their failures as democrat whining, or who calls an American hero a "communist". Bloggers who cat-call only lower the IQ of your publication.

I'm suprised the Post.com hired this guy in the first place, frankly. It shows extremely poor judgement and a lack of ethics on your part.

Posted by: Long Beach, CA | March 24, 2006 04:02 PM

Dear Mr. Brady,

In case the WaPo is wondering why their readership is down - or why those who are intelligent no longer find it to be a trustworthy and balanced publication of the news, I ask you this:

If you truly believe that "Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit", then how on earth is it that Ben Domenech was hired in the first place?

You "appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations"? What about those responsible for hiring Ben Domenech? Clearly they didn't do their jobs if you have to rely on the internet to find out that the Washington Post hired a plagiarist.

And on top of that, to add insult to injury, Ben Domenech "resigns"? The Washington Post is clearly not as concerned about plagiarism as it claims to be or he would have been summarily FIRED.

Furthermore, Ben Domench was not only a plagiarist, but also a bigotted right-wing zealot and it is unacceptable for the Washington Post to be spitting out blatant right-wing propaganda.

Strong watchdog journalism by your reporters should be commended and heralded as the standard for the Washington Post. It is ridiculous that you feel you need to "balance" your best reporting with blatant right-wing propaganda.

If you want an opinion column, then the right and the left should be equally represented. And perhaps you should check their backgrounds more thoroughly before hiring them.

SHAME ON YOU.

Posted by: BMcC | March 24, 2006 04:02 PM

what the washingtonpost.com should do now.

Posted by: Jay Rosen | March 24, 2006 04:03 PM

"And for the last time, THE PAPER DIDN'T HIRE THE GUY!!!"

Doesn't matter. Both operations run under the same trademark, so they have to live up to the same values. Not to mention, they both belong to the same Holding Co. If you hurt the paper, you get things rolling where the important decisions are made.

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 04:04 PM

A CONSERVATIVE BLOG AT THE W. POST!
By Michelle Malkin · March 20, 2006 06:25 PM

My very smart and talented editor, Ben Domenech, of Regnery Publishing, has been tapped to head up a new conservative blog at The Washington Post.

Yes, the Washington Post.

It's called "Red America."

Check it out and show him some love and support.

He will need it.

The moonbats will go nuts. I promise you.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 04:04 PM

oops... links no work, huh?

what the washingtonpost.com should do now

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/03/24/bd_wapo.html

Posted by: Jay Rosen | March 24, 2006 04:04 PM

I hope his career is wrecked as he deserves

Posted by: sh | March 24, 2006 04:05 PM

It should be to difficult for the Post to find another conservative blogger; there are plenty of serial plagiarists out there-

Posted by: Jon Robert Hogan | March 24, 2006 04:06 PM

Dear Mr. Brady,

You won't remember (if you even read) an e-mail I sent you some time ago defending the content, if not the language of bloggers who rightly attacked you for preferring Republican shills disguised as journalists to mere mortals.

I say to you again, now, what I said to you then: If you want respect, you might try earning it. No doubt you thought my advice impertinent then. What do you think now?

Posted by: William Timberman | March 24, 2006 04:08 PM

It's particularly disappointing that the Washington Post would try to fob off Domenech as some sort of "counterpart" to Froomkin.

Since WaPo claims Domenech wasn't retained because he was a conservative let's just see who the next candidate is.

Posted by: Maezeppa | March 24, 2006 04:09 PM

Thank you for dropping this quack. Now how's about leaving well enough alone and not turning the Post into a poo-flinging rag?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 04:10 PM

Yep. Once again the revolting underbelly of the right wing is exposed again.
What a surprise to find a morally bankrupt republican. No, really it is.
Just another selfish loser following the path of Republican values.

Posted by: David L. | March 24, 2006 04:10 PM

As President of the American Association of the Morally Superior, I wish to thank Mr. James Brady for generously providing an outlet for the expression of our members while our servers are being backed up.

Members, we'll be back on line in just a few minutes. Come back soon. And, there are doughnuts and punch in the breakroom!

Posted by: President, John Clayton | March 24, 2006 04:11 PM

"Find an actual journalist to represent the right who won't embarras them."

I still don't believe in the necessity of hiring a rightwing blogger for balance. Note to the executives: Marketing rules! It's more expensive to get a new customer than keep an existing one. So why do you want to take the risk to alienate your base?

Having said that, If Brady really wants to go this dangerous way, reading the opinion of Bruce Bartlett might be interesting some times...

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 04:11 PM

tom toles plagerized metzger with his dr rumsfeld cartoon

Posted by: mr let me | March 24, 2006 04:11 PM

It seems to me that everybody who is critizing Jim Brady for "not doing his job" i really missing the point, if not the big picture. He runs a newspaper, right? So, what is his job? It's to get readers of course, because the bottom line is that's what it take for newpapers to make money. Well, there are over 500 posts to this blog alone! And whatever gets them in the door (or to the website, as the case may be), well, that's good for the paper. Seems to me like Jimmy's doing one heck of a job!

Posted by: Ken | March 24, 2006 04:11 PM

'We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations.' Media outlets Jimmy? Don't you mean those meanie Bush-hating liberal blogs? No kudos for Jane Hamsher Jimmy?

'When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings.' Well certainly you can't be held accountable Jim, who would expect you to do any investigation at all of your new 26 year old 'journalist' without any experience except writing for a wingnut blog. Why would anyone question someone with those kind of credentials. I'm sure, Jimmy, that when you went to redstate.org (that is if you bothered) and your read gems like :
'It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem.' (Which begs the question, if the Washington Post is inordinately responsible for bad jounalism wouldn't it be logical that by killing....well, I better not say it, I know how much more you value the lives of WaPo lemmings than black babies).

I mean I'm sure when you read that, you had a 'Eureka!' moment, finally someone who represented the type of jounalism that you and your overlords in the White HOuse could get behind. Well its too bad it didn't work Jimmy. I'm sure that his family connections to the White House had nothing to do with his hiring either, nor did his father's close working relationship w/ Jack Abramoff, who as we know from reading your fine, fine newspaper, gave money freely to BOTH republicans AND democrats...right Jimmy? Now maybe you can tell us how Bob Woodward balances his duties as a journalist and his duty to maintain state secrets, as someone w/ top-secret security clearance (as he admitted on the Larry King show the day after the Libby nvestigation).

The Washington Post is not interested in facts, news or information. They are only interested in how they can serve their masters in power by mis-informing, plagiarizing and propagandizing. The Liberals blogs kicked you ass big time Jimmy boy and it was easy, they had truth and the desire to find the truth working for them, powerful stuff that, and all you had was, well you're desire to be a bottom boy for the right wing.

Posted by: Arch Stanton | March 24, 2006 04:12 PM

Who tf is John Clayton? Isn't that resistance hero called John Conners?

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 04:13 PM

We do need a red state bloger though.

Posted by: C. Tollefson | March 24, 2006 04:15 PM

As the GEICO caveman sez: "Next time, do a little research?"

Posted by: Jerkstore | March 24, 2006 04:15 PM

What does it take to get hired to write for washingtonpost.com? Seriously, what kind of personal connections are needed? I'm a person who thinks and writes well and have never plagiarized in my life, but I wouldn't stand a chance of being hired. But then I believe in professionalism. Is washingtonpost.com professional? Actions indicate no. It's appalling.

Posted by: George Grella | March 24, 2006 04:15 PM


Ben speaks: www.redstate.com


Red America Ends
By: Augustine · Section: Miscellania

"Red America, my new blog at washingtonpost.com, has been under attack since its launch. It is a conservative blog on a mainstream media site, so many of the attacks were expected. If one bothers to read it, I believe it stands as a welcome addition to the opinion debate."

"The hate mail that I have received since the launch of this blog has been overwhelmingly profane and violent. My family has been threatened; my friends have been deluged; my phone has been prank called. The most recent email that showed up while writing this post talked about how the author would like to hack off my head, and wishes my mother had aborted me."

"But in the course of accusing me of racism, homophobia, bigotry, and even (on one extensive Atrios thread) of having a sexual relationship with my mother, the leftists shifted their accusations to ones of plagiarism. You can find the major examples here: I link to this source only because I believe it's the only place that hasn't yet written about how they'd like to rape my sister."

"I know that charges of plagiarism are serious. While I am not a journalist, I have, myself, written more than one thing that has been plagiarized in the past. But these charges have also served to create an atmosphere where no matter what is said on my Red America blog, leftists will focus on things with my byline from when I was a teenager."

"I can rebut several of the alleged incidents here. The most recent accusation, is that I stole a music review from Crosswalk and passed it off at National Review Online. In fact, I wrote both lists myself; I was one of Crosswalk's music review contributors at the time."

"The Left has also accused me of foisting Sen. Frist quotes and some descriptive material from the Washington Post for a New York Press article on the Capitol Shooter. But the quotes I used were either properly credited or came from Sen. Frist’s press conference, which I attended along with many other reporters. So it is no surprise that we had similar quotes or similar descriptions of the same event. I have reams of notes and interviews about the events of that day. I also went over the entire piece step by step with NYPress editors to ensure that it was unquestionably solid before it ran."

"Virtually every other alleged instance of plagiarism that I’ve seen comes from a single semester’s worth of pieces that were printed under my name at my college paper, The Flat Hat, when I was 17."

"In one instance, I have been accused me of passing off P.J. O'Rourke's writing as my own in a column for the paper. But the truth is that I had met P.J. at a Republican event and asked his permission to do a college-specific version of his classic piece on partying. He granted permission, the piece was cleared with my editors at the paper, and it ran as inspired by O’Rourke’s original."

"My critics have also accused me of plagiarism in multiple movie reviews for the college paper. I once caught an editor at the paper inserting a line from The New Yorker (which I read) into my copy and protested. When that editor was promoted, I resigned. Before that, insertions had been routinely made in my copy, which I did not question. I did not even at that time read the publications from which I am now alleged to have lifted material. When these insertions were made, I assumed, like most disgruntled writers would, that they were unnecessary but legitimate editorial additions."

"But all these specifics are beside the point. Considering that all of this happened almost eight years ago, and that there are no files or notes that I've kept from that brief stint, it is simply my word against the liberal blogosphere on these examples. It becomes a matter of who you believe."

"The truth is, a more responsible teenager would've nipped this sort of thing in the bud. A less sloppy writer would have made sure that material copied from other places never made it into a published piece, and never necessitated apologies or explanations that will do nothing to stop the critics. I was wrong not to do so."

"But I do have one other collegiate example that might be to the point. When I was a junior in college, I wrote an article about liberal protests against Henry Kissinger’s visit to our campus. The leftists featured in the piece tried to get me kicked out of school. They mounted a six-month campaign against me. They posted fliers about me on campus. They sent me reams of hate mail. Ultimately, they were unsuccessful – the Honor Council completely cleared my name and the article as the truth. The events of the past 72 hours seem like a rerun of that experience."

"The truth is, no conservative could write for the Post without being subject to the gauntlet of the liberal attack machine. There is no question in my mind that any RedState contributor writing for this blog would have found leftists delving through his high school yearbooks and grade school book reports in an effort to discredit and defame him. And if you too were a sloppy teenage writer, your errors or the errors of others would’ve been exploded."

"I have a great many friends who are willing to stand and defend me on this. I appreciate their support. I have enormous respect for Jim Brady and the vision he has at WPNI. But while the folks at washingtonpost.com understand my position and are convinced by my arguments on many of these issues, they also feel that the firestorm here will only serve to damage us all, and that there is no way this blog can continue without being permanently tagged to this firestorm. Therefore, I have resigned this position with washingtonpost.com."

"This is a shame. As you all know, I am a conservative, but not a partisan – I believe had this blog been allowed to continue, it would have been a significant addition to the Post's site. The Post showed bravery by including a conservative voice, and I hope they continue to seek that balance."

"While my blog was only alive for a week, it did have one result that was encouraging. If the change of heart described here continues, it will all have been worth it."

"To my friends: thank you for your support. To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America."

Regards,

Ben

Posted by: Tango Belle | March 24, 2006 04:15 PM

No surprise that such an extremist would bindulge in such behavior. As a non-American, it has become obvious that American right-wingers have come to believe that truth is whatever they say it is. That is the O'Reilly factor. Into the recycling bin of history with him!

Posted by: Randall Johnston | March 24, 2006 04:15 PM

Mr. Brady,

I appreciate your post. From the beginning, I felt Mr. Domenech was an extremely poor choice fot the Washington Post. I was especially offended that you thought he was an appropriate counterweight to Mr. Froomkin (I can only imagine what he thought!). However, once the facts about Mr. Domenech emerged, I was pleased to see the Post act swiftly. Thank you for standing on the side of journalistic integrity.

Posted by: Jax, Ellicott City, MD | March 24, 2006 04:16 PM

It's good to see Domenech gone. What's not good to see is the notion expressed by so many here that the Post should only be presenting the left's point of view. Once upon a time, liberal meant considering all points of view.

Posted by: many sides | March 24, 2006 04:17 PM

Liberal bloggers made one mistake here.

Too much too soon. It would have been better had you waited and let him stick his butt out further, then cut it off.

Such is the problem when you are part of a movement that doesn't dance to the RNC daily blast fax as the cult of conservatism does.

Really, it would have been nice to have had Hannity and Rush brag about him a bit.

Posted by: Director Dale | March 24, 2006 04:17 PM

Ohhhh, I forgot to mention Jimmy, next time you see Ben, don't forget to tell him that Army recruiters are looking for stand-up, right-thinking, healthy young men just like him. Maybe a career 'fighting for freedom' will be the silver lining in this cloud for Ben. He probably never enlisted thinking that he was more valuble fighting the war in the blogosphere, but now that thats over, I'm sure he's rarin' to go to Iraq.

Posted by: Arch Stanton | March 24, 2006 04:18 PM

"He runs a newspaper, right? So, what is his job? It's to get readers of course, because the bottom line is that's what it take for newpapers to make money."

1. He doesn't run a newspaper, he runs this website (down).
2. His job is to transfer the content of the paper to the www and generate additional revenue.
3. Paper customers still are accounting for a higher RoI, so Brady is hurting the business if he drives paying readers away from the paper.

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 04:18 PM

Obviously the evil forces of the main stream media conspired to force the resignation of someone with an alternative view - one Ben Domenech.

Make no mistake - those who disagree with the views of the predominantly liberal and overwhelmingly evil main stream media will pay the price. The issue here is not whether Mr. Ben Domenech lied or stole material from other sources. Since when is that against the principles of journalism. The issue here is that the evil main stream media cannot stand when others disagree with their loony views.

In this post 9/11 world, antiquated notions such as sincerity, honesty, and integrity mean nothing. What means most to all right-thinking Americans and the president as well is the message. To stay on the message is more important than to report whatever the truth might be. Those who play by pre 9/11 rules will lose. Ben Domenech is living in a post 9/11 world whereas the evil liberal media is obviously pro-terrorism.
By: MinneapolisMike on March 24, 2006 at 02:46pm

The above is MinneapolisMike's take on this at Huffingtonpost. Very astute satirist, that Mike!

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 24, 2006 04:18 PM

Kudos to Mr. Brady for doing the right thing. WashPost deserves the benefit of the doubt here... a mistake was made, and once that became clear they took the right actions to stand by their journalistic ethics.

And shame on Mr. Domenech for not only engaging in serial plagarism, but for his petulant whine over at RedState blaming his actions on everyone but himself -- leftists, the blogging community, his former editors, a massive conspiracy out to get him when he was in college. If it wasn't clear before that this guy had no maturity, ethics, respect for facts, or personal responsibility, it is now.

My suggestion to the WashPost: hiring a typical propaganda attack-dog does nothing to "balance" viewpoints. The reason someone like Ben Domenech exists is to spew hate and propaganda against his enemies, something that has no place in an institution like the WashPost. For real balance, why not bring on someone who espouses the classic conservative viewpoint? I'd like to see a voice given to old-school conservatives who still believe in classic Republican values like limited government, fiscal responsibility and privacy rights. The public is choking to death on the nonstop stream of deception and propaganda coming from the current administration; the last thing we need for "balance" is more talking heads to parrot it. We do need to hear from conservatives who have a different message.

Posted by: TWoodward | March 24, 2006 04:19 PM

Ben the Diva is whining over at redstate.org with the usual apologies.

Mean old liberals threatened his mother and sisters with rape, threatened to kill his dog, wished his mother had aborted him, wanted to saw his head off, harrassing phone calls, etc. Typical.

Red America Ends
By: Augustine
Mar 24th, 2006: 15:12:55

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 04:19 PM

To "Washingtong, DC"... winners don't pout.

Posted by: Maezeppa | March 24, 2006 04:19 PM

"Once upon a time, liberal meant considering all points of view."

That's so pre-W. The rules have changed.
No pasaran!

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 04:21 PM

Seriously, WaPo, do you have any means to gsuge how far you have fallen in the realm of journalistic excellence over the past 20 years or so? I mean, do you have, REALLY?

The Domenech incident is but a sharp reminder of your continuing slide...nay, plummet, to irrelevance in the world of news media decline.

Echoing previous opinions here: Come on Deborah Howell, show us the documents.

Posted by: SeeDee | March 24, 2006 04:21 PM

Really, Mr Brady. Isn't it time you did the decent thing and stepped aside?

You are clearly incompetant.

Posted by: Steve Kelso | March 24, 2006 04:22 PM

How about someone respectable next time like Ann Coulter? Or Rush Limbaugh?

Added bonus: Their skeletons are already out of the closet.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 04:23 PM

Uh, people. The servers are back up. Come on back. The doughnuts are getting stale.

Yours Truly,

John Clayton, President
AAMS

Posted by: John Clayton | March 24, 2006 04:24 PM

The Post made a mistake and corrected it. They stood up, admitted the mistake and moved on. Too bad you liberals out there can't do the same thing, trying to tie this in with the White House, is beyond comprehension. I wonder if when you wipe your butt, and the toilet paper breaks, you blame the president for that too? I have no doubt that you do.

Posted by: bbishere2 | March 24, 2006 04:25 PM

Thank God there is still some sanity left in this country!!
This shill should never have been given the job in the first place- was this a Rove "plant"!!

Posted by: geojazz46 | March 24, 2006 04:26 PM

Yes, plagiarism is the worst crime a writer for any arm of the Washington Post can possibly commit.

Making the blogosphere safe for open discussion of whether killing Black babies will improve the development of American society... not so much.

Apparently.

Posted by: Barry Champlain | March 24, 2006 04:26 PM

So his response is: a) so what--people used to plagiarize me and they didn't get their blogs yanked off of major mainstream newspaper websites; and b) my nasty college editors used to insert lines from other people's articles into my work as "unnecessary but legitimate editorial additions." Um, Ben--are you for real? Or are you some actor who's been hired by "The Leftists" to roundaboutly discredit conservative columnists everywhere?

Posted by: David D. | March 24, 2006 04:27 PM

Good job to all those that uncovered the truth! How about going after congress now!!! I'm sure we can uncover past deeds that pale in comparison to plagerism!! How about checking to see if any members used to belong to the KKK? How about if someone got away with manslaughter (like if they drove off a bridge and allowed a woman to drown)and my all time favorite (that the press refuses to investigate)... why was John Kerry's "honorable" discharge signed during the Carter adminitration???

Posted by: Powertothepeople | March 24, 2006 04:27 PM

I'm reminded of Hayden Christensen's brilliant portrayal of Stephen Glass. Even when cornered with indisputable proof of his plagiarism, he directs his anger outward and casts himself as the victim until the bitter end.

Ben, like Glass, plays the classic games of a con man, clinging to the desperate excuses he's created, perhaps even convincing himself they're true.

Ben, however, is worse than a fabulist. He's a plagiarist. He's the scum of the writing world. Even lower than the editor.

Posted by: mike innocenzi | March 24, 2006 04:28 PM

Personally, I could care less about the plagiarism charge.

As an African-American female, I feel the Washington Post was very irresponsible in hiring a writer who proudly declared without any shame that the late Coretta King was a communist. How can the WPost make such a hiring judgemnet without doing a thorough background check on Domenech's writings?

It's beyond shameful that it had to come to this.

Posted by: Mariah | March 24, 2006 04:28 PM

This has thank God occured. Although, the actual reasons differed from those I expected. Please stop trying to kiss up to the right wing wackos, and have some TRUE BALANCE OF OPINIONS. That is, if you consider yourselves an unbiased and respected news sourc.
You gotta level the playing field. Either have two contrasting equivalent parties, or don't bother. There's enough viable news and opinion blogs out their.

Posted by: AJustice | March 24, 2006 04:29 PM

Being "fair and balanced" does not mean giving into Right Wing ideology and opinion does not, nor should it ever, replace genuine reporting and journalism.

Now that Ben Domenech and Red America have resigned, please, leave it that way. There are plenty of opinion writers on the Right, please do not create another and/or give them space and call it balanced reporting.

The Washington Post should remember and honour its reputation for hard hitting and fair journalism.

Posted by: Kathleen McGee | March 24, 2006 04:29 PM

Do you, "...remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area," as you say, Mr. Brady, or do you remain committed to being a forum for political propaganda? Learn the difference, then decide...or perhaps your own replacement should do so.

Posted by: Brian | March 24, 2006 04:30 PM

I can't believe that it took bloggers online to uncover this fraud!! What happened to the journalistic stadards that the Washington Post used to have?! Unbelievable, just unbelievable. It's sad you have sunk to this level.

Posted by: Melinda | March 24, 2006 04:32 PM

The only surprise here is how long it took the Post to discover what a talentless, shrill and brainwashed mouthpiece Mr. Domenech is.

What's next? A Jeff Gannon blog?

You should be ashamed.

Posted by: Allan | March 24, 2006 04:32 PM

Wow WAPO. What a total embarrassment for you- completely embarrassed by the blogosphere.

Like an earlier poster said "A half dozen bloggers in their underwear" discovered in half a day what you apparently couldn't. Balance? HA. That's the LAST thing you were interested in, obviously. You wanted partianship, nothing more.

Embarrassing, humiliating. You guys have zero cred left. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Posted by: Citizen J | March 24, 2006 04:32 PM

Mr. Brady:

I cannot imagine what you were thinking in hiring Domenich, unless what you were thinking is that since the country is entering into a period of outright fascism you had better kowtow to those on the right who are responsible for this state of affairs. Or are you attempting to "balance" the responsible journalists that are indeed still on your staff with an irresponsible journalist such as Domenich?

Posted by: Patrick Emmett | March 24, 2006 04:35 PM

Searching in vain for the magic band-aid that will stop the bleeding, eh? Please search a little deeper. It's not as simple a problem as can be solved by throwing some right-wing dead weight on the balance to even out your decades of institutionalized left lean. You need to blow the whole GD Post up and start over if you want to get back readers who actually have money and are willing to spend it to read your rag. Your circulation numbers would probably be improved if you could count the derelicts, free-loaders, and vagrants who pee on the post in the tubes of the Metro (i.e. Democrats.) Good luck with that.

Posted by: Mr. Smith | March 24, 2006 04:37 PM

Um, is there a site where I can met a few bloggers in their underwear? Just asking.

Posted by: Shy But Curious | March 24, 2006 04:38 PM

Mr. Brady,

I am sure that you are greatly embarrassed by this turn of events. As you should be. But please take heart in knowing that if you refrain from cowering to the intimidation of the far right, you might exercise better judgment in the future.

Posted by: Spike | March 24, 2006 04:38 PM

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

In the Post's rush to kowtow to the Propagandist and his minions in the GOP they smeared egg ALL OVER THEIR FACE!


AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Posted by: Jerry T. | March 24, 2006 04:38 PM

Mr. Brady,

I read Washingtonpost.com every single day. I often visit your site multiple times in a day. So, I guess you could say I'm one of your loyal readers.

I would be willing to let you slide on this Domanech business more easily if I knew you and the Washington Post were going to use this as an opportunity for self reflection.

I mean, how in the heck did you ever let the Washington Post be put into this position in the first place? The entire sequence of events, from Deborah Howell's stupid and ill advised attack on Dan Froomkin to this latest embarassment just stinks of poor judgment. Even Brit Hume is reporting that you hired Domanech to balance out Froomkin.

Maybe if you tried emulating Dan Froomkin by seeking balance in news reporting through focusing on accountability and the truth, instead of trying to create the illusion of balance by hiring Republican hacks, you might not have the constant uproar from your readers.

The readers who are so outraged are not all morons and not all liberal activists. I daresay your readers are probably, on average, highly intelligent and very representative of the majority of Americans concerned about the direction this country is heading in.

It can't be much fun for you to keep on making a jerk of yourself and your publication. When are you finally going to get smart?

Posted by: Nasty Ray | March 24, 2006 04:38 PM

Hey Ben,

How long did it take you to make up your lame explanation? How much of it is original? We know how much of a fan you are of undocumented cut-and-paste. I've already seen most of what you "wrote" in your "tua culpa" when past Cons have been disgraced.

You do know that if anyone made a personal physical threat to you or your family that they can easily be tracked down and prosecuted. There are now laws against threats in cyberspace, and it doesn't take the NSA to locate the origin. Ask your dad about this, I'm sure he knows all about how it's done.

Oh, and I didn't realize Liberals were so scary. You wingnuts always call them spineless wimps.

BTW, you should rename your site Redmeat, since you're always tossing it to rightwing extremists.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 24, 2006 04:40 PM

"Um, is there a site where I can met a few bloggers in their underwear?"

Try AMERICAblog.com. But don't go there if you feel uncomfortable in the company of gays.
Heterosexually yours
Gray

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 04:42 PM

Well, hey, I gotta give Mr. Brady credit.

He did a good job at trying to balance responsible journalism with irresponsible journalism.

Posted by: The Other Steve | March 24, 2006 04:43 PM

Unless you are also going to provide a comparable space for progressive opinions, it would be unfair and unbalanced to continue a "Red America" column - with or without Ben Domenech.

In fact, how about leaving out ALL the personal opinions, and just reporting the news? Maybe readers would like to form our own opinions without any help.

Posted by: Alison Koerner | March 24, 2006 04:43 PM

Hey Ben,

Now that you're out of work, I hear these guys are hiring: www.goarmy.com

All the best,

Nasty Ray

Posted by: Nasty Ray | March 24, 2006 04:43 PM

The other Steve... But which was the responsible journalism?

Posted by: Pepsiholic | March 24, 2006 04:44 PM

Congratulations on getting rid of a problem before it got entrenched.

You may have a problem finding a good right wing blogger to promote to the Posthood-- the half-way decent (in all senses) writers of that persuasion are all working already in respectable venues, along with many less decent ones. Their viewpoint is what makes money, and finds acceptance in normal public discourse.

Blogs are less respectable, bless their hearts, and yet they manage to be pretty self-policing. Look how long Judith Miller got away with being Judith Miller! And compare that with this.

Lefty bloggers, on the other hand, are 'way overqualified for the amount of respect they get. *way*

Posted by: tim jennings | March 24, 2006 04:45 PM

Alison K, you should email that to Brady. It's the best comment I've read.

Let's repeat it:

"Unless you are also going to provide a comparable space for progressive opinions, it would be unfair and unbalanced to continue a "Red America" column - with or without Ben Domenech.

In fact, how about leaving out ALL the personal opinions, and just reporting the news? Maybe readers would like to form our own opinions without any help."

Posted by: Taniwha | March 24, 2006 04:46 PM

The Brady Bunch gets itself in another mess of trouble. 'Jump first; think later' - the new Washington Post motto?

Ask Oprah about investigating writers BEFORE you recommmend (or hire) them. She could tell you a thing or too, by golly!

Posted by: reefus | March 24, 2006 04:46 PM

Was that the same plagiarist that called Mrs. Coretta Scott King a communist? Did you read any his work before you hired him? Do you have more plagiarizing racist on your staff?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 04:47 PM

At least the man had the courage to resign immediately. A liberal in his position would have blamed the vast right-wing conspiracy for uncovering the plagiarism, not himself for the act of plagiarism.

Posted by: Photonman | March 24, 2006 04:47 PM

WAPO, you need to do some serious make up for this horrible mistake. Let's see some positive action beyond simply canning that idiot after OTHERS discovered his fraudulant past.

Posted by: Matt | March 24, 2006 04:48 PM

The astonishing thing is not that the Post has standards and adheres (usually) to them but that conservative bloggers have standards, too. After turning themselves into pretzels apologizing for Bush's latest catastrophe causing loss of life, they jump on this guy for a relatively minor offense. Interesting in a twisted sort of way.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 24, 2006 04:50 PM

The shame of it for the Post is that Mr. Brady did not see it to fire him for the Mrs. King remark.

I think the Post should fire Mr. Brady for this.

Posted by: lib | March 24, 2006 04:50 PM

Worst. Paper. Ever.

From now on, I'll have to read everything in this paper with a tablet of salt. This paper no believes in integrity and journalism, just truthiness and trying to appease the right-wing. What a sad day for the paper.

Posted by: funcha | March 24, 2006 04:51 PM


Ben Domenech's unapologetic, delusional posting on www.redstate.com . can only be a source of additional humiliation and embarrassment for Jim Brady and WaPo.

One cannot help but wonder what will it take to show Jim Brady the door.

Posted by: Tango Belle | March 24, 2006 04:51 PM

"At least the man had the courage to resign immediately. A liberal in his position would have blamed the vast right-wing conspiracy for uncovering the plagiarism, not himself for the act of plagiarism."

Hehehe! Sry, but you got that 180° wrong! Just check his response at redstate.org. Lol!

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 04:51 PM

What a relief that this extremist right-winger has resigned! I hope the Washington Post learns from this fiasco and doesn't rush to carry out the right-wing's agenda so readily. Democracy depends on watchdog journalism, which is in dreadfully short supply these days.

Posted by: Linda A. Day | March 24, 2006 04:51 PM

The Washington Post needs an intervention. Or, an enema at the very least. Who knew it was so easy to get hired. If I had known, me and my library card could have blown Mr. Brady's doors off with some killer material.

Posted by: Vinny From Indy | March 24, 2006 04:52 PM

Why is it these 'young consevative professionals' never seem to actually be able to graduate from school- or have anything remotely approaching real credentials?

And what does this say about the Washington Post's ability to vet its' staff?

Scary.

Posted by: Border State Southerner | March 24, 2006 04:52 PM

Seems like the isn't buying Augustine/Ben's little "explanation" just posted on redstate.com

from NROhttp://media.nationalreview.com/


A MESSAGE TO OUR READERS [The Editors]

"As the previous links on the matter mention, at least one of the pieces Ben Domenech is accused of having plagiarized was a movie review for National Review Online. A side-by-side comparison to another review of the same film speaks for itself. There is no excuse for plagiarism and we apologize to our readers and to Steve Murray of the Cox News Service from whose piece the language was lifted. With some evidence of possible problems with other pieces, we're also looking into other articles he wrote for NRO.

Posted by: phasis | March 24, 2006 04:52 PM

WASHINGTN POST CO B

Last Trade: 747.50
Trade Time: 3:59PM ET
Change: Up 8.50 (1.15%)
Prev Close: 739.00
Open: 738.00

Now. If The Post would fire Mr. Brady, Mrs. Howell, Mr. VandeHei, (and a few others) the stock would go through the roof!!

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 04:52 PM

"At least the man had the courage to resign immediately. A liberal in his position would have blamed the vast right-wing conspiracy for uncovering the plagiarism, not himself for the act of plagiarism."

Kinda like this, you mean?
"The truth is, no conservative could write for the Post without being subject to the gauntlet of the liberal attack machine."-- Ben D.

I really hope you're kidding.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 04:53 PM

It's good to see you folks so concerned with journalist integrity as you continue to read administration handouts and report as news "revelations" from administration "inside sources." The ghosts of Nixon, Halderman and whole departed Watergate crew must feel how unfair it all is they weren't born thirty years later.

Posted by: truth justice and the american way | March 24, 2006 04:53 PM

Oh you're good Brady boy--hey, when Steve Carell decides to move on, I think they may have a role for you on "The Office." Would you like a little Franzia with that crow you're barely touching?

Posted by: peequod | March 24, 2006 04:54 PM

Mr. Brady,

You are incompetent. If you worked for me you'd have had your desk cleaned out by mid morning.

Posted by: Juan Anderson | March 24, 2006 04:55 PM

Here's an idea: Let's skip the WaPo blog altogether and go straight to the blogs themselves!

Posted by: beloml | March 24, 2006 04:56 PM

Allowing a conservative to write for this website would be like allowing blacks into an all white golf course!!! Oh the outrage, the contamination of our thoughts!!! Take to the streets and protest!!! We must never allow for different thoughts in these hallowed pages!!! Rats, if we only believed in owning guns we could shoot those damn conservatives!!! That would teach them to violate our liberal spaces!!! What is next??? Consevatives on NPR??? Conservative writers in DailyKOS!!! Stop the insanity!!! No conservative thoughts anywhere!!! Lets make it a law!!!! Whoops, to late, we don't control the supreme court anymore :(

Posted by: Pepsiholic | March 24, 2006 04:57 PM

To Mr. ALexander, who wrote:

"As a Post reader, I don't mind opinion, and strong opinions. I do want real balance. If you are going to have a Republican operative and movement conservative as a blogger, have a Democratic operative and movement progressive also. Is that so hard?"

In case you did not know already, the totality of the rest of WaPo is, collectively, a Democratic operative and movement liberal. WaPo, to their credit, realizes this, hence Domenech. What you said would be like me saying that, if FoxNews hires a Democrat/liberal voice, it ought also to hire a Republican/conservative voice. Is that so hard?

Further, I reject the implicit assertion that "conservative" and "progressive" are mutually exclusive, as though "progressive" were a euphemism for liberal. Progressive connotes someone who, in his or her own mind, advocates change, reform, and the progression toward something better. There is such a thing as progressive conservativism, it's called neo-conservatism.

Posted by: Bill Foreman | March 24, 2006 04:57 PM

As I scan these previous remarks and reactions to this man’s situation I am stunned at the viciousness of some of the comments. I’ve been watching what each side says and does. At this moment, the progressives are not impressing me. You claim that wars are wrong and that diplomacy is the means to ending conflict. In making that claim you state that we should be tolerant of everyone’s beliefs and perspectives; that peace can only be won through uniting and treating everyone with equal respect. You claim that reason, understanding and non-provoking communication is how we should deal with our enemies abroad…and yet THIS is how you treat your enemies in your own country?! How can peace ever be achieved if each side incites the other? If communicating in the diplomatic fashion is not possible or realistic, then how can we ask our government to attempt diplomacy? Peace and diplomacy is becoming harder to believe in, when those who espouse it won’t even practice it! All I’m seeing is a growing war of words that looks as though it might turn into a war of violence in due course. If that is the case, then I will be left to conclude peace will never be attainable and therefore, should never be pursued—only survival of the fittest like all other evolutionary journeys.

Posted by: Inconsequential bystander | March 24, 2006 05:00 PM

You liberals are all alike. If it wasn't for the fearless truthtelling of Ben Domenech, we would all be eating smashed chickpeas and worshipping Allah on our floors while our women are forced to wear bedspreads. But you have to crucify the poor young man and call him bad names. Your day of reckoning will come, and then you will be forced to wear turbans and speak Arabic. Your children will have to have names no one can pronounce. And they'll take your shoes away. YOu just wait.

Posted by: MadMadMadWorld | March 24, 2006 05:01 PM

The arrival of this blog led me, as a dedicated fan and reader of the Post, to send you my first complaint letter ever. My complaint was not the slant but the content -- do we need another priveldged white young conservative generically whining like a Roger Ailes talking point about why only he speaks for the regular guy? A pathetic and cynical attempt to expand readership deliciously backfires. Just desserts WaPo!

Posted by: boomshanka | March 24, 2006 05:02 PM

I can't wait for Joel Achenbach to write a cute blog piece on this.

He wrestles with this problem all the time, and may have a little problem w the wapo .com crowd. Does he ever.

Posted by: Bowser | March 24, 2006 05:02 PM

Nearly all the blogs and editorial content of the Washington Post lean solidly left. Clearly this was a bad hire, and I'm glad he was removed, but I think the people shouting for balance by hiring a radical leftist have the wrong idea. It seems that a lot of people think balance is the area between left of center and radically left of center. No opposing viewpoints allowed. If you want to hire a conservative, fine - just check up on him and make sure he's not a plagiarist, or crude, or simply foaming at the mouth all the time. In fact, that might be a good standard to hold ALL your bloggers to. Those who think the Post is catering to the political right are way out of line.

Posted by: TD | March 24, 2006 05:02 PM

Thank you, WaPo, for getting rid of this embarrassing replacement
of journalism with propaganda.

Posted by: Randy Bush | March 24, 2006 05:04 PM

I wish he had a chance to build a little reputation of inflammatory statements before getting canned.

Posted by: BigTobacco | March 24, 2006 05:05 PM

Uh, Jim, I thought maybe we should have our meeting NEXT week. You seem busy. Text me, OK?


B. Fig, President
Jim Brady Fan Club

Posted by: Mr. Fig | March 24, 2006 05:06 PM

Well said, TD.

"Nearly all the blogs and editorial content of the Washington Post lean solidly left. Clearly this was a bad hire, and I'm glad he was removed, but I think the people shouting for balance by hiring a radical leftist have the wrong idea. It seems that a lot of people think balance is the area between left of center and radically left of center. No opposing viewpoints allowed. If you want to hire a conservative, fine - just check up on him and make sure he's not a plagiarist, or crude, or simply foaming at the mouth all the time. In fact, that might be a good standard to hold ALL your bloggers to. Those who think the Post is catering to the political right are way out of line."

Posted by: Bill Foreman | March 24, 2006 05:06 PM

Inconsequential bystander, you don't expect us to discuss your inconsequential posting here? It's almost totally off topic. Post your questions at any liberal blog and you'll get lots of thoughtful answers. Godspeed!

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 05:07 PM

The rapture it come soon and I will enjoy looking down on you sinners at WAPO who fired the only voice that spoke for the silent majority. I'll enjoy watching the frogs and bugs eat you. Tell Froomkin that its too late to convert after his hateful liberal attacks on the man that God chose to lead us.

- or -

Forget Demonech - why don't you open your eyes and appologize to Froomkin for demonizing him and his excellent *journalism* in the first place. When you toadied up to the 'virtuous lie' right and allowed them and yourself to use Froomkin as a foil was where and when you went wrong.

Firing (by any other name) Demonech will not bring credibility back to WaPo if you allow the 'liberal bias' albatros to remain on Froomkin. You should defend Froomkin or fire him too. After all, either you secretly hired him to be a left wing hack, or he lied and tricked you into getting the blog while secretly entending to use it to "attack" the WH, or he's an honest journalist writng it the way he sees it and should be defended.

BTW - When you apologize to Froomkin for attacking real journalism you will also be apolgizing to the rest of us whose intelligence you have and continue to insult.

BTW2 Ask Woodward what key phases and repoters names from the WaPo that he gave to Cheney/NSA. Could he do that without your approval Ben. I think not.

Posted by: Niccolo MacPlato | March 24, 2006 05:07 PM

SCALPED!

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!

Hey.

Do NOT toy with the left. We are ascendant.

And click here for a picture of the ACTUAL SCALP:

http://www.monkey.org/~ethan/2006/03/scalped_24.html

Posted by: ethan | March 24, 2006 05:08 PM

My only question is where is the liberal blog??? I check out washingtonpost.com daily and enjoy it. It dissapoints me and saddens me to see then so biased in the selection of only a righwing blog. I have since ceased to buy my daily copy due to the lack of balance. I guess I expected more from the post.

Posted by: SPACEJACE | March 24, 2006 05:08 PM

I just hope that Washingtonpost.com uses this as an opportunity to drop the whole notion of subsidizing a right-wing blogger. There's no shortage of either right-wing or progressive political blogs out there.

I think that newspapers (whether online or not) should recognize that their greatest strength and value lay in news and investigative reporting.

Moreover, satisfying the RNC or the White House shouldn't be on any newspaper's agenda; the Washington Post can be reasonably sure that it's doing its job if the RNC, DNC and White House are all complaining about the coverage. It's simply NOT the Washington Post's, nor any newspaper's, job to make the elite political class happy.

Posted by: Marc S. Lawrence | March 24, 2006 05:10 PM

"The rapture it come soon and I will enjoy looking down on you sinners at WAPO who fired the only voice that spoke for the silent majority."

Hehehe! You don't believe in polls, right? Bush fans are the majority, sure. And the earth is flat.

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 05:12 PM

Once the 'post.com has done its ivestigation, it would be nice for them to tell us how Ben's jounalistic shortcomings (as far as attributions go)managed to sneak by the 'post.com staff.

This point may actually be the biggest story, in the long term, from this sad affair.

And no, I haven't read all of the posts, and I'm sure that someone else has made a similar point.

Posted by: Ack | March 24, 2006 05:12 PM

Mr. Brady,
After 8 years of teaching I found that I really did not like children and moved on to another career of which my talents are appreciated and utilized. It appears from this and other episodes of the past few months that you (and Mrs. Howell) do not have the regard for your readers/commenters that is necessary in your (and her) position(s). I suggest that you utilize your talents and abilities in a different area.
Thank You.

Posted by: DrJohn | March 24, 2006 05:12 PM

Ironically, this is yet another case of bloggers from the center and left keeping the Washington Post from driving completely off the cliff. Not that previous efforts have been treated with the slightest bit of grace by The Post.

I am still troubled by Mr. Brady's statement on this matter. He did not see fit to mention Mr. Domenech's apparent political extremism as indicated, for example, by his labeling of Coretta Scott King as a communist. Nor did he mention the intensity with which Mr. Domenech's fellow extremists defended Domenech's plagiarism.

At the end of the day, The Post should not be indulging in affirmative action for *any* ideology. It should be hiring talented people, some of whom will happen to be conservative or liberal. This certainly did not happen here.

What readers really need is a corrective for the sloppy and misguided hiring practices of Jim Brady.

Charles of Mercury Rising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Posted by: Charles | March 24, 2006 05:12 PM

Dear Jim: We realize this was an honest mistake and that this won't be a long-term distraction from the excellent work you've done to make washingtonpost. com the second-best blogging newspaper in America, featuring that funny Joel-dude.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/blueplate/issue1/best_nwsps/

This is completely my own original work, not the part of an organized campaign, and no one put me up to it.

Posted by: yellojkt | March 24, 2006 05:13 PM

A nut who calls Mrs. King a Communist quits blog at Post. Fine.

Question is really what the hell is wrong with ex-sports writer from Bronx and what is he doing running a real newspaper???

Posted by: Richard P. McDonough | March 24, 2006 05:13 PM

Um, Post blog folks. This is way past the time to put up a new post. Simple. Link to Kurtz's latest piece (after 3 pm), say something positive about the huge number of readers (it really is a compliment that so many care enough to comment), you know, do the blog thing!

Posted by: Beth | March 24, 2006 05:14 PM

Did you not check his past work at all--or even google it? or get references from actual bosses of his? Are you always this lax with your hires? Or is it only this lax when it's the child of a administration employee/GOP politician? (shades of our current president, no?)

Posted by: amberglow | March 24, 2006 05:14 PM

It is interesting that someone can discuss the murder of black children and obtain employment at the Washington Post. Free speech provides cover for ideas that should be unfathomable.

However, if you plagiarize a movie review -- it's time to hit the road.

I'm glad we have our priorities in order, and it is always good to know what is valued at the Washington Post.

Posted by: Mocha Dem | March 24, 2006 05:14 PM

SSaving America depends on an honest, inquisitive, tenacious free press. Hiring Republican hacks and liars are destroying our free press. Printing political propaganda and lies has destroyed the credibility of the free press. In other words, the Press is responsible for destroying itself. As any intelligent American knows, currently all press is guilty of lying by negligence and omission. Anyone who really cares can find the true news of the day, and it isn't in any newspaper, and it's definitely not on any news channel. If you all continue as you are, hiring hacks to do our so-called President's dirty work, Americans will stop buying newspapers all together. And everybody knows we only watch television news for the weather and sports. So, keep it up. You are willfully destroying your own industry and America in the process. Well, so you think. You will find out that the future of America is in the hands of it's people, as it always has been and will continue to be. Because true Americans will not allow their country to be stolen from them. We will not cave to the oil industry, which is where the Bush family makes all it's money. Americans are not stupid. However we are loyal to a fault. But that loyalty has been spent. We will not cave to a pansey-a$$ press. And very soon, you will have no one left, with any intelligence, who will buy your empty, weightless papers.
Why not wake up before you are all not just morally bankrupt but physically bankrupt, as well. You have the unique opportunity to help Americans save America. Why not start investigating the biggest stories in American history? You will deserve the profits you reap when you print the trhuth for a change. People would buy your papers by the armloads if you simply investigated and told the truth.
I'll give you just a couple of investigations that I would like to see take place in the press. I'm sure they would sell millions of papers and double your subscriptions:
How about a front page story on the explosions going up the buildings at the WTC on 911? True or false? How about the story of where the uninvestigated rubble went and why? How about a front page story on the fact that only a missle could have penetrated 3 rings of the pentagone on 911? (A soft-nosed plane would have never gone that far.) Well, true or false? How about a front page story on where Dick Cheney was the morning of 911 - possibly being informed in advance of the approach of the 'plane' to the pentagon and not lifting a finger to warn the people inside. How about a front page story on our Vice President possibly committing treason by giving Valerie Plame's name to Scooter Libby? How about a front page, inside story on our Vice President shooting his friend in the face after drinking how much? How about a front page story on the discoveries of BlackBoxVoting.org regarding the Diebold voting machines - how easily hackable the Black Box people have found them to be? Why is that? How about a front page story demanding to know why this administration doesn't demand a paper trail for voting machines?
How about a front page story on this administration's lies to the American people about WMDs? How about a front page story on the number of illegal offenses this administration has committed against the American people?
And not last, because I could go on forever about the front page stories you've neglected, all sourcable and credible, but how about a front page story on illegal wire-tapping? Illegal redistricting? Illegal elections? Treason? Or at the very least, if you're only interested in smut, why not a front page story on Gannon Guckart, the gay-porn-newsman who was the white house wonder boy of the national press corps! At the very least print a front page story on why Gannon Guckart was invited to the white house somewhere between 100 and 200 times while he was in their favor. If you'd bother to investigate Mr. Guckart, I'm sure that story would be much more intriguing and inflammatory than anything Bill Clinton did with Monica and a cigar in a closet. Saving America depends on an honest, inquisitive, tenacious free press. A press that hires real reporters. Got it? I'm curious, you say, "Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit", Why? Do you have the same opinion about printing lies? Or don't those count as long as one uses one's own words to tell them?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 05:15 PM

This whole "balance" thing is nuts! WaPo's certainly not Blue (in case no one's noticed). If anything I'd consider it right of center, sometimes uncomfortably right of center.

Let's stick with credible writing and folks with solid credentials.

Posted by: John in Cincinnati | March 24, 2006 05:15 PM

How is it that the man was hired in the first place? Seems to me that due diligence wasn't performed here. The Post winds up with egg on its face, arguably worse off than before.

Posted by: Ron Dumsfeld | March 24, 2006 05:16 PM

WP says above "We also remain (sic) committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area."

Does this mean that WP will have a blog that represents the views of the 70% in this country who are tired of the endless lies we have been listening to all this century?

Or will WP simply find a less flagrantly dishonest rightwinger to take up where the departed left off?

To many of us it sems that political debate in this country is limited to that between the far and the extreme right.

Posted by: Reprieve? | March 24, 2006 05:20 PM

Ah, Mr. Foreman, we pick up the Washington Post to see the liberal stylings of those rabid Democrats Charles Krauthammer and George Will, among other Chomskyites and Progressives.. And given the hell the Post has given Democrats over Social Security and it's curious drumbeating for the War in Iraq, there is some doubt in my mind as to your assertion that the Post is anything but an Establishment paper. It's conservatism is cultural. You seem to object to it not totally mirroring Movement Conservatism.

In fact, good reporting is nonPartisan.
Truth is truth, Red or Blue State.
And factual original reporting will serve the public better than the sort of inane cutltural warfare practiced by Mr. Domenech.
Yours, Bill Alexander at the Mountain Scholar Bookshop in Trendy Blue Ridge GA.

Posted by: Bill Alexander | March 24, 2006 05:20 PM

Mr. Brady,

While I know today's a rough day for you, please be assured that many of us appreciate the hard job you have and we realize sometimes you're going to make an honest mistake. We're right behind you! Keep your head up! Gabba Gabba! We accept you! We accept you!

Posted by: Thing One | March 24, 2006 05:21 PM

If a story is accurate, an editor wisely considers other views, but seeks to publishes what is fact. And the truth, a wise editor should know, is often far from balanced or fair.

The decision to give a zealous right-wing youngster, Ben Domenech, a column called “Red America” was ill advised from the start. Readers are better served if journalists act as our watchdog, and not try to entertain and distract with fake controversy.

It’s sad that it took a group of kids on the Internet to show journalistic giants the value of credibility. Hopefully this Red America affair will remind journalists everywhere how truth balanced with lies simply corrupts veracity.

Fox News, for example, demonstrates how comfortably propaganda wears a fair and balanced disguise.

If ever there were a time when America needed true journalists and real journalism, it is now. Wake up and do your job.

Posted by: Bill Gann | March 24, 2006 05:21 PM

Dear Mr. Brady:

It appears that you are contradicting yourself this afternoon. You say you want to represent ALL points of view on the website, but the Howard Kurtz news article of this afternoon quotes you saying you plan to hire another conservative blogger. It looks like you plan to repeat your mistake.

Posted by: Bill B | March 24, 2006 05:22 PM

Gray,

I appreciate your reading my post and your reply!

All I’m trying to say is that this man was being put down so cruelly for having different views than progressives and that now that there are allegations of plagiarism, the attacks seem stronger and more extreme. If he’s a plagiarist, certainly he should lose his position and should leave in disgrace. That’s totally appropriate, but what I’m referring to is the continuous name calling of everyone on all sides. How can we ever get along? You even take a little jab at me (..."your inconsequential posting") because I’m trying to keep civility and respect in our dialogue with one another and pointing out it isn’t up to standard.

I just wish everyone would tone it down a little and debate and disagree, but also try to persuade and unite, rather than insult and provoke. That’s all.

Thanks again for listening. I’m new to these things and you can obviously tell.

Posted by: Inconsequential bystander | March 24, 2006 05:25 PM

You know, the whole problem here is that you made political quotas a higher priority than journalistic integrity. You got burned, and you absolutely deserve it.

If a qualified and competent columnist (or blogger) says the sky is blue, that doesn't make it necessary to rush out and find someone--anyone, apparently--who claims it's yellow. That's not "balance." It's sh*tty journalism.

If it's difficult to find qualified people of integrity who are willing to get paid to argue for you that the sky is not blue, maybe there's a reason.

Do yourselves a favor: hire qualified, intelligent people, period, and steer clear of vicious little hacks like Domenech who have made their "careers" as cheerleaders rather than analysts. Of course, past experience suggests that you won't learn a thing from this whole debacle.

Posted by: Sportin' Life | March 24, 2006 05:26 PM

"Mr. Brady,

While I know today's a rough day for you, please be assured that many of us appreciate the hard job you have and we realize sometimes you're going to make an honest mistake. We're right behind you! Keep your head up! Gabba Gabba! We accept you! We accept you!"

While I already said "Kudos", because Brady unexpectedly showed the guts to reverse a misguided deciusion, I would never say "GabbaGabba". He's NOT one of us! Far from it.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 05:26 PM

I guess one can reasonably deduce that Domenech is a Fakey,fake,fake,fake.

Posted by: Fatty,Fat,Fat,Fat | March 24, 2006 05:27 PM

There's a concensus here, Jimbo !

YOU BLEW IT VERY BADLY, YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY, AND YOU HAVE TO GO.

Why not do the honorable thing ? Take your greenmail, hit the Beltway, and NEVER COME BACK.

Posted by: Bolder | March 24, 2006 05:28 PM

Maybe young Ben could join those Marines and blog from Iraq and reveal all those good news stories we are missing out on by those damn bombings and civil war.

Posted by: alibe50 | March 24, 2006 05:28 PM

Due Diligence: Not

Shameful, Predicatable, Repeatable: Yes

Posted by: YourMastersMustBeUnhappy | March 24, 2006 05:28 PM

Crap. I mispelled 'cultural'.
It's Friday, and Ben Domenech can go back to Regnery and RedState (and please, if you can stomach it, check out his 'mea non culpa' at his own blog, and no, I'll not post a link to it).
This big gay single parent is going home to feed his kids and get ready for another work day...

Posted by: Bill Alexander | March 24, 2006 05:29 PM

This wouldn't be happening if Jim Brady was alive;-)

Posted by: Michael D. Adams | March 24, 2006 05:30 PM

The Washington Post has been a respected newspaper for my entire lifetime until the recent addition of Red America and the blatant attempt to promote Right-Wing politics. I am heartened to learn that Mr. Domenech has resigned and I hope that resignation came about with the encouragement of your owners and editorial staff. The lesson must be clear. The Washington Post should never again cave to right-wing (or left-wing zealots) who want to destroy the media's ability to hold power accountable. It was wrong for Washington Post editors to "balance" strong watchdog journalism by their reporters with blatant right-wing propaganda. Let us hope the lesson has been learned and this will never happen again. We need a free, independent press...caving neither to right or left...to maintain our democracy and preserve the ideals of this nation.


Posted by: Nina | March 24, 2006 05:32 PM

There are already plenty of blue state opinion outlets. Most anything presented from ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, LA Times, WA Times, CNN, MSNBC, Time or Newsweek spring to mind most readily. I have to read a frightening number of sources from both extremes to try to get the real story and balanced information.

While it appears from the evidence that Domenech did indeed commit plagiarism (his side of the issue at Redstate makes some sense and I am, as with most issues, prepared to await a more complete accounting before rendering a final decision - my knee doesn't tend to jerk) and it was appropriate, given that even the appearance of impropriety is damaging to a journalist, that he resign, I am revolted by the gleeful exhuberance of the dKos types. So many of you are vicious, hateful people. Way to win hearts and minds of us more moderate types. I was actually sympathetic to your outrage until I read the vitriolic commentaries. "Over the top" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Posted by: Deepdiver | March 24, 2006 05:32 PM

Interesting the way Brady used the word "surfaced." Perhaps grammar school would be a good place for him.

Posted by: Alan | March 24, 2006 05:33 PM

"Take your greenmail, hit the Beltway, and NEVER COME BACK."

Come on, be nice! Ok, he had three bad strikes in a row, but, after all, he's only a slave of the Holding Co. What do you expect? He's caught between two stools. How would you balance between your readership and the capital interests behind 'The Washington Post Company' (TM)?

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 05:34 PM

Members,

I'm not kidding. Get away from this post.com blog and get back in the house right now.


John Clayton, Pres.
American Association of the Morally Superior

Posted by: John Clayton | March 24, 2006 05:34 PM

Katherine Graham is rolling over in her grave.

It just so sad to watch the decline of a formerly great news organization.

Posted by: NJ | March 24, 2006 05:37 PM

NJ, it's Katharine Graham, not Katherine Graham. Thank you.

Posted by: Postie | March 24, 2006 05:39 PM

Sounds like they tried mixing a strong acid and base... It's probably for the best that this didn't work out. The Post should be loyal to it's liberal fan base. No conservative is going to read the paper (well, they might, but they would be a bitter, angry conservative...). That's like deciding to put Charlie Rose on Fox. No wait...Al Frankin. O'Reily would eat his toupe.
Lighten up guys, if you let yourselves get sucked into taking sides, you're going to be miserable. Forget politics and go DO something productive that will make you fell good about yourself.
(I don't know any priveldged white conservatives. All my old-money priveledged friends are liberals. Its us poor folk who are conservatives (take a look at the red/blue state map))

Posted by: Melissa | March 24, 2006 05:40 PM

I miss real news reporting. Eric Sevareid was a favorite.

Of course, he actually researched and thought about the news before he started talking.

In keeping with current WAPO standards, and as you need a new raging right wing blogger might I put forward the name of a fine young man - actually I've forgotten his name - but he used to work for your sister news organization: TALON.

Posted by: DotMil | March 24, 2006 05:40 PM

Wow, forcing him to resign? Over a little cribbing? That's "a little meaner" than I would have expected.

Hopefully the WaPo can find another suitable right-winger who can get back to the kind, good-hearted, decorum-filled task of comparing Supreme Court Justices to the KKK and calling those on the left "pus bags".

Posted by: Froodish | March 24, 2006 05:40 PM

"There are already plenty of blue state opinion outlets. Most anything presented from ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, LA Times, WA Times, CNN, MSNBC, Time or Newsweek spring to mind most readily."

I guess that's the way I would think, too, if I had been totally brainwashed by rightwing propaganda. Sure, in your own small world-bubble, you think you're middle-of-the-road and almost everything will look like coming from your left side. Try to reconnect to reality, dude.

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 05:40 PM

After all of this you still don't have the guts to admit who was responsible for outing little racebaiting Ben's plagarism?

"We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations."

What a coward. You can't even admit it's was the so-called loons in the leftwing blog world who had to do the basic vetting of your little con artist. You should resign.

Posted by: Patrick in Chicago | March 24, 2006 05:43 PM

How could you not know this?????????

It took your readers and other media to do your hiring background checks for you?

You have damaged yourself as an institution - and we're talking serious damage here.

Don't compound it by hiring a different ranting, blathering exremist, even if you "balance" it with another

Shame, shame, shame on the Post

Posted by: BentLiberal | March 24, 2006 05:43 PM

I wouldn't cry for poor Bennie, I'm sure his fellow thief/liar Karl Rove has another plum position ready for Monday morning.

Posted by: Hazle | March 24, 2006 05:46 PM

If Brady had any sense of decency and integrity he would resign too.

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 24, 2006 05:47 PM

how about firing the whole WaPo editorial staff for leading the charge into the Iraq war. afterall, the just copied Bush & Chaney.

Posted by: tonylee | March 24, 2006 05:48 PM

Ben Domenech, the recently hired conservative blogger for the Washington Post's blog section, resigned today because many bloggers smarter than editors at the Post who know how to fact-check showed how he had plagiarized from many sources over the years, trying to pass off the writings of others as his own.

Reading about the Domenech debacle piqued my curiosity about recent donations made by Post journalists to politicians and political action committees, so I did a quick search of Federal Election Commission records, to see, not if, but who from the paper was writing checks.

Media watchdogs may recall that in a January 18, 2004, front-page story, Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote about reporters and editors giving money to candidates, including writers from his paper:


> At the Post, business reporter Albert Crenshaw gave $500 to Maryland Democratic House candidate Ira Shapiro in 2001. Crenshaw said his wife made the donation before he told her that he could not participate in such contributions. Sportswriter Mark Asher gave $500 to Illinois Democratic House candidate Pete Dagher in 2002. He said his wife had worked with Dagher in the Clinton White House.


Kurtz also quoted his boss making the following hollow claim:


> Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. said he would discuss the matter with the reporters' editors. "You can't make political contributions at all," he said, citing the paper's policy.


Well, it appears as though not everyone on the editorial side of the Post got the memo about the donations ban from Downie, including Mary Bannon, an editor for the Post's web site.

On Dec. 29, 2005, almost two years after Kurtz wrote his article quoting Downie, Bannon made a $1,000 donation to the Majority Initiative to Keep Electing Republicans, according to FEC files.

To be fair to Bannon, I must point out she's made one other donation as an employee of the Post, back in 2003 when she gave $500 to Democrat Anna Eschoo of California.

Furthermore, since 2001, Bannon, has contributed $11,883 to GOP pols and PACs, and $9,000 to Democrats.

If Downie spoke the truth to Kurtz and Post editorial employee can't make political donations, will the paper move to discipline Bannon, maybe even fire her, for her $1,000 gift to that GOP PAC? I'd sure like to know what the penalty is for Post journalists when they violate the paper's rules about giving money to politicians.

Posted by: MPetrelis | March 24, 2006 05:49 PM

After nearly 40 years of home delivery I cancelled my subscription in early '04 due to
the Posts increasingly pro-war and pro-conservative tilt.
When I see stories like this, I know I did the right thing. I would urge all progressive subscribers to do likewise until the WP actually starts reporting real news in a balanced way.

Posted by: River | March 24, 2006 05:49 PM

Given that you claim to respect and want to carry a broad spectrum of opinions, when can we expect a true and self described Liberal to start writing for your blog here. You bend over backwards to accommodate conservatives, yet you don't even carry a single Liberal voice. It's truly embarrassing how you in the journalistic class have been bullied by conservatives.

Posted by: bedobe | March 24, 2006 05:49 PM

Domenech is gone; hallelujah. Please don't replace him. The neocons don't need more press space, especially under the imprimatur of the WaPo, which, despite this critical lapse of judgment, still has a reasonable degree of respect remaining around the country.

By the way, in Japan, leaders who mis-lead their companies used to fall on their swords; now they just do the honorable thing and resign in disgrace. This could apply to Mr. Brady. It also might start a refreshing return in this country toward taking responsibility. "Mistakes were made" no longer cuts it.

Posted by: liberalandproud | March 24, 2006 05:49 PM

Halleluiah!!!!!
You made a HUGE mistake professionally in giving a right wing zealot/bigot a column to help polarize the United States even more into Red America and Blue America. How ABSURD! Now, you have egg on your face more so than any other news organization, including FOX News, has has in a LONG, LONG time. And I'm sorry to say, it is WELL DESERVED. You erred so much in caving to the right wing, conservatives (that run the house and senate, do they also need their OWN column too???), that you have lost me as a loyal reader for decades. Until I read an out and out apology in your newspaper, you have lost me for good! I'm just glad that Mr.Domenech's true colors were uncovered sooner rather than later. Maybe next time you'll do a background check, they do at McDonalds, why don't you? Your level of professionalism and politicking leaves a most sour taste in my mouth, and though revenge is not by bag of tea, KARMA is, and you're just understanding what that really means about now, aren't you!
Regards,

Posted by: J.Butler, Boulder,CO | March 24, 2006 05:50 PM

"...We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area..."


What's happened to Krauthammer and Will? Not conservative enough anymore?

Or does the Post feel obligated to provide a platform for every lunatic point of view on the planet?

Can we look forward to the Al Qaeda blog next? The Flat Earth Society blog?

Or could we please, please return to a reality based world where debate is founded on evidence and reason, and partisan propaganda from overpriveledged ideologues is left where it belongs; on the fringes.

Posted by: A Hermit | March 24, 2006 05:50 PM

Done With You. Done with your Site, your newspaper, and anyone that advertises there.
Opionions, I can get anywhere. News, ditto.
Analysis, by thoughtful, informed and EXPERIENCED ANALYSTS, that was what your site brought to the show.
I won't support hacks.
Find a new job, Mr. Brady. Maybe the Washington Times is hiring.

Posted by: GregInNc | March 24, 2006 05:51 PM

Gentlemen, I understand that you have lost your "blogger"..... again. I'm allso given to understand that he was your token Conservative. A double blow. Well, as they say "tis an ill wind...." I would take this opportunity to put myself forth in nomination as your next blogger. It would be reasonable to ask of my qualifacations. I am 53 years old this year. Have worked 6 to 7 days a week my entire life and I perfectly happy to live in Nebraska. I am a Republican. I belong to the NRA. I have children and grandchildren. And I honestly feel that we live in the greatest country on the face of the earth at the greatest time in the history of the human race. I believe. I also feel that most pundits are as full of crap as a Christmas goose. This brush can be applied to both sides of the aisle. I enjoy classical music and can't look at Krauthammer without Strangelove popping into mind. Should you feel these qualifications are adquate and that a voice of reason from Middle America would be refreshing, please contact me at the above E-mail address. The caveats? I don't work cheap or in Washington D.C.

ThankyoufromOmaha

Posted by: Jerome Boyle | March 24, 2006 05:54 PM

Predictably, the conservative reaction over at Red State has been to blame the "liberal media." This is telling of the severe problem with accountability that the right has developed. Domenech has not resigned from Red State. When Bush and Cheney try to blame the "liberal media" when the report the facts about their failures and corruption, remember this.

Posted by: play_jurist | March 24, 2006 05:56 PM

Why didn't the WP check out Dominichi's background? Isn't this a standard thing to do. Well forget it. Mainstream newspapers don't have any credibility anymore, anyway.

Posted by: R L Smith | March 24, 2006 05:57 PM

Blogger Ben Domenech Strikes Back; Calls Post Editors 'Fools'"
"In his first public comments since resigning earlier today as a blogger for washingtonpost.com, Ben Domenech says his editors there were “fools” for not expecting an onslaught of attacks from the left.
“While I appreciated the opportunity to go and join the Washington Post,” Domenech said, “if they didn’t expect the leftists were going to come after me with their sharpened knives, then they were fools.”
Domenech has been under a steady stream of criticism since washingtonpost.com launched the new blog, “Red America,” on Tuesday. Domenech, an editor at Regnery Publishing (a sister company to HUMAN EVENTS), was accused of plagiarism by several left-wing blogs.
Although Domenech says there is an explanation for nearly all the examples cited by the left-wing bloggers, he felt he was left no choice by washingtonpost.com but to resign.
“I felt like if I didn’t resign, they would have pushed me out—if not today, then Monday,” he said.
Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com, wrote a note on “Red America” this afternoon explaining Domenech’s resignation.
“In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday,” Brady wrote.
“An investigation into these allegations was ongoing,” Brady continued, “and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.”
Domenech posted a rebuttal to the plagiarism charges on RedState.com, a website he co-founded. Its contributors have been steadfast in their support for him.
The biggest bulk of work in question comes from Domenech’s college years at William & Mary. While working at the student newspaper his freshman year, Domenech said, he discovered his editor had been inserting the work of other publications into his movie reviews. He left the job after one semester and went to work for another publication when the editor received a promotion, he said.
“The idea that the attack machine has gotten to the level where they dig back to your freshman year of college, when you’re 17, and say, ‘Hey, this guy should have been thinking about the authority of what he was writing the same way that people do at the New York Times,’ then, I mean, it’s idiotic,” he said. “I certainly was sloppier than I should have been, but the sense that I ever felt this was significant or this was dangerous or that there was ever anything to come out of it is just ridiculous.”
Asked about the voluminous amount of documentation cited by left-wing bloggers and some conservatives’ decision to believe it, Domenech said: “In a lot of this stuff, it’s based on who you believe. And if you believe the lefties are right or if you believe someone who you know and who you’ve worked with is right, I guess the thing I would point out is that I’ve done my best to never do anything to raise any kind of question about this sort of thing. And if you look at the overwhelming bulk of everything I’ve written, you’ll find there is no question about it. The questions are about small things, a lot of them easily explainable, especially the things that come after college.”
Domenech said he was disappointed washingtonpost.com pulled the plug so quickly after the blog was launched.
“I guess the thing that bothers me the most about this is that the Post didn’t give this a chance to either blow over or work itself out,” he said. “And I feel that if they had done that, the blog would have been a great addition to their site.”
Mr. Bluey is editor of Human Events Online.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com...il.php? id=13507

Posted by: John Casper | March 24, 2006 05:58 PM

Dear R.L. Smith: If mainstream newspapers don't have credibility anymore, why does every single blog, right or left, link to the articles in mainstream newspapers and use that reported material as the basis for commentary?

Posted by: Gator | March 24, 2006 06:00 PM

What's shown as plaigarism is barely that at all. It isn't substantial, or systemic, or even clearly a copyright violation.

The phrase shown by Kurtz could have been repeated unconsciously because it had appeared so soon after the original review that it copied. Only one portion of one sentence is identical to the original, and there is otherwise no pattern of theft as seen in other more flagrant cases like Jayson Blair.

That's okay. It's sensatiional, and sensational is enough.

Posted by: J. M. Deutch | March 24, 2006 06:01 PM

"Will people PLEASE stop saying I'm rolling in my grave. I'm in "the other side," sipping a cool drink, and I could give a rat's fat patootie what's going on at the Post!"


Katie, can't you interrupt your vacation for some months? We desperately NEED you down here!

Posted by: Gray | March 24, 2006 06:02 PM

from the Salon piece quoting Brady:
"We still want someone who's provocative."

So, why don't you hire Coulter?

Trying to satisfy the cult who controls the nation isn't helping James. You are taking the nation to hell and you're too damn blind to see it.

Katherine Graham is spinning around in her grave like Tarzan hanging onto a crok...

If you can't see what right wing "opinion" is doing to the nation by now there is no effing hope - and you want one that is "provocative" geez, God help us. Can't you just say you want a liar who will push us further into the abyss?

Do your bosses really approve of this?

This nation is so tubes.

Posted by: Pat | March 24, 2006 06:05 PM

Well hell, the WP pretends to report real news, so what's the problem with a blogger who pretends to be real blogger working for them????

Posted by: GOPHater | March 24, 2006 06:07 PM

A logn time ago I read the Post because I thought they were balanced. But today the hard right they made has turned me off.

It's like the Post thinks people are too stupid to see through their agenda.

I'm insulted by that. And it explains why newspapers are a dying breed.

People are tired of being manipulated.

Posted by: Robert | March 24, 2006 06:07 PM

"You liberals are all alike. If it wasn't for the fearless truthtelling of Ben Domenech, we would all be eating smashed chickpeas and worshipping Allah on our floors while our women are forced to wear bedspreads. But you have to crucify the poor young man and call him bad names. Your day of reckoning will come, and then you will be forced to wear turbans and speak Arabic. Your children will have to have names no one can pronounce. And they'll take your shoes away. YOu just wait."

Thank you for proving the point of what a bunch of racist fearful pr*cks you all are, better than "us lib'ruls" ever could.

Posted by: Citizen J | March 24, 2006 06:08 PM

So...in conclusion...Ben lied and got caught, then resigned, and Citizen J blames it all on "liberals".

LOL

Posted by: Robert | March 24, 2006 06:09 PM

Plagiarism can't possibly explain this. We know that the WaPo has no problem with Doris K. Goodwin. She has a favorable review of her new book here despite the FACT that she plagiarized the last one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902286.html

And then there's that big prize she won. A search of the WaPo reveals a half-dozen cites just in the past few weeks. Hmmmm ... Double standard?????

Posted by: James | March 24, 2006 06:10 PM

Benny Boy Domenech... nice job. Losing him, I mean. THANK YOU. But how could he ever get hired. Please give us the Post that usta wuz.

Posted by: Alan Deane | March 24, 2006 06:10 PM

"We wanted to create a little bit of buzz and controversy as well..."

WTF do you run a GD zoo?

That is one sad sick statement. The WP is a GD zoo, it's their goal.

Posted by: Mel | March 24, 2006 06:11 PM

" in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com"

A minor grammatical correction, if you will: one cannot "maintain" that which one does not possess.
Given how you have been conducting yourselves for the past few years -- as unapologetic supporters of a regime that now stands revealed as utterly incompetent and dishonest -- you have a long, long way to go to recover even a semblance of "journalistic integrity." Only then will you be able to "maintain" same.

Posted by: smartalek | March 24, 2006 06:11 PM

I appreciate that the Post made this hire in the first place, but Mr. Domenech was clearly the wrong person for it -- even without the plagiarism issue, he was strident on an us-vs-them level.

I'm looking forward to see who you hire as his replacement. There are many extremely thoughtful conservative bloggers out there who would do an outstanding job.

Allow me to suggest Orrin Judd of http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog. Extremely thoughtful, unique but mainstream conservative political perspective, prolific, and not an in-your-face partisan.

Posted by: rds | March 24, 2006 06:12 PM

Robert, read the post please. Those aren't my words. Reading comprehension, hello?

Posted by: Citizen J | March 24, 2006 06:15 PM

For those who are suggesting that the post hire a sharply partisan liberal blogger, Mr. Froomkin obviously fits the bill.

Posted by: rds | March 24, 2006 06:15 PM

I agree with Dr. Probst's comment above. I, too, am a proud alum of the College of William & Mary. Domenech has besmirched the College's reputation and has clearly violated the Honor Code. Please report the findings of your investigation to W&M so that Domenech can be brought up on charges and have his degree revoked. (For those who consider this punishment too harsh, consider UVA's precedent a few years back).

Bridget Robin Pool, '96

Posted by: Bridget Robin Pool | March 24, 2006 06:15 PM

I got a real laugh out of Brady's latest inane comment to Salon:

"'We obviously did plenty of background checks" on Domenech, Brady said. He explained that Post editors read 'basically everything he'd written' during the past few years and had spoken to many people who had previously worked with Domenech -- 'both people he referred us to and people we found on our own,' Brady said. Plagiarism, though, is not an easy thing to spot, Brady suggested. 'We did a lot of vetting but that's a difficult thing to catch someone on.'"

Yeah, it's so difficult, it took those mean ol' liberal bloggers on those swampy internets about two days to unearth it.

Jesus, Brady, how goddam stupid do you think we are?

Posted by: dave | March 24, 2006 06:15 PM


The Washington Post prints a plagiarist and no one takes responsibility. Nice.

Brady needs to resign.

Posted by: Stan | March 24, 2006 06:15 PM

Who could have known terrorists would fly planes into buildings on 9/11? Who could have known Saddam didn't really have any WMDs? Who could have known that the levees would fail in New Orleans? Who could have known that a civil war would break out in Iraq?

Who could have known that a once respectable newspaper would become an apologist for a serial plagiarist, who himself was nothing more than an apologist and parrot of the current administrations "Who could have known?" excuses?

Posted by: JEP | March 24, 2006 06:17 PM

It's been rather amusing to blog-swarm WaPo yet again.

All this, because you made the incautious choice of going outside the controlled medium you're accustomed to.

I figure you didn't like getting your knuckles rapped by bloggers over Deborah Howell's mis-characterizations of the Abramoff scandal.

So you were pissed and you figured you'd fight fire with fire. You hired the pissiest right-wing blogger you could find.

By doing so, you opened your publication to another round of public scorn.

It was well-deserved. This guy is a racist who called Coretta Scott King a communist on the day of her funeral.

He also is a gleeful chickenhawk who celebrated the Iraq war, while avoiding service.

He also wrote at length about the social benefits of aborting black babies.

The plagiarism was the smallest offence on his rap-sheet. The racism was the worst problem.

It is another weak attempt at damage control to act as if this was about plagiarism.

Please, just don't hire another racist.

Posted by: Balzac | March 24, 2006 06:17 PM

The reason that you did not realize that there were any allegations of plagiarism was that there weren't any. Someone would have to read his works to discover that, and until you, for reasons that only you and God know, gave him a pulpit from which to spew, no one was. By holding him up, you drew attention to him, and the blogosphere devoted their full attention to his past body of "work". Hopefully we have all learned from this experience. Ben learned that attracting attention is not always so good. I learned that the Washington Post.com is not as good as the print version. One can wrap fish in the print version. You learned, well, probably nothing, but we can hope.

Posted by: Bill Croghan | March 24, 2006 06:22 PM

To: Washington Post Editorial Dept.
From: Left Wing Bloggers
Re: Consulting Fee

For cursory background research on Ben Domenech:
$50,000.

Please spread the payment among the blogs who did your work for you.

Posted by: Teapot Dome | March 24, 2006 06:22 PM

Dear Mr. Brady,
Here's a novel idea: hire a bona fide LIBERAL blogger for WashingtonPost.com. He'd be a counterpoint to Will, Krauthammer, and the other voices of the right so prominently featured here. I even have a candidate for you: The Nossiter Net, at www.nossiter.net. Other qualities apart, this blog is 100% plagiarism free: any writing not the author's gets quotation marks AND footnotes. Now that really is novel.
Sincerely,
Josh Nossiter

Posted by: Joshua Nossiter | March 24, 2006 06:22 PM

A few more comments from Big Dumb Jim:

"Many critics of the paper have wondered why the Post chose Domenech in the first place... Brady said the site picked Domenech for two reasons: he's conservative and provocative. Brady denied that the paper hired Domenech as a way to deflect criticism from the right that Dan Froomkin, one of its most popular columnists, is too liberal. 'That's not true and it never was,' he said.

'We didn't have anybody on the site who is on a consistent basis discussing issues of conservatives, someone who's loyal to the cause of conservatism and not the administration. We were looking for people whose opinions are not necessarily in line with the majority of people who read the site. We wanted to create a little bit of buzz and controversy as well.' And Domenech, Brady said, fit the bill. 'He was provocative.'

In the end, of course, the decision created the wrong kind of controversy. 'The lesson we've learned is that if we go back and do this again, we'll probably look more in the traditional journalist community,' Brady said. 'We still want someone who's provocative.'

And the site still wants someone on the right. 'A conservative columnist, a conservative blogger, whatever it ends up being. Certainly we're looking, but I don't know the timeframe,' Brady said.

Asked if the site is looking for a liberal, he said, 'Potentially, potentially.'"

So, to recap:

1. Brady says Froomkin is NOT the "liberal" blogger Domenech was meant to "balance"; however, he still doesn't name the "liberal" blogger that is forcing him to "balance" the site out.

2. Apparently, Will, Krauthammer, and others are not conservative enough for Brady.

3. If you have a history of racist, homophobic, and mean-spirited writings (all of which Brady claims the Post has seen), you are "provocative," as long as you're also a conservative. If you point out mistakes and lies told by Brady and Lovey Howell, however, you are "intolerant" and "hate-filled" IF you are a "liberal blogger".

4. Despite the fact that Brady cannot point to anyone on the WaPo site that is so wildly liberal immediate "balance" is called for, he seems absolutely laconic about hiring a "liberal" blogger but has a great big heat on to get another "provocative" conservative in their STAT.

Thanks, Jim - I think we've got all we need.

Posted by: dave | March 24, 2006 06:28 PM

Brady said the site picked Domenech for two reasons: he's conservative and provocative.

Wow... is that all it takes?

I'm sure I can track down the local tax protesting ranter on shortwave, Jim. I can't get you a number (he thinks the phone company is controlled by 'ZOG'), but I can get you the address of his bunker.

Interested?

If so, just remember to wave a white flag and an MRE when walking up to his place... and don't make any sudden movements.

Posted by: DH | March 24, 2006 06:36 PM

What happened to you Washington Post?
You used to be cool.

Posted by: Jay | March 24, 2006 06:37 PM

Let's see if I have this right:

This guy Domenech, whom most of us have never heard of, nor give a frig about, was NOT a staff writer at the Post print edition, was NOT a staff member at Post.com, did not have an office or desk at WaPoCo, was only an alternative voice on this blogosphere with no ties whatsoever to the company other than hosting his viewpoint, was caught stealing other writer's clauses when he was a college kid, is told his opinion-based, free-speech blog is kaput, and somehow the paper is stained and Jim Brady should jump off a ledge?

Say what?

Undoubtedly, according to you hyperventilating twits, this means if freelancer Pat Goss gives me the wrong instructions on how to install brake rotors in his blog, the website should close down and Brady shoot his dog (or cat).

You people are truthfully moronic.

Posted by: Benchley | March 24, 2006 06:39 PM

Wow, are the DailyKOS firebreathing idiots out in force or what? Oh yes, this one guy is so completely utterly representative of 20-something conservatives because he was a plagarist! Read conservative blogs much, guys? Apparently not. Thus, your ignorance.

And the usual kitchen-grade vituperation comes out like you would expect. Republican values are plagarism (really?). This indicates a "trend" in Republican politics. (Oh really?) Guys, shouting shibboleths on the wapo's boards do not make you look smarter.

But honestly, the mainstream media does seem incapable of doing fact-checking. This is like the NYT's fiascos in that regard. But then again, whenever you read a media story that talks about the "cycle of violence" or features the usual skin-deep analysis, you've got to realize that this hiring decision comes from a culture of sloth.

Besides, original right-wing bloggers are as numerous as stars in the sky. Powerline, LGF, TheBeakSpeaks, LongRange, Strange Fire, Michelle Malkin, Jihadwatch, and on and on and on.

Posted by: Poster | March 24, 2006 06:40 PM

Mr. Brady,
I was surprised that washingtonpost.com hired a race baiting blogger to begin with but the fact that he was fired not for lying, or using hate speech to incite rabid shills from the right but for plagiarizing a film critique is disgraceful and empty at that. Would you like to explain to your readers why you would hire someone without checking his/her credentials or does that not even enter into your realm of thinking at the washingtonpost.com? I think the antics from the your website over the last few months have all one common ingredient and that is you, Mr. Brady. Do us all a favor and resign.

Posted by: Gelliebeans | March 24, 2006 06:43 PM

I see the kids are on the playground.

If you du/moveon fools weren't so batty, it would be fun reading this drivel

Posted by: mohamed algor | March 24, 2006 06:43 PM

As a progressive, I don't mind the Post hiring a right-wing poliitcal operative to do a blog. I am confident that progressive views are defensible against the wingiest, nuttiest of Republican hacks. So that doesn't scare me. What scares me is when the Post does this in the name of "balance". Well, where is your liberal political operative blogger? Oh yeah, nevermind, when they said "balanced", they meant in-the-style-of-Fox-News type "balanced".

Posted by: jeff | March 24, 2006 06:46 PM

The liberal bloggers exposing of Domenech's questionable credentials ethics brings to mind the "swift-boating" of the Dan Rather documents. The difference being, of course that the left was completely correct about Domenech, in context and facts. The National Guard documents used by Rather were perhaps not authenticated, but not necessarily proven to be hoaxes.

Posted by: Judge | March 24, 2006 06:46 PM

Why is print "journalism" suffering from loss of subscribers; i.e., money?

A case study in the making.

Posted by: JBob | March 24, 2006 06:46 PM

The fact that WP hired this person at all and for the reasons he was hired is the real scandal, not the incompetent manner in which he was vetted. That is simply something that happens when you do something wrong in the first place.

When is the news media going to finally revert back to REAL ethics and REAL standards.

i.e. Balance is not a virture. The truth and the facts which are the only things a journalist should care about are not balanced.If the truth comes down 90% on the side of the Democrats ( see Jack Abramoff) and 90% against Republicans, well thats just the way it is.You report the facts as they are.There is NO responsibility to to try and balance anything.

FAIR - There is nothing fair about the truth either. It is what it is. The only obligation anyone has to be fair is to make sure they are reporting the facts.

The Posts attempts at trying to "balance" Froomkin is what got it into trouble in the first place. Republican and conservativce positions and have been proved to be intellectually and morally bankrupt.They dont work. The Post doesnt need to give a voice to incompetence and dishonesty.

Posted by: MDR | March 24, 2006 06:47 PM

Wait a minute. Why does Mrs. Howell claim that the Domenech issue is not under her jurisdiction, when she in December 2005, she characterized Dan Froomkin's column as "highly opinionated and liberal" and agreed with some at the paper that Froomkin's column should be renamed?
Howell needs to do make up her mind.

Posted by: A. Perez | March 24, 2006 06:49 PM

I can understand why the Washington Post has been trying to get into the blogging business. After all, every prophet of doom is predicting the end of the newspaper business as we know it. But it is mystifying to me that Brady could not see the difference between right-wing hackery and thoughtful conservative commentary. If I ran the Washington Post Company, I would be concerned that the executive editor of Post.com was trying to drag the WaPo name into the mud. It really does reflect poorly upon the paper, and upon Brady's judgement.

Posted by: Artemesia | March 24, 2006 06:51 PM

The Post did nothing following the disclosure that Woodward withheld information on the Plame case. This is just more of the same, reflecting a loss of integrity. I cancelled my subscription, see no reason to come back as a paying reader. If there's no integrity at the top (Woodward) why would anyone expect to find it elsewhere in the paper?

Posted by: NBMC | March 24, 2006 06:54 PM

I've read a little bit more about this incident and have come to conclusion that the MoveOn folks (and leftists in general) are setting up the equivalent of a high-tech lynching, to quote SC justice Thomas -- and, with as much evidence that was used in that case. First, he was accused -- not convicted. Second, a college newspaper where he didn't even have the final say? Oh yeah guys, that's real evidence of plagarism. *rolls eyes* Third, if you think balance is unimportant, that's because you think that the news can be truly objective. The only folks who think that are those who are blind to their own biases -- or disengeniously deny that they have any.

Posted by: Poster | March 24, 2006 06:55 PM

"When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings."

Do your job, apologize for your mistake, and resign.

Posted by: Beth | March 24, 2006 06:59 PM

Domenech denies all:
RedState.com >
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/24/151255/259

"While I am not a journalist, I have, myself, written more than one thing that has been plagiarized in the past."

"The most recent accusation, is that I stole a music review from Crosswalk and passed it off at National Review Online. In fact, I wrote both lists myself; I was one of Crosswalk's music review contributors at the time."

"My critics have also accused me of plagiarism in multiple movie reviews for the college paper. I once caught an editor at the paper inserting a line from The New Yorker (which I read) into my copy and protested. When that editor was promoted, I resigned. Before that, insertions had been routinely made in my copy, which I did not question. I did not even at that time read the publications from which I am now alleged to have lifted material. When these insertions were made, I assumed, like most disgruntled writers would, that they were unnecessary but legitimate editorial additions."

"But the truth is that I had met P.J. at a Republican event and asked his permission to do a college-specific version of his classic piece on partying. He granted permission, the piece was cleared with my editors at the paper, and it ran as inspired by O’Rourke’s original."

"Considering that all of this happened almost eight years ago, and that there are no files or notes that I've kept from that brief stint, it is simply my word against the liberal blogosphere on these examples. It becomes a matter of who you believe."

"To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America."

Posted by: WillYa | March 24, 2006 07:00 PM

Helllllooooo MOM !!!!!

Im in the Washington Post!!.....COOL huh??...Next I'm going to DisneyLand ....YYYyyyaaaaaaayyyyyy

Posted by: Bubba | March 24, 2006 07:01 PM

This is what happens when you try to be politically correct albeit in reverse this time.

Hire the best instead of the most extreme to balance out whatever perceived opposite extreme.

All the other hand maybe blame this on the idiots who complained about Froomie's column. Or all the law and order, family value, merit based only loudmouths who never seem to practice what they preach.

Posted by: Tom | March 24, 2006 07:02 PM

Poster: "Oh yes, this one guy is so completely utterly representative of 20-something conservatives because he was a plagarist! Read conservative blogs much, guys?"

I've read a conservative blog recently...Red State...oh, wait a minute...

Poster again(attributing to??): "This indicates a "trend" in Republican politics. (Oh really?)"

Actually, Poster, the trend is for conservatives to attribute things to people that they HAVEN'T said.

Thanks for playing!

Posted by: Judge | March 24, 2006 07:02 PM

Now that conservatives have been moaning over and over about the liberal bias of the media, many media organizations seem compelled to prove absence of bias by leaning over backwards to be sure that the conservative take on public policies gets full to overfull coverage.

I'm hoping we can get back to objective reporting of news stories and confine opinion to the op-ed page. Editorials can be the opinion of the editorial board with no need for balance. However, newspapers should have a variety of columnists, but all of them should be writers deserving of our respect and trust. Ben Domenech did not fit the bill -- at ALL. I can't believe the Post could have hired such an extremist hack. Blather is blather is blather. Plagerism is bad, but the reasons to get rid of him go way beyond plagerism.

Posted by: MWarren | March 24, 2006 07:04 PM

I have a suggestion for your new Redstate blogger .... Howard Kurtz.

1. He is right-leaning 'journalist'.
2. He slavishly listens to Rush and reads all the right wing blogs.
3. He knows how to employ all of Bush's strawman arguments.
4. His media column could do double duty as Redstate blog posts. Who would know the difference?
5. He doesn't see Hume, Hannity or any of the Fox talking heads as hardened partisans but legitimate members of the MSM.
6. Thinks America's view of the Iraq war is increasingly negative because the coverage of the war is negative. Those pesky facts are so biased!
7. Even more of a direct line to Karl Rove than Domenech.
8. He hasn't plagiarized anything but right wing talking points

He's PERFECT.

Posted by: libopinion | March 24, 2006 07:06 PM

As an acolyte of the "evidentialist righteousness" school of epistemology, I demand that my viewpoint be reflected in the "broad spectrum of opinion" your blog professes to convey. We also expect that the Flat Earth Society, Anti-Darwinian Literalists, Wiccan Witches and Cayce Wierd Happenings Fan Club be given a fair share of blog space along with the Federalist Society and the Unitary Executive Fascism Devotees.

Posted by: ed mainland | March 24, 2006 07:07 PM

Over the past several months I have concluded that the WaPo has no idea what it is doing. We have tried to help you but it is a lost cause. Pity. BTW WPO is trading < 750. Good luck,

Posted by: california_reality_check | March 24, 2006 07:07 PM

Jim Brady should resign.

Posted by: Luke | March 24, 2006 07:07 PM

"I've read a little bit more about this incident and have come to conclusion that the MoveOn folks (and leftists in general) are setting up the equivalent of a high-tech lynching, to quote SC justice Thomas -- and, with as much evidence that was used in that case. First, he was accused -- not convicted. Second, a college newspaper where he didn't even have the final say? Oh yeah guys, that's real evidence of plagarism. *rolls eyes* Third, if you think balance is unimportant, that's because you think that the news can be truly objective. The only folks who think that are those who are blind to their own biases -- or disengeniously deny that they have any."

You miss the point. Of course you all totally ignore the blantant RACISM shown by this pig. THAT'S really the problem here. The plagarism is just indicative of WHO the guy really is.

God you people are just so thick. Studied ignorance and willful blindness.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 07:10 PM

First, let me define my terms which I hope the Post doesn't find so offensive that it deletes me from the blog. And to avoid any accusations of plagarism, let me state upfront that this definition is taken directly from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

So with that in mind: Shame on the Washington Post for hiring Ben Domenech -- a hack, a plagarist, a right-wing propagandist -- and for what? What possible purpose could be served by the vile, fascist accusations that you call 'journalism'? What this country needs now to save it from the fascists is a Woodward and Bernstein (of lore -- not of today). And what does the Post do? The Post sells itself out as a propaganda machine for the very forces that are actively trying to kill the 'fourth estate' and the U.S. Constitution.

YOU -- the Post -- are supposed to be protecting the reupublic by doing investigative, truthful, objective reporting. But you're not. YOU -- the Post and the rest of the 'liberal' media -- forsook your duty in the 2000 elections and again in the 2004 elections by giving this incompetent President a free ride. And through this entire bloodbath called Iraq, you have cow-towed to the fascists in power. Where were you when these war mongers started their lies -- OBVIOUS lies even to us laymen at the time? As the saying goes "Clinton lied, Monica cried. Bush lied, thousands died." You couldn't get enough of a semen stain, but when the Republicans commit REAL crimes, you cower in the corner.

And now, you've proven 'the stuff you're made of' by hiring Domenech. Oh, so now Domenech resigns. Does that absolve you? The Post lost credibility for me when they abdicated their investigative reporting on this Imperial Presidency. Now you've confirmed --- again --- what I've known all along, and that is that the Post and the rest of the Press is willing to stand by as the Constitution is destroyed and we are all condemned to the tyranny of the fascist theocracy that is taking its place. Shame on the Washington Post? No, Blame goes to the Washington Post for its collaboration with these fascists.

Posted by: Trapped in Texas | March 24, 2006 07:12 PM

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/3/24/151255/259/12#12

I am proud of you son. By: DougD
Love, Dad.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 07:16 PM

The Washington Puke!

Your paper makes me ill how it caters to the bastards of the GOP - Katherine Graham would not approve!

Go Back to Independent Journalism and stop sucking up to the Corporate Lobbyists and Right Wing Fanatics!

Posted by: Tim Heberling | March 24, 2006 07:17 PM

Poor Ben is taking this badly, claiming as a defense that any conservative would be treated as harshly by liberals. That's just not true. Someone with at least a whiff of credibility and credentials would've been given a chance, even if his views had been adverse to most of the readers. For some cretin like Ben to pretend he's in the same class as intelligent conservatives is a farce, and his supporters who've traipsed over here to defend him, sadly, represent the type who would defend any conservative, simply because he's conservative. There's really no reasoning with them. They can't spell. They don't know the first thing about grammar and usage, and quite frankly, some of them appear to be three sheets to the wind when they're typing their defenses. If this latest experiment is what the Post intends to call balance, count me out. This was your last chance. You've lost me, and everyone I can convince after discussing this issue with them. Divestiture of stock holdings will be one of the topics brought up when I chat. Good bye, and good luck.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 07:19 PM

Domenech's statement is pathetic. He squirms and blames others and whines, spends half the page trying to imply evil editors are responsible for his plagiarism. But, glaringly, he won't just come out and admit it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence -- he has to backpedal and evade and run from his own words. A shining example of personal responsibility.

The WashPost may have made a mistake, but they took responsibility for it, owned up to it, fixed it and promised to do better. That shows they have more integrity than Domenech. It also shows they have more integrity than, say, Fox News, who has been publishing Ann Coulter's violent rants without reservation, even after she was caught in the same type of plagiarism ( http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid%3A71335 ).

Posted by: TWoodward | March 24, 2006 07:20 PM

Domeneche's column contains no indication that it "ran as inspired by O'Rourke's original." Here is the pdf of the column.

Posted by: A. Perez | March 24, 2006 07:29 PM

Wow! Look at how the left is celebrating the result of this whole episode! (Must be because they can't win any elections, thus the focus on the small victories).

So let me get this straight...Domenech lifts material for his college newspaper and a movie review, and is forced to resign, yet Dan Froomkin never leaves his desk somewhere in the bowels of the WP, calls his column "White House Briefing" (where he's apparently never been) and still has a gig on WP online?! Yet, you Moonbats pout and whine if WP threatens to knock Froomkin down a peg or two, or at least proposes to portray his column for what it really is...OPINION! (and a lefty left one at that).

Smells like hypocisy!

Posted by: WhoYouCrappin' Lefties? | March 24, 2006 07:44 PM

Boy, are you have a sorry excuse for a national newspaper editor.


The Depressing Washington Post
by Hunter
Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:33:23 PM PDT

After reading Jim Brady's boilerplate note about Domenech's resignation this morning, I was nonplussed, but a few comments he made to Howard Kurtz left me thinking that there might be the glimmer of recognition here about just what a bad decision this was, and that maybe jumping in with both feet to repeat it would be a mistake. Actually, it was a single phrase -- by the next, it was clear that he doesn't really get it at all.


On liberal blogs and Web sites--Salon's lead story this morning was "A Portrait of the Blogger as a Young Plagiarist"--many commentators said there was no equivalence between a Republican activist who co-founded the site RedState.com and Post.com journalists who are viewed as leaning to the left. Brady said that was a "fair criticism" and one he will keep in mind in looking for another conservative blogger. "We're certainly likely to look for someone with a more traditional journalism background," he said.


For starters, it was mere days ago when washingtonpost.com's Opinions editor Hal Straus was falling all over himself to say:


"Washingtonpost.com hires writers for their ability to add something substantive to the national conversation. As best as possible, we look for that ability regardless of political labels."


Mmm-hmm. But now Jim Brady flatly acknowledges that they've got a political quota to fill -- they want a hard-right conservative.
Mind you, they need a "conservative" voice because George Will and Charles Krauthammer are basically Communists, when it comes right down to it. Really, I can see the overwhelming need to balance voices like that with a little sparkle from the "Coretta Scott King was a communist" -slash- Michael Moore is fat -slash- gay taunting -slash- "hey everybody, look at this neat article I found accusing black American leaders of supporting racial cleansing" wing of the party, and I can indeed see why Brady might feel those views were indeed underrepresented in civilized society, though I cannot fathom why he thinks that represents a problem.
Anyway, so now we know.
As amply demonstrated, Ben Domenech is from the Hewitt-Malkin-Coulter wing of the party. If that's really the direction the Washington Post still wants to go in -- the kind of rhetoric they want associated with their name, for a nice change of professional pace -- then they're welcome to it.
But Brady and others, you're really still missing the whole point.
This isn't about "balancing" the alleged closet liberalism on the part of Froomkin, or any other Washington Post figure. Conservatives don't give a damn how many of their fellow conservatives are on your site -- so long as your paper continues to report facts they don't like, or media critics like Froomkin factcheck the more mindnumbing elements of political spin, those conservatives are still going to attack the paper itself as being hopelessly "liberal." Journalism is the liberal part. From Horowitz to Hewitt to Limbaugh, these people hate you. You can't appease them, because there's no such thing as an acceptable "level" of partisan hackery that will offset actual journalism or inconvenient facts. They'll only be happy when you kill the journalism -- or at least stop reporting the facts surrounding the more inconvenient stories.
Every time you "balance" factual reporting with more cheap, uninformative punditry, you weaken the value of your own brand, and the perceived credibility of your entire organization. That may indeed be the niche that Fox News has shown the way to, but I think you'll find the kind of people who watch Fox News aren't big readers of papers like yours -- and it is not at all the given that you think it is that they might be readers, if you only dumb down the content enough and add Michael Moore fat jokes.
Take a look at a hardcore "conservative" news site, sometime. Is that what you're trying for? Is that what you want a "taste" of, mingled with your journalism?
By all means, stand by your decision to balance someone accused of being liberal with a professionally partisan conservative; to balance those with excellent credentials with someone with none; to balance facts with spin; to balance journalism with hackery. It sounds like you've got the glimmer of understanding on just how bad an idea that was, but it doesn't sound like, even now, you understand the basis of the conservative attacks against you.
They're playing you for chumps. And you're taking it, and people like the truly incompetent Deborah Howell are actively promoting it. Considering that this is the exact same blustering "working the refs" strategy that the right has used the last ten years to install incompetent, weak and acquiescent reporting, it really reflects incredibly badly on your managerial and editorial competence that you continue to fall for it.
You're a newspaper, damn it. Start acting like one again. For starters, install a management team that doesn't make news itself on a regular basis through its botched announcements, contradictory statements, humiliating hirings, and blatant incompetence. You've got, at this point, zero credibility left on either side of the political aisle.

Posted by: Richard Burt | March 24, 2006 07:44 PM

Whoops, should have used the spell-check... That should be "HYPOCRISY"!

Posted by: WhoYouCrappin' Lefties? | March 24, 2006 07:46 PM

Screw Ben's job.

I want Jim Brady's job after he is forced to resign.

Posted by: Disputo | March 24, 2006 07:47 PM

When will Woodward be held accountable? Has your paper entirely sold out to the White House? Why is it that I get better news from Yahoo, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and the Huffington Post than such "August" institutions such as yours. I hope you guys sleep well at night and that your salaries compensate you for the fact that you no longer report the news.

Posted by: Where's the 4th estate? | March 24, 2006 07:49 PM

This blunder by the Washington Past is a symptom and not the actual issue. The issue is that the Washington Past and others all feel that journalism is a product rather than a commitment to our country. They all trade against our country and democracy for a simple and easy profit. Doing otherwise takes intelligence and love of country. the Washington Past has neither. Jus stop reading it! Don't buy it. And turn off Fox News!

Posted by: BB | March 24, 2006 07:51 PM

Richard Burt...You appear to be a deeply frustrated man. Those falling MSM ratings, the rising FoxNews and conservative talker ratings, and the incomparable wit and insight of the Weekly Standard, National Review Online and Townhall.com have clearly placed you on edge, or have you been mixing scotch and pills again?

Posted by: WhoYouCrappin' Lefties? | March 24, 2006 07:53 PM

"Whoops, should have used the spell-check... That should be "HYPOCRISY"!"

Too bad there isn't a bovine excrement checker, 'crappin'. Because then it could have spared you the embarassment of your posts making it out to where others can see them.

Posted by: DH | March 24, 2006 07:56 PM

Hey, BB...I just turned on Fox News. The top-rated Bill O'Reilly will be on in six minutes! ...and by the way, his next book ("Culture Warrior") will be out in September. I'll sign you up for an advance copy.

Hugs and Kisses,

Crappin'

Posted by: WhoYouCrappin' Lefties? | March 24, 2006 07:56 PM

'Crappin':

Put down the meth pipe. Trolling while buzzed isn't getting you anywhere.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 07:57 PM

Let's have it DH! Show us the true colors of the WP readership! What's really on your mind? Go ahead, gripe to us about Fox News!

Posted by: What'sthe Matter withNY&SF? | March 24, 2006 07:58 PM

Mr. Brady,

What do you see the purpose of having comments on this blog as? Is it just a place where readers give off steam that the editorial staff can ignore? Is it a place to read about what readers enjoy or hate? Is it a place where you can learn something? Do you even know that you have comments on this site?

Posted by: Luke | March 24, 2006 07:59 PM

Little Debbie had some bad luck, too. Apparently her job description changed and now she cannot comment on washingtonpost.com bloggers. A few weeks ago she could comment on Dan Froomkin, a washingtonpost.com writer, and even lable him a liberal blogger although he is a professional journalist. But alas Mr. Brady must have pulled the rug out from under her just as she was ready to write a denunciation of the right wing plagiarizer, just to keep things in fair and balanced.

Posted by: Schmedlap | March 24, 2006 07:59 PM

BTW, 'Crappin':

O'Reilly's 'top ratings' are about 1/6th of that of 'SpongeBob Squarepants'.

Like evidence of the boy wonder's plagiarism, you can look it up and everything.

Posted by: DH | March 24, 2006 08:00 PM

"Go ahead, gripe to us about Fox News!"

Why?

You're serving as case in point as to what brain damage a continuous IV drip of wingnut "news" produces in people who willingly expose themselves to it.

Please, continue posting. If nothing else, it's amusing.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 08:02 PM

Anonymous: Oh come on! I thought the left was all about the drugs, experimentation, and resulting freedom of expression!? Let's do this up right, just like the 60s!

(Hippies Smell)

Posted by: WhoYouCrappin' Lefties? | March 24, 2006 08:02 PM

Come on Jim, the post must be relying on GW Bush judgements to make this many mistakes.

Posted by: eARL | March 24, 2006 08:02 PM

Take a tip from the foodnetwork or American Idol. Conduct nationwide searches and let the readers vote. Then do your job, too, by running appropriate background checks. And, get someone from all sides of the aisle -- right, left, independent. Start immediately. Just my three cents.

Posted by: jane q. public | March 24, 2006 08:03 PM

Commenters here say Froomkin isn't a lefty who needs balancing. Only a few times reading him is enough to show he's a left=wingnut. And his endorsement here by such rabid, foam-at-the-mouth lefties is simply confirmation....

Posted by: Mr. Foam | March 24, 2006 08:04 PM

Like I said, 'Crappin', you are quite (and inadvertently) amusing.

Wow, it's the 'hippies' and '60's were EEE-evil!!!' bugaboos.

Tell me, when you trot out those tropes at the Bircher meets in your basement, do the other boys hide behind their chairs?

Posted by: DH | March 24, 2006 08:05 PM

"Please, continue posting. If nothing else, it's amusing."

Rule #542 of posting a comment in these fora is to not claim that you are amused by another's comment, because most often you are not, are deeply frustrated by the other's post and are trying to divert attention from that fact.

So, come on, Anonymous, tell me what you really think...You want to take my head off, don't you? :)

Peace. Out.

Posted by: WhoYouCrappin' Lefties? | March 24, 2006 08:09 PM

Please do not EVER hire ANYONE like this again.

Posted by: Isaac | March 24, 2006 08:14 PM

"You want to take my head off, don't you?"

*yawn*

The only time I'd ever want your head is if I was in a desert and needed something empty to fetch water.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 08:18 PM

What an embarrassment for the Post. It's a shame that Mr. Domenech resigned because of his blantant plagiarism instead of his blantant racism.

Posted by: Unstable Isotope | March 24, 2006 08:19 PM

guh HeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaW...

you REDs do this on purpose, right?
'cause it seems like it MUST BE on purpose.
no other explanation:

your aimin' at us, POW!
shoot tinkerbell DEAD IN THE FACE

... fifuffuff...

down boy, now! down brady! we'll catch them rascals another day, boy.


great work, y'all! bravo. encore!


[but seriously, could we get a do-over on that question about union with red states? this sh* is getting ridiculous]

Posted by: Hiam A. Yankee | March 24, 2006 08:22 PM

"*yawn*"

Again, trying to fain nonchalance as a defense mechanism to divert attention from your lefty frustration!

OK, you want to give me a big hug, don't you Anonymous?

To quote from Brokeback, I wish I could quit you! ;)

Posted by: WhoYouCrappin' Lefties? | March 24, 2006 08:23 PM

If the conversative media is at the top of the ratings & best-seller lists, doesn't that make them the "mainstream media" they always rail against?

Posted by: Judge | March 24, 2006 08:26 PM

Hey James, have you noticed your bosses giving you the fish eye lately?

They sure should be.

Posted by: Gates | March 24, 2006 08:27 PM

Good point, Judge. Perhaps we should now refer to the WP, NY Times, CNN, etc., as the "Traditional MSM", and Fox News, conservative bloggers, the Weekly Standard, talk radio, et al, as the "New MSM", a necessary creation by actual Americans to overthrow the coastal elites?

Cool. Now we've cleared that up.

Posted by: SR | March 24, 2006 08:32 PM

(Must be because they can't win any elections, thus the focus on the small victories).

Whoo hoo.. one more person to add to my list of people to laugh at, publically, in november.

Posted by: fblau | March 24, 2006 08:32 PM

in the event anyone's still reading these (man, I hope you're getting paid to), I'm more appalled that WaPo hired such an awful writer. To echo a previous comment, Krauthammer's a nutcase, but he's got clear opinions and can back them up. This guy was just a shrill little prick, and I'd tire of a liberal writer doing the same thing almost as quickly. WaPo is supposed to be one of the country's pillars of journalism, and they're disgracing themselves with hires like this.

Posted by: kevin | March 24, 2006 08:33 PM

Tell you what, fblau, you get to laugh PUBLICLY, if you first learn to spell. Now, doesn't that sound fair?

Posted by: SR | March 24, 2006 08:36 PM

thought i smelled baby poop.

crappin lose diaper? crappin want huggies?

looks like crappin got washington post dinkleberry still hangin from his ... or is that domenech blog ... never mind it's trash just

FLUSH!

p.u.

Posted by: Hiam A. Yankee | March 24, 2006 08:39 PM

Crappin' strike a bit of a nerve with Hiam?

Posted by: SR | March 24, 2006 08:42 PM

Mr. Domenech and Mr. Brady should take responsibility for their actions. Mr. Domenech, in resigning, has shown that he can be a man. When is Mr. Brady going to show that?

Please Mr. Brady, just resign already.

Posted by: Brady's Afraidy | March 24, 2006 08:48 PM

Spell and grammer check boys, I saw two errors in this short article. I expect more of you folks

Posted by: billWatts | March 24, 2006 08:57 PM

It strikes me that if WaPo wants a conservative blogger it should not be looking for someone who is a Bush apologist, or even a Republican. "Conservative" is no longer a word that describes wither Bush or Republicans. Conservatives traditionally would have trouble with illegal eavesdropping, and a President spending money like a drunken Yale cheerleader. Conservatives traditionally have problems with intrusions into the private lives of citizens and would certainly have problems with the incompetence displayed by this Administration. Conservatives, at least traditional ones, believe in honesty. Conservatives traditionally would recoil at the Prescription Drug Plan the Bush Administration championed, the largest new entitlement program in 40 years.

The problem is that WaPo has conflated "conservative," "Bush" and "Republican." In doing so they ended up with a dishonest man for an employee. I've no problem with hiring a conservative blogger, though balance would be nice. But, please, find someone who is conservative and not a mere party hack. There really is a difference.

Sure, I know all political discourse in this country has conflated the meanings of these words, but you'd think journalists would take some time and try to figure them out. Just because someone "claims" to be conservative doesn't mean he actually "is" conservative. That goes for Domanech, Bush and many, many Republicans.

Posted by: SpinDentist | March 24, 2006 09:01 PM

Brady: resign. You don't deserve the job, and you failed at it.

Posted by: rayc | March 24, 2006 09:06 PM

James Brady on commenters on Post.blog:

"the word "comments" doesn’t convey the obscene, vituperative tone of a lot of the postings, which were the sort of things you might find carved on the door of a public toilet stall...many of them so crude as to be unprintable in a family newspaper. Soon the number of comments that violated our standards of Web civility overwhelmed our ability to get rid of them"

Maybe you could just respond to commenter here rather than trying to play the victim card.

Your silence is embarrassing.

Posted by: Stan | March 24, 2006 09:06 PM

billWatts:
Spell and grammer check boys, I saw two errors in this short article. I expect more of you folks


There are four errors in your post.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 09:09 PM

billWatts:
Spell and grammer check boys, I saw two errors in this short article. I expect more of you folks


There are four errors in your post.

Posted by: Judge | March 24, 2006 09:10 PM

Thank you. Your readers deserved it, and it's the right thing to do.

Posted by: Kathy | March 24, 2006 09:11 PM

What these comments reinforce is the idea that political discussions can be settled simply by calling names and making sweeping generalizations. I thought the point of being a liberal was to challenge the orthodoxy and not to become a new one. If progressive thinking is endangered by a blogger who can't even come up with his own ideas what has the left come to. And, if that isn't the reason for all this over the top outrage, then is it simply a mean spirited denial that other points of view have the right to exist. The only thing worse than conservatives is liberals. A plague on all your houses.

Posted by: Dudski | March 24, 2006 09:13 PM

Why is it that all of these right-wing "reporters" who are supposed to inject "balance" are personally unbalanced?

Is it too much to ask that the main stream media hire people for their skills and not ideals?

We don't need "balance" we need TRUTH. Our country is being run by people who are really not up to the task. Please Post, stop being afraid and start doing what is right.


Posted by: JD | March 24, 2006 09:14 PM

Honest to God, can there be anything other than plagerism from the Bush apologist sort? It's all Talking points about now. The thoughtful conservatives have all jumped ship (Buckley, Will). All that is left (Right) is pretty much of the parrot type.

This whole thing is sort of silly.

Posted by: Brandon | March 24, 2006 09:20 PM

What's so striking about this whole deal is not the fact that an unqualified blogger/journalist lifted a few words for a movie review, and undeservedly got a job with the WP. Rather, the real take away here is that SO MANY in the left blogosphere (sp?) (including many on this board?) were so determined to tear him/the WP down.

You did that all for the sake of journalistic "integrity" or "ethics"? (If so, how has Froomkin hung around for so long?) No way, folks, because we can all cite far greater lapses on the part of jounalists and their editors.

Rather, you did it simply because someone had the audacity to dissent from your party line and that person got a job with your sacred cow, the WP. Your colleagues in Beijing, Havana, Harare and Hanoi must be very proud indeed!

Posted by: What'sThe Matter withNY&SF? | March 24, 2006 09:35 PM

I think what bothered me most about this blog was the shrill tone and combativeness. There appeared to be no thought only talking points. Good riddance. A decent consevative journalist would be a good addition, if for no other reason then to incite some honest debate. Do better next time

Posted by: Chetbr | March 24, 2006 09:38 PM

At least The Post did the right thing and fired young Ben on a Friday. Too late for the other news organizations to cover it and by Monday morning, the American public will have forgotten all about it, if they knew in the first place. Ce la vie!

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 09:40 PM

Blogger Ben Domenech Strikes Back; Calls Post Editors 'Fools'

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13507

Posted by: John | March 24, 2006 09:49 PM

After reading these comments I am sick. The represented hate and name calling is disturbing. Clearly, a mistake was made, has been corrected and learned from. The mob mentality represented here prohibits any reasonable discourse. What an eye opener to the general mean spirited, hate filled thought processes that seem so prevalent in our society today. Mr. Domenech is 24 and has obviously made some mistakes...who hasn't. However, having to resign in such a public forum under such embarrassing circumstances is quite enough for most reasonable people to acknowledge and move on without insisting that he and his folks be tarred and feathered. Geesh!

Posted by: Lattedatter | March 24, 2006 10:11 PM

Now why would Domenech complain about the Post editors? Both Brady and Domenech claim that he RESIGNED.

Posted by: Bruce in CA | March 24, 2006 10:19 PM

Ah, the civility. The resoned debate. The "fairness" issue brought up as if 80% of the MSM weren't biased to the left and they go beserk! What else is new?

So, WaPo didn't do their due diligence, what else is new in this new "society" where workers don't work just want to collect $$$.

You cannot make people "hear" or "see" what they don't want to hear and see. For the securlar progressives, anything having to do with Bush or the right is satanism, period, paragraph.

Those of us who have better things to do than see or hear media that is not representative of who and what we are can just continue doing exactly that. Tune them out. There are more serious issues to think and try to do something about then whether, in a society where rules no longer apply, we should concern ourselves with a little plagerism. Children are being sexually attacked; gang members shoot innocents; schools no longer educate; churches are getting into things they have no business being in; illegal gang members and terrorists are just crossing our borders indiscriminately; bird flu may be on its way here; our food may or may not be safe; and tons of people are getting sick or dying in our hospitals. A little plagerism is nothing to be worried about when the rules are thrown out with the baby!

Posted by: Sue | March 24, 2006 10:21 PM

Sue: You should be SCARED!!!

Posted by: sis | March 24, 2006 10:25 PM

Ben's Comments to Human Events Online

Blogger Ben Domenech Strikes Back; Calls Washington Post Editors 'Fools'
by Robert B. Bluey
Posted Mar 24, 2006



Text Size: S M L
printer-friendly
email to a friend
respond to this article



Pence Plans to Press for Action on Rahman

If Rahman Is Released, Will He Be Safe?

Reuters, NY Times Push Study Predicting Dramatic Sea Level Change

Ben Domenech Resigns




In his first public comments since resigning earlier today as a blogger for washingtonpost.com, Ben Domenech says his editors there were “fools” for not expecting an onslaught of attacks from the left.

“While I appreciated the opportunity to go and join the Washington Post,” Domenech said, “if they didn’t expect the leftists were going to come after me with their sharpened knives, then they were fools.”

Domenech has been under a steady stream of criticism since washingtonpost.com launched the new blog, “Red America,” on Tuesday. Domenech, an editor at Regnery Publishing (a sister company to HUMAN EVENTS), was accused of plagiarism by several left-wing blogs.

Although Domenech says there is an explanation for nearly all the examples cited by the left-wing bloggers, he felt he was left no choice by washingtonpost.com but to resign.

“I felt like if I didn’t resign, they would have pushed me out—if not today, then Monday,” he said.

Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com, wrote a note on “Red America” this afternoon explaining Domenech’s resignation.

“In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday,” Brady wrote.

“An investigation into these allegations was ongoing,” Brady continued, “and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.”

Domenech posted a rebuttal to the plagiarism charges on RedState.com, a website he co-founded. Its contributors have been steadfast in their support for him.

The biggest bulk of work in question comes from Domenech’s college years at William & Mary. While working at the student newspaper his freshman year, Domenech said, he discovered his editor had been inserting the work of other publications into his movie reviews. He left the job after one semester and went to work for another publication when the editor received a promotion, he said.

“The idea that the attack machine has gotten to the level where they dig back to your freshman year of college, when you’re 17, and say, ‘Hey, this guy should have been thinking about the authority of what he was writing the same way that people do at the New York Times,’ then, I mean, it’s idiotic,” he said. “I certainly was sloppier than I should have been, but the sense that I ever felt this was significant or this was dangerous or that there was ever anything to come out of it is just ridiculous.”

Asked about the voluminous amount of documentation cited by left-wing bloggers and some conservatives’ decision to believe it, Domenech said: “In a lot of this stuff, it’s based on who you believe. And if you believe the lefties are right or if you believe someone who you know and who you’ve worked with is right, I guess the thing I would point out is that I’ve done my best to never do anything to raise any kind of question about this sort of thing. And if you look at the overwhelming bulk of everything I’ve written, you’ll find there is no question about it. The questions are about small things, a lot of them easily explainable, especially the things that come after college.”

Domenech said he was disappointed washingtonpost.com pulled the plug so quickly after the blog was launched.

“I guess the thing that bothers me the most about this is that the Post didn’t give this a chance to either blow over or work itself out,” he said. “And I feel that if they had done that, the blog would have been a great addition to their site.”

Mr. Bluey is editor of Human Events Online.

Posted by: tompaine | March 24, 2006 10:31 PM

So here I am reading Jim Brady's blog.post on Domenech's resignation....
(A fit of laughter)
Does anyone know how to get soda out of your nose?

Posted by: Cobaltbay | March 24, 2006 10:40 PM

I don't really care about the trolls and the silly name calling. I'm worried about the Post's lack of journalistic integrity. Where has it gone? How an a paper with investigative journalists not discover that one of their own was a serial plagerist? It's just so shameful.

Posted by: Jiv | March 24, 2006 10:43 PM

Hire him back. WaPo has just lost a lot of credibility in tossing him out the door. No matter which side of the political/ideological (or in some people’s view) media divide you are on. This is not good.

WaPo has just proven to the world that they are extremist to one point of view.

Not good.

Posted by: Andy Miksys | March 24, 2006 10:43 PM


UNBELIEVABLE


Given that Bush still holds court amongst the dregs of his party (i.e. most of it), it's not surprising to see retorts from commenters with names like "Dudski" and "WhoYouCrappin Lefties" ... and now Domenech himself (heehee)?


Jim, Crappy, Dudski, Ben, Whatsit whoever you are, keep those non-talking points up front!


All the repugnicans with half a brain have apparently left the building. The rest of us are linking here from for sheer entertainment.

--------------------------------
"Red State" was never any more of invitation to real discourse than a confederate flag hanging from the back of a pickup truck.
--------------------------------


I suppose we ought to accept that people like Domenech & "Dudski" are trying hard to stimulate discourse with those of us deeply offended by the tyranny that has invaded our country, our freedoms, and our press.

Not.


It is PAINFULLY obvious these people - including Brady & Domenech - have learned how to copycat the spinmeisters that brought us 2 terms (8 LONG YEARS) of the worst president ever.


Their maxims (in case they haven't been dental-drilled through your skull by now) are:


1) Use threatening power phrases that tell lefties that you mean business!

..A PLAGUE? Good gracious, that's scary!
..My colleagues are in HAVANA? What?
..You're planning to laugh ... at me? Yikes!


2) Be Orwellian (translated into red talk: say everything backwards).

DISCUSSION POINT: Republican Plagiarist?
AUTO-RESPONSE: Who you crappin, lefties?

(Or just tell them how mean-spirited it is to berate a 24-yo WP staffer who refers to Coretta King as a "communist". Geez now look "what THE LEFT has come to"! Make a big plan to laugh at them later.)


... which leads me to:

3) Always point out that lefties are the root of all problems. (and plus, they're just so mean ... they are ... the New Orthodoxy! yeah.)

4) NEVER let facts (or spelling, or "grammer" or incompetence) get in your way.


5) Most Importantly: Be wrong and be proud of it! (mainly why you need maxims 1-4)


... so REDs please please keep skidding around in the smelly-poop world created by all of your kind. You'll just need to purchase more storage for the crap we'll keep hurling back in your direction.


You've made us miserable, sure. Just bear in mind that we could NEVER make this world as miserable as you have, even if - for some unknowable reason - we wanted to.

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 10:51 PM

"Red State" was never any more of invitation to real discourse than a confederate flag hanging from the back of a pickup truck.


[just attributing this phrase so turtle can plagiarize it honestly ...]

Posted by: Hiam A. Yankee | March 24, 2006 10:57 PM

Didn't the WaPo site say earlier today that Ben had not plagiarised but that his editor was responsible for all ringing similarities? I don't have a cached shot, but it looks Mr Brady like you were covering Ben's poor behind up to the very last moment. Ah,"love bears it out even to the edge of doom."

Posted by: bwaahaa | March 24, 2006 10:58 PM

I know the names of dozens of conservative bloggers.

Who is Ben Domenech?

I've never heard of the guy.

Posted by: Zeek Stephens | March 24, 2006 10:59 PM

Zeek, he's history - already forgotten by his party, an unignorable lesson to mine.

..
gargle-gargle
spit

Posted by: Hiam A. Yankee | March 24, 2006 11:10 PM

Gotcha! Feels like an election win! Well, maybe not as important as an election. A corrupt "Conservative" blogger! Yippie!

Posted by: Lee | March 24, 2006 11:10 PM

Actually, the most serious offense in journalism is liberals just making stuff up to meet their agenda, or only publishing stories that meet their agenda, or editorializing in a news article. Much more serious than plagiarism.................

Posted by: A | March 24, 2006 11:18 PM

Americans are so concerned with the Democrat/Republican dichotomy that they dont realize what is happening to the country. The debate has narrowed to a general agreement on the issues, but bickering over the minutia. The spectrum of debate is so narrow, none of the participants realize that they are engaging in a purely frivelous affair.

To those who hate America, this is truly a hilarious circus to observe. While the ship sinks swiftly, the two sides are busy arguing over what color to paint the hull.

The entire affair is pathetic, and most blogs tend to play right into the political game the elite have rigged for only themselves to win.

Posted by: Ben Parsons | March 24, 2006 11:19 PM

Did it take a lot of "power thinking" for the Post to come up with this loser?

Posted by: Peter Jensen | March 24, 2006 11:20 PM

This is my favorite posting on this thread:

To: Washington Post Editorial Dept.
From: Left Wing Bloggers
Re: Consulting Fee

For cursory background research on Ben Domenech:
$50,000.

Please spread the payment among the blogs who did your work for you.

Posted by: Teapot Dome | March 24, 2006 06:22 PM

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 11:40 PM

From www.salon.com

Washington Post on Domenech: "We did plenty of background checks"

The Web site's executive editor denies it hired the disgraced blogger because of right-wing pressure.
By Farhad Manjoo

Mar. 24, 2006 | Jim Brady, executive editor of Washingtonpost.com, told Salon Friday that Post editors had thoroughly vetted young right-wing blogger Ben Domenech before they hired him to write for the site. He said editors saw no "red flags" that Domenech was a plagiarist. Domenech resigned from the Post site Friday after bloggers discovered that he'd copied entire passages from publications, including Salon and Rolling Stone, while he was working for his college newspaper. After he graduated, he wrote articles for the National Review Online and New York Press that also contained plagiarized passages.

"We obviously did plenty of background checks" on Domenech, Brady said. He explained that Post editors read "basically everything he'd written" during the past few years and spoke to many people who had previously worked with Domenech -- "both people he referred us to and people we found on our own," Brady said. Plagiarism, though, is not an easy thing to spot, Brady suggested. "We did a lot of vetting but that's a difficult thing to catch someone on."

Brady said that Domenech had "not necessarily admitted to the fact that he did or didn't do it," and that the Post site -- which is managed separately from the print version of the Washington Post -- had not come to any conclusions on whether Domenech was guilty of plagiarism. "But certainly there was enough smoke there and not any good explanations to convince me otherwise," Brady said. He added that if Domenech had not offered to resign, the paper would have fired him. (Domenech did not respond to Salon e-mail inquiries for comment.)

In a post Friday on RedState.org, Domenech defended himself from the charges and blamed a college editor for inserting text into his stories. "My critics have also accused me of plagiarism in multiple movie reviews for the college paper. I once caught an editor at the paper inserting a line from The New Yorker (which I read) into my copy and protested. When that editor was promoted, I resigned. Before that, insertions had been routinely made in my copy, which I did not question. I did not even at that time read the publications from which I am now alleged to have lifted material. When these insertions were made, I assumed, like most disgruntled writers would, that they were unnecessary but legitimate editorial additions."

Domenech also wrote that he had personally received permission from writer P.J. O'Rourke to do a "college-specific version of his classic piece on partying." (O'Rourke could not be reached for comment.) Domenech claimed that an article he wrote for the New York Press, which lifts many passages from the Washington Post, was not an instance of plagiarism but instead reflected the fact that many reporters were there. "So it is no surprise that we had similar quotes or similar descriptions of the same event," he wrote. "I have reams of notes and interviews about the events of that day. I also went over the entire piece step by step with NYPress editors to ensure that it was unquestionably solid before it ran."

Steve Weinstein, editor of the New York Press, told Salon he didn't remember Domenech. "We've had four editors since then; I'm afraid he's lost in the mists of time. Can't help you."

Many critics of the paper have wondered why the Post chose Domenech in the first place. Domenech has never worked as a full-time reporter, and though he did help create the popular conservative blog RedState.org, his blogging experience was paltrier than that of many on the right. Critics state that Domenech, the self-proclaimed "youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush," and one-time speechwriter for Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, was more of a political operative than a blogger.

Brady said the site picked Domenech for two reasons: He's conservative and he's provocative. Brady denied that the paper hired Domenech as a way to deflect criticism from the right that Dan Froomkin, one of its most popular columnists, is too liberal. "That's not true and it never was," he said.

"We looked at a lot of people," Brady said of the selection process. "We didn't have anybody on the site who is on a consistent basis discussing issues of conservatives, someone who's loyal to the cause of conservatism and not the administration. We were looking for people whose opinions are not necessarily in line with the majority of people who read the site. We wanted to create a little bit of buzz and controversy as well." And Domenech, Brady said, fit the bill. "He was provocative."

In the end, of course, the decision created the wrong kind of controversy. "The lesson we've learned is that if we go back and do this again, we'll probably look more in the traditional journalist community," Brady said. "We still want someone who's provocative."

And the site still wants someone on the right. "A conservative columnist, a conservative blogger, whatever it ends up being. Certainly we're looking, but I don't know the time frame," Brady said.

Asked if the site is looking for a liberal, he said, "Potentially, potentially."

-- By Farhad Manjoo


Posted by: Tango Belle | March 24, 2006 11:53 PM

hired by whom at Wa Po? For why?

Maybe this is why? To give him Press Corps credentials so he can go to Ask Scotty sessions and lob softballs to The Worst President Ever!'s mouthpiece without using an assumed name like Guckert?

Shame on you for not doing your homework Wa Po! ... and making more stupid mistakes like keeping Howell on staff with her remarks about Dems getting Abramjackoff money?

And what about the past-tense hero writer who didn't come forward when Judy Miller went down... what's his name, Goldbob Woodstein?

Posted by: CTheGee | March 24, 2006 11:57 PM

Don't you lib ever give up? How come you're all fighting yesterdays battles? It's over, he resigned, move on. Actually, don't; while you're here whining about what's already taken place the world is moving on without you. Enjoy, losers.

Posted by: Stick | March 25, 2006 12:13 AM

Perhaps it is time to establish some new rules.
1) Most of us don't live in "red" or "blue" states, we live among our friends and neighbors who sometimes disagree on politics. Colorado went for Bush and also elected the Salazar brothers and a new majority in their legislature. Does that make it a "purple" state?

2) There is an excellent blog started by some Democratic activists which manages to have all sorts of debates about Oregon (and sometimes national) politics, with links to other blogs along one margin. It is www.blueoregon.com.
It was started by a web designer and 2 other guys, and has a number of contributors from across the state. Those include a former Republican state official and a former Democratic legislator now on a city council. Might be worthwhile looking at that for a model instead of falling into the trap of thinking all WA POST online readers are binary ideologues of the "with us or against us " variety.

3) As someone who was in high school when Goldwater ran for President, and as the daughter of a Taft Republican (This Taft ran for president more than once and Sen. Republican leader when Truman was president) I am getting tired of hearing that young smart alecks are "conservative". No, they are sarcastic juveniles and they might be what Ed Schultz calls "righties".
But true conservatives are mature adults with the manners to match--people who don't plagarize and don't call people of an older generation inflamatory names like "communist". This blogger was in elementary school when the Berlin Wall came down. He may have heard allegations about the Kings--but did he know about J E Hoover's reputation for investigating anyone J E Hoover didn't like?

4) There are a number of problems (all the Katrina survivors still displaced, to name one example) which can't be fixed by ideology. It takes hard work (not just discussions in ideological salons) to solve problems.
There was a story on the news tonite about a gray haired woman who collected prom dresses so that every girl in a Miss. high school would be able to go to the prom and wear a nice prom dress. Most people's lives are closer to that woman's good deed than they are to the ideology of giving every citizen a label as if no one thinks for themselves.
This idea that the WASH POST is "liberal" because it covers the news in ways that don't please readers of the Weekly Standard and National Review and viewers of Fox News is nonsense.

Tammy Duckworth won the Congressional primary in her district. That is as much a fact as her combat loss of both legs. It will be interesting to see if the "support the troops and President Bush" crowd will demonize her the way they did Cleland in 2002 and Kerry in 2004. If they do attack her, they should discard all the "support the troops" signs and bumper stickers because what they are really saying is "support troops as long as they are Republican".

Keep an eye on the 2nd Congressional District in Oregon. 4 Democratic challengers are campaigning in that primary--together, discussing the incumbent's record as they travel a district as large as some states. My guess is there aren't a lot of Washington Post readers in that mostly rural district. But if one of them wins or even makes incumbent Cong. Walden fight for his political life, all the sarcastic remarks about "liberals" on the Washington Post won't change the fact that a Democrat may have a real chance in a district which hasn't had a Democrat elected there since Oregon got the 5th Congressional seat.
There is a reason the Constitution begins "we the people"--voters in districts decide who wins congressional races, and if the locals are tired of what one friend calls an anti-rural Walden voting record, no amount of rhetoric by E. Coast ideologues will be able to change that.

Posted by: GHDEL | March 25, 2006 12:21 AM

The fallacy in a lot of the comments I have seen in this thread is the assumption that the Washington Post has ever had any integrity at all. During the 1960's and 70's I used to grit my teeth to read what passed for news from this fish-wrapper. My alternative was to read the Star, so I read the Post with gritted teeth.

Even when the Post was investigating Nixon, it was still buying into the lies behind the VietNam incursion and occupation. None of the management ever bothered to investigate to see if some of the corporations advertising in the paper had instigated the incursion for profit purposes.

The scam the Post used was to stir up those who called themselves "conservatives" to whine, scream and generally act like ninnies calling the Post a "liberal rag," in order to use their tantrums to take on a liberal aura.

With the advent of the internet, the jig is up for the Washington Post. It is not now, nor has it EVER been, liberal, honest, or believable.

But the Washington Post IS great for producing wrappers for dead, rotten fish.

Posted by: hterrya | March 25, 2006 12:41 AM

God the Washington Post has fallen low. Can they fall any lower? Who hired this hack? When is he/she going to resign? Have they, finally, no shame?

Posted by: c4logic | March 25, 2006 01:15 AM

For the Post to recover its reputation, Jim Brady should resign.

Posted by: cwhig | March 25, 2006 01:18 AM

There is more than ample opportunity for this young man to redeem his reputation in our society.
One of our most honorable institutions is currently struggling to meet its recruitment targets and he's exactly the young go-getter type that the could benefit the ranks of the Army. Why though do I somehow doubt a young vocal republican who has strongly supported our military occupation of Iraq, who's reputation is in tatters, will seek out the military to help rebuild his personal reputation? I'll tell you why I doubt it will happen; cowardice, a trait that appears in excess supply amongst the most vocal supporters of the war.

Posted by: graham | March 25, 2006 01:21 AM


To: Returns Department
From: Security Dept.
Subj: Advisory Notice
Date: 03-24-06


* * * Target Stores Global Advisory * * *
* * * Target Stores Global Advisory * * *
* * * Target Stores Global Advisory * * *


Description of Suspect: College drop-out, former White-House, and recently terminated Washington Post employee identified as White, Christian, Male, Conservative Bush fanatic is at large and operating without talent or capacity for original thought.


Subject must be treated as potential unrepentant thief. He is known to be a serial copy-cat. His history of malfeasance has resulted in his current jobless and unemployable state.

Disregard excuses, subterfuge, and attempts at role-reversal (he may use phrases like "To my enemies..." and "purposefully lifted" if caught red-handed).


Flight risk: High.

Category: FooledMeCantGetFooledAgain

Posted by: Hiam A. Yankee | March 25, 2006 02:14 AM

FROM THE SALON STORY ABOVE QUOTE
Brady said that Domenech had "not necessarily admitted to the fact that he did or didn't do it," and that the Post site -- which is managed separately from the print version of the Washington Post -- had not come to any conclusions on whether Domenech was guilty of plagiarism"
UNQUOTE. HAD NOT COME TO ANY CONCLUSION?
HOW COULD A RESPONSIBLE EDITOR POSSIBLY READ THE PLAGIARIZED MATERIAL ALREADY AVAILABLE BY THE TIME OF THAT INTERVIEW WITH SALON AND NOT come to a conclusion ?
IT'S RELEVANT THAT THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE DID come to a conclusion
THAT DOMENECH HAD INDEED COMMITTED PLAGIARY
IN ITS PAGES FOR WHICH it HAD THE GRACE TO APOLOGIZE WHICH FINALLY FORCED HIM TO RETRACT HIS EARLIER STATEMENT IN WHICH HE ESSENTIALLY CLAIMED HE HAD BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED AND IMPLIED THAT HIS PLAGIARY IN THE FLAT HAT WAS THE ACT OF THAT PAPER'S EDITOR.THIS PROCESS CAN BE TRACED IN REDSTATE ITSELF WHICH CARRIED THAT DISGRACEFUL PENULTIMATE STATEMENT AND SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS FROM THE READERS
WHICH CAME TO AN ABRUPT END WITH THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL REVIEW. AT THAT POINT THE DANCE ENDED , DOMENECH WAS FORCED TO TELL THE TRUTH AND RED STATE WAS FORCED TO ACCEPT IT........ BUT WHY WAS THE WASHINGTON POST STILL PRETENDING THAT IT HAD not come to a conclusion DESPITE THE EVIDENCE WHICH CONVINCED THE NRO TO REACH ONE. SURELY YOUR DUTY TO YOUR READERS IS TO GIVE THEM THE FACTS , RATHER THAN ISSUE AN IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE STATEMENT THAT YOU had not come to a conclusion.WHAT'S GOING ON WITH YOU GUYS ?

Posted by: R M Flanagan | March 25, 2006 02:56 AM

Jim Brady, where's your resignation? You and your staff are truly a disgrace to journalism. Deborah Howell is turning over in her grave.

Posted by: Zaine Ridling | March 25, 2006 03:51 AM

Why, in heaven's name did the Post think it needed to contribute yet another poisonous fringe voice to the national conversation? We wonder if Iraq is in a civil war, but just how close is the U.S.?

Posted by: Dave out West | March 25, 2006 04:33 AM

The Washington Post is being mismanaged.

Posted by: Steve Yttri | March 25, 2006 05:40 AM

Never again hire sophomoric right wing hacks and plagiarists to "balance" journalists who are doing their job by practicing strong watchdog journalism.

If you folks want real opinion columns, fine. But the right and left should both be represented on equal terms.

Your editorial pratfall has been far more comedic than anything Homer Simpson could cook up.

Posted by: george richards | March 25, 2006 06:26 AM

Journalism took another hit because of the imcompetance of the WaPo. Bye, bye, Brady!

Posted by: Sharyn | March 25, 2006 07:07 AM

I'm so right wing that I number among the handful of faithful in the bunker that still support President Bush. I agree with the sentiments of the liberals who criticize the Washington Post for hiring a conservative writer just for the sake of having "balance". Balance is a myth, and, good conservative writers already have jobs working for conservative media sources.

Newspapers and media sources are not balanced and at their best, never have been. They are crusading entities. If you want balance, read more one than one paper or blog or watch more than one news show.

If you are an up and coming liberal writer, the best place you can be, is a writer for the Washington Post. For the Post to dredge up some shmuck of a writer just because of his political beliefs insults everyone on the Post who busted their rears to get to that level. Instead of being a "balanced paper", let your staff do its liberal job and be liberals. I may hate their politics but I'd probably buy your paper.

Posted by: Todd Bandrowsky | March 25, 2006 08:01 AM

Richard's Burt's post [March 24, 2006 07:44 PM] says it all. In fact, it says exactly what I would like to say if I had his skill with words, but rather than "borrowing" it, I would encourage everyone including, esp including Jim Brady and Deborah Howell, go back and read what he has to say.

An excerpt:

"But Brady and others, you're really still missing the whole point.
This isn't about "balancing" the alleged closet liberalism on the part of Froomkin, or any other Washington Post figure. Conservatives don't give a damn how many of their fellow conservatives are on your site -- so long as your paper continues to report facts they don't like, or media critics like Froomkin factcheck the more mindnumbing elements of political spin, those conservatives are still going to attack the paper itself as being hopelessly "liberal." Journalism is the liberal part. From Horowitz to Hewitt to Limbaugh, these people hate you. You can't appease them, because there's no such thing as an acceptable "level" of partisan hackery that will offset actual journalism or inconvenient facts. They'll only be happy when you kill the journalism -- or at least stop reporting the facts surrounding the more inconvenient stories."

Posted by: phasis | March 25, 2006 08:17 AM

As a middle-aged DC native, I am appalled to know that The Post, my lifetime source of news and upstanding journalism, would deliberately seek a contributor, based on his/her political perspective. Regardless of the mistakes made in specifically hiring Mr. Domenech for the 'right-wing role,' to me, it is unethical and unacceptable for The Post to seek out any writer based on personal political slant. That's not journalism; that's not professional; that's an embarrassment to the Paper and an insult to (now former) readers.

Posted by: atonemusic | March 25, 2006 09:13 AM

Jim Brady says: "We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations." Media outlets? Readers? Can't he find it in his heart to admit that it was actually dedicated Internet Bloggers that did the heavy work here. If he is in charge of organizing the WaPo blogs, he should give bloggers credit where credit is due. He clearly doesn't understand what it is that bloggers do. No wonder he blew it when he hired this plagerist. There must be a well qualified, journalistically trained, conservative blogger somewhere. I have no suggestions for him, however.

Posted by: Sigrid | March 25, 2006 09:14 AM

My Red America Obituary. Read and weep.

Posted by: Mash | March 25, 2006 09:19 AM

Take two with URL:

My Red America Obituary. Read and weep:

http://www.docstrangelove.com/2006/03/25/portrait-of-the-artist-as-a-young-plagiarist/

Posted by: Mash | March 25, 2006 09:20 AM

Sigrid...bloggers sit around all day and spout off. It's an unproductive way to spend one's life according to my brilliant wife. In the big picture it really doesn't matter. Blogging is petty and doesn't really help anybody or spread kindness. While you may think you're changing the world you are not. Think of all the life you've burned poking at your keyboard?

Posted by: Scott | March 25, 2006 09:41 AM

Who are you going to hire next? Ann Coulter? This obsession with "balance" is as absurd now as it ever was. "Balancing" informed opinions based on facts with a writer of plaigerized wing nut right wing lunacy is not "balance". It is just stupid and dishonest. Shame on you, Mr. Brady, for making this happen in the first place.

Posted by: Bob | March 25, 2006 09:43 AM

Mash...you poor sot. Read what a weep? You've been duped. You are part of the media machine that fosters doltish exchanges and 'pumping issues' so they can publish the details. You are fodder for the advertising-driven commercial mania that is media. What's it like to be used?

Posted by: | March 25, 2006 09:45 AM

Right wing nut? Gee whiz, I don't like all the reflexsive nastiness. Left hates right, right dismisses left. Very bad mix. The only people winning in this battle are all the various media outlets who foster it....think about it. WaPost, NYtime, Fox, ABC, et al...

Posted by: | March 25, 2006 09:47 AM

"... journalistic integrity..."?

You and your colleagues decided to hire a right-wing political operative specializing in incoherent rage-filled rants, and you talk about "journalistic integrity"?

Could you not hire a skilled, intelligent, coherent, conservative blogger? John Cole comes to mind.

And, by the way, Mr. Brady, a truly free press is one that is by definition, liberal.

A truly free press makes its arguments using TRUTH, LOGIC, and FACTS.

You, Ms. Howell, and Ms. Little, should be forced to resign. You are a disgrace to journalism.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | March 25, 2006 10:06 AM

"... journalistic integrity..."?

You and your colleagues decided to hire a right-wing political operative specializing in incoherent rage-filled rants, and you talk about "journalistic integrity"?

Could you not hire a skilled, intelligent, coherent, conservative blogger? John Cole comes to mind.

And, by the way, Mr. Brady, a truly free press is one that is by definition, liberal.

A truly free press makes its arguments using TRUTH, LOGIC, and FACTS.

You, Ms. Howell, and Ms. Little, should be forced to resign. You are a disgrace to journalism.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | March 25, 2006 10:06 AM

I reiterate that the shame of Washington Post and specifically Mr. Brady lies not in hiring this person but in their refusal to fire Domenech as soon as he confessed to the Mrs. King remark. His non-apology apology added insult to the injury.

Posted by: lib | March 25, 2006 10:09 AM

How old was this bird anyway???....24??? He is not a fully matured human being for Pete's sake. He called people names????: "Steaming bag of pus"????? I mean how could you have hired him in the first place?? IHAVE TO QUESTION YOUR JUDGEMENT.

Posted by: Valmoreo | March 25, 2006 10:14 AM

Dear Jim Brady:

I hear you’re looking for a new conservative blogger for Wasingtonpost.com. Well, look no further, sir: I am your man.

I will write you the most knuckle-dragging, lib-hating, thick skulled blog in the world, and we can call it Redder State.

Now, look, I was raised in Kansas. I mean, how much redder and flippin’ American can you get than Kansas? It’s in the heart-most of the heartland, the middle of the map. I simply feel the soul of Red State America in my bones, sir.

Things I like include Bush, war, torture, beer, hot chicks, the flag, bear meat, Fox News, crossbow hunting, Jesus, SUVs, the NSA and both readin’ and writin’.

Things I hate and like to complain about are the Martin Luther King, Jr. family, the Clintons, pacifists, civil rights pushers, the French, gun grabbers, Katrina victims and those bloggers who drug down that fine young plagiarist, Domenech, and who now want you to resign for some reason.

Can’t you see how I’d be the perfect voice to balance out all those pantywaist “journalists” at your paper, with their B.S. degrees or whatever? I eat bear meat, man.

While I don’t have an extensive writing sample, I realize that the quality of my writing isn’t really what you’re interested in. Sh*t, everybody knows liberals are way better writers than conservatives! No, what you want is a presence at the Post that will make all my racist, warmongering, gay-hating compatriots pick up the Washington Post and say to themselves, “Hey, this is my kind of paper!”

Mr. Brady, I am available for an interview and await your call. You don’t care about references, right?

Posted by: Redder State | March 25, 2006 10:15 AM

Well, it appears that everyone wins in this episode. WAPO showed good faith in their efforts to please their masters, without having to actually tolerate the no-talent Box Turtle for more than a few days; the Left side of Blogtopia gets to dance around in their underwear for a few days over their small victory in exposing a right-wing plagiarist and liar; and Box Turtle now has SERIOUS conservative martyr cred.
Cool.

Posted by: nwgal | March 25, 2006 10:37 AM

Deborah Howell, Ombudsman,
James Brady, Executive Editor,
Washington Post bloggers in general,

I have held out hope since 1990 that the Washington Post would someday become that liberal bastion of objectivity that the Republican Leadership always complains about. I have been a regular subscriber for many years, at least until 2000. At that point I was really getting fet up and cancelled my membership. Though I could not simply leave, so I would purchase it during the week from one of your metal "newsstands". Yes you still made your money, but I was anonymous to you. Now I have simply stopped altogether. You might say that it was your intent to provide balance, but that is crap. You no longer know what balance is. The Republican Leadership apparently has bashed the Post and its other properties so much that you came to believe that subjective propaganda balances out objectivity. It does not. Objectivity is supported by a comprehensive gathering of facts, period. Forming an opinion of those facts is something only for the editorial pages, not the entire publication.

I am serving notice that I and I am sure many others are leaving or have left your once fine publication because of Ben Domenech and his column "Red America". You could call it the straw that broke the camel's back. Just because he resigned over allegations of plagarism and what ever else he has done is not relevant to bringing me or many others back. Your red journalism (not to be confused with republican propaganda), your loss of ethics and ethical standards, your loss of objectivity, and your pandering to the extreme agenda of the Republican Leadership, and your for-profit status have turned your newspaper and your respective properties into red and yellow crap. Why yellow, because your Newspaper and your respective properties are cowards! Your newspaper is unwilling to report the news, but rather you are willing to report propaganda to your customers. You no longer and havent really provided "news" for a very long time. Your paper has too much bias for subjectivity rather than objectivity. You caved in to corporate interests in favor of your bottom line, rather than becoming an objective role model of news reporting. I am not saying that you are alone, but I believe that you have lost much readership over the years because of this. If progressive people wanted subjective news, then they would flock to the Washington Times. Actually, over the years, I have been seeing increasingly more objective news from the Times. They still report for more subjective propaganda than the Post.

Why would the Post seek to report subjective news when the numbers show the readership going down year after year? If I were a shareholder, I would have sold a long time ago. I urge you to return to your journalistic roots and report objective news. You were once a role model but the radical right has turned you into red and yellow crap.

I wish I could say that it has been good reading your publications, but after a certain point holding out hope that something will change for the better is insanity. So before I go insane, I am giving up on the Post and all of your properties.

Sincerely,

Richard Burk


--
frame the debate at
http://www.demspeak.com

Support Jean Hay-Bright for Maine Senate
http://www.jeanhaybright.us/

Posted by: Richard Burk | March 25, 2006 10:48 AM

Yeah, THAT'S what we need: Redder State! (March 25, 2006 10:15 AM)

That will bring the "balance" Mr. Brady is longing for! A gay-hating, Muslim-hating, French-hating, abortion-hating, Clinton-hating, N*gg*r-hating, Washington Post-hating BALANCE (getting a woody yet, Mr. Brady?).

Redder State, Redder State, yea, Redder State!

Posted by: hterrya | March 25, 2006 11:02 AM


Is Jim brady STILL at WaPo ?

(Yawn)

Give me a nudge when he's gone ... go ahead and actually wake me up when WaPo shows some balls.

Posted by: Miguel | March 25, 2006 11:02 AM

Jim:

When you're done spanking the trendy fake journalists your company promotes to drive ad-revenue, could you please focus one real journalist on the death squads operating out of the Interior Ministry in Iraq?

Thanks.

Posted by: Craig | March 25, 2006 11:14 AM

It's a shame that the Washington Post has to bow down to right-wing reactionaries.

You deserve the shame that comes with your sophomoric knee-jerk decision-making.

Posted by: Roldo Bartimole | March 25, 2006 11:16 AM


Mr. Brady,

As you obviously know, being a grown-up and all, you've done nothing wrong. Please carry on and ignore these utterly insufferable, sniveling, post-credibility a**holes.

yours/
peter.

Posted by: Peter Jackson | March 25, 2006 11:18 AM

If we can't trust the Post to discvover the truth about a teenage chickenhawk, how the hell are we supposed to trust them to discover the truth about the Chickenhawk in Chief ?

We don't.

Chickens notwithstanding, WaPo has cooked its goose.

Posted by: Emel | March 25, 2006 11:19 AM

The Harvard Business School ought to be writing up this whole situation as a case study in how to trash your brand. From a purely PR standpoint the whole distinction Brady makes between the WP and WP.com is laughable. Like saying new Coke had no relationship to the Coke brand.

Mark my words, Brady will be gone in a week. But before he goes he really needs to show us those doc he claims he has that show that Jack ABramoff directed money to Democrats.

Posted by: AJ | March 25, 2006 11:26 AM

It is the "Balance" Seekers that are the real terrorists.
Shame on your attack on Journalism.

Posted by: brian reeves | March 25, 2006 11:27 AM

Stop the Press, The Washington Post Screws Up Yet Again.

It's interesting that between the official Washington Post story and the Salon story, that salon did a much better job of covering the facts.

Read the both here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401206.html?sub=AR
http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/24/brady/index_np.html

Why was Domenech hired: Read Salon

Posted by: | March 25, 2006 11:34 AM

Stop the Press, The Washington Post Screws Up Yet Again.

It's interesting that between the official Washington Post story and the Salon story, that salon did a much better job of covering the facts.

Read the both here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401206.html?sub=AR
http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/24/brady/index_np.html

Why was Domenech hired: Read Salon
Will Brady continue Red America: Read Salon
Would Brady have fired Domenech: Read Salon
Did Brady and his team actually read Domenech's old stuff?: Read Salon
Will Brady have a liberal blog: Read Salon for his non answer.

It's like the Post doesn't do journalism anymore.

Posted by: Ted | March 25, 2006 11:36 AM

Please cancel my subscription to Washington Post online. Your reputation and credibility was destroyed when you decided you needed to hire someone like this hack.

Posted by: Mary | March 25, 2006 11:38 AM

"Plagiarism is hard to spot" - Jim Brady

"Google.com is hard to use" - Jim Brady

Stop making excuses. Take responsibility for your mess, man.

Posted by: BethinNYC | March 25, 2006 11:43 AM

At this point, the Post might as well have Jim Brady write the blog, since it is obvious that he is fixated on some Rightwing-defined ideal of what "social conservative" means - and the public is supposed to assume this also means the Post is full of rantings from liberal, moderate, minority bloggers and a "social conservative" is needed to promote "diversity" of opinion.

What is more obvious here is that the Post has two different standards of professionalism - one for those who Brady doesn't call "social conservative" and a special, much more lax standard for those he defines as "social conservative." Writers of any other political viewpoint are not granted the same license to express their opinions into rants - that privilege is reserved for only the special "social conservative" point of view.

Since this intentional bias has already been shown the public through the aborted employment of Mr. Domenech, we already know what kind of tone to expect from his replacement. It won't be representative of the 'diversity" of voices out here at all -but a representation of a single voice which Mr. Brady has determined represents a privileged opinion that must be provided special status.

Since he has already decided that the rest of America is adequately represented in the newspaper, there are no other points of view that rise to the level of rhetorical rant which Brady wishes to bestow on the "social conservative."

The newspaper's failure to even research the work of Mr. Domenech only strengthens the obvious commitment to this double-standard.

It seems to me that Brady, who seems to know exactly how this "social conservative" view should be expressed, might as well write the blog himself.

Posted by: Kevin | March 25, 2006 11:49 AM


Ahh, the trolls are with us ... NOTHING could be a better indicator of their concern.

Posted by: Mike | March 25, 2006 11:50 AM

Why the Washington Post Hired Ben Domenech (From Firedoglake.com):

this all started when the White House didn’t like the magnifying glass being applied to it by Dan Froomkin at the WPNI, and since they have no ability to differentiate between valid criticism and partisan hackery their two-pronged approach was to a) silence Froomkin and b) try to get their own partisan hack in there.

So in December of last year, Debbie Howell who is supposed to be the reader’s representative writes a column about a complaint coming from the Administration that the readers neither know nor care about where she labels Froomkin "highly opinionated and liberal," suggests that he should therefore be banished to the opinion page and that you are "considering changing the column title and supplementing it with a conservative blogger."

How do we know that pressure was coming from the White House? Because Len Downie says his goal is to make Bush more comfortable with the Froomkin situation, and John Harris cites the criticism by GOP operative Patrick Ruffini of Froomkin as his own.

Jump to January, when Debbie Howell steps in it by saying that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats too. Rather than just admit she was wrong and post a correction, you decided to hang tough and stonewall. Jim Brady shut down the blog in the misguided defense of Debbie.

Even when Debbie Howell admitted the obvious error a week later, you still went on a campaign to discredit her critics — your readers — whom you characterized as "obscene" and full of "hate speech."

Jim Brady then goes to explain the whole situation with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, whose last book was edited by Ben Domenech.

He called liberal blogs the "fever swamp" and Brady and Hewitt obviously bonded over the privileged white male thing.

Bradies likely connection to Domenech seems to be Hewitt, who probably described his "editor" at Regnerey as a former member of the Bush administration who was the scion of another member of the Bush Administration, having written speeches for John Cornyn and co-founded the right wing answer to Daily Kos.

If Hewitt tweaked Jim Brady by saying Ben hated left-wing bloggers more than Brady did, well that was tantamount to a pool and an ocean view at that point for sealing the deal?

That’s just about all the vetting the Washington Post ever did.

During the Deborah Howell flap, Jim Brady said that "[T]he Post site’s standards…don’t allow profanity or personal attacks." Yet he allowed someone who called Coretta Scott King a "communist" and Dan Froomkin a "a lying weasel-faced Democrat shill" to start writing as a Washington Post online columnist.

Posted by: Susan | March 25, 2006 11:55 AM

Aside from all the other problems mentioned here--the Post's kowtowing to rightwing bullies; the fact that Mr Brady is definitely looking for another conservative blogger, but looking for a corresponding liberal blogger is merely a 'possibility'; Mr Brady's sad yet comical that hiring Domenech wasn't a cave-in to a single complaint over a dinner table (metaphorically speaking) from Bush campaign operative Patrick Ruffini to WaPo political editor John Harris. All of these things reflect badly on Mr Brady's professionalism and character and the entire WaPo operation (can we please abandon the silly fiction that the paper and online versions are as different as North and South Korea?). And I would add to my list the comment I am just now seeing from Susan at 11:55 about Mr Brady's selective sensitivity to insulting language; I have seen comments deleted from this forum that are far less offensive than what little Ben Domenech said about Dan Froomkin.

What I think is most disturbing about this whole matter is that Mr Brady still says he is looking for someone "provocative". Yo, Jimbo: How about looking for someone intelligent who writes well and persuasively, not some spoiled hot house flower who thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that there is something clever about dismissing Coretta Scott King as a "commie".

The world has more than enough provocateurs, especially in politics. How about having some standards for dignity and intelligence. Of course, Mr Brady's stated desire to find a blogger who speaks for know-nothin' flat-earthers makes the latter especially unlikely.

Posted by: Jim | March 25, 2006 12:45 PM

It sounds like someone else has written Ben's latest posting at redstate...Has daddy sent him to the shrink? Ben is a gift that will keep on giving. He is keeping his editors at NRO really busy.

Contrition
By: Augustine · Section: Miscellania

I want to apologize to National Review Online, my friends and colleagues here at RedState, and to any others that have been affected over the past few days. I also want to apologize to my previous editors and writers whose work I used inappropriately and without attribution. There is no excuse for this - nor is there an excuse for any obfuscation in my earlier statement.
I hope that nothing I've done as a teenager or in my professional life will reflect badly on the movement and principles I believe in.

I'm deeply grateful for the love and encouragment of all those around me. And although I may not deserve such support, it makes it that much more humbling at a time like this. I'm a young man, and I hope that in time that I can earn a measure of the respect that you have given me.

Regards,

Ben

Posted by: | March 25, 2006 12:48 PM

Your explanation as to why you were looking for a conservative blogger is everything that is wrong with the news media and speaks directly to the critical comments I left yesterday.

Hasnt 5 years of disastrous inept,dishonest, venomous policies and politics are that are closer to fascism than anything else discredited conservatism enough? What do they have to do in your eyes Brady to be relegated to the junk heap of ideas? 3,000 people killed on 9/11 because Bush discounted terrorism as a threat, a fact your newspaper still hasnt taken him to task for, a $5 trillon budget surplus gone and replaced with a $400 billion deficit, the first pre-emptive war in US history over WMD that didnt exist and a lack of post war planning that has been another disaster, and yet through all of it we have conservatives defending these policies. And now you want a conservative blogger? To do what? Enhance the Washington Post's reputation for balanced reporting? When are you and the Post going to finally get it that when conservatives use the term "too liberal" what that means is people telling the truth about the total moral and intellectual bankruptcy of conservative polices and their total failure.

Posted by: MDR | March 25, 2006 12:57 PM

Re. Ben's latest contrition posted on redstate.com

Interesting obviously ghost-written apology under tons of PRESSURE!!!...owning up to the fact Ben obsfucated in his earlier posting -which revealed him for what he is..an unapologetic arrogant spoiled brat. Someone doing damage control big time. He is left a lot of pissed-off people in his wake.

Jim Brady, the door is this way.

Haven't you been humiliated, embarrassed enough?

Ben is the gift that will keep on giving...just wait and see.

Posted by: Tango Belle | March 25, 2006 12:59 PM

Open Letter from Jane Hamsher @ FDL: to Jim Brady:

Dear Jim [Brady],

Was it good for you? Because it was good for me.

But I have to wonder, as we sit here smoking our metaphorical cigarettes — now that you’ve "allowed" Ben Domenech to resign, how exactly did he get hired in the first place? Since you affectionately call me "Columbo" when you’re trying to be cute (aren’t you the clever one), I figure it’s dirty trench coat time.

So let’s begin. I guessing this all started when the White House didn’t like the magnifying glass being applied to it by Dan Froomkin at the WPNI, and since they have no ability to differentiate between valid criticism and partisan hackery their two-pronged approach was to a) silence Froomkin and b) try to get their own partisan hack in there.

So in December of last year, Lil’ Debbie Howell who is supposed to be the reader’s representative writes a column about a complaint coming from the Administration that the readers neither know nor care about where she labels Froomkin "highly opinionated and liberal," suggests that he should therefore be banished to the opinion page and that you are "considering changing the column title and supplementing it with a conservative blogger."

(I like to think this is where we met, Jim.)

How do we know that pressure was coming from the White House? Because Len Downie says his goal is to make BushCo. more comfortable with the Froomkin situation, and John WATB Harris cites the criticism by GOP operative Patrick Ruffini of Froomkin as his own.

Jump to January, when Lil’ Debbie steps in it by saying that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats too. Rather than just admit she was wrong and post a correction, you decided to hang tough and stonewall. (And it’s quite possible we first caught each others’ eyes here as readers swarmed the post.blog in response). To your chivalrous credit, you shut down the blog in the misguided defense of Debbie (and how very sad she paid you back by planting one right in your back this week, Jim). Even when Debbie admitted the obvious error a week later, you still went on a campaign to discredit her critics — your readers — whom you characterized as "obscene" and full of "hate speech."

And for some weird reason nobody quite understands, you went running into the arms of Hugh Hewitt. It’s obvious that even though you were the "online guy" you didn’t know much about bloggers. Did you just slug the word "blog" in at Amazon and come up with Hewitt’s embarrassing tome? Is he your bloggy mentor? Is that why your info about blogs is so…remedial? Whatever the connection was, it seems to have been quite a congenial meeting of the minds. He called us the "fever swamp" and you two obviously bonded over the privileged white male thing.

And now I’m going to offer up a bit of a guesswork garnered from a conversation with Digby this morning for which Digby is owed the bulk of the credit. Your likely connection to Domenech seems to be Hewitt, who probably described his "editor" at Regnerey as a former member of the Bush administration who was the scion of another member of the Bush Administration, having written speeches for John Cornyn and co-founded the right wing answer to Daily Kos. If Hewitt tweaked you by saying Ben hated left-wing bloggers more than you did, well that was tantamount to a pool and an ocean view at that point for sealing the deal, eh Jim?

And I’m guessing that’s just about all the vetting you ever did. Maybe he submitted a few sample pieces, but nothing to indicate what a deeply [deleted obscenity]up little piece of [deleted obscenity] he was (in copious evidence to anyone who bothers to search the Red State archives). He was an entitled, upper-middle class GOP twit like you and Hugh, the Brownie-esque product of class and cronyism utterly unsullied by any exposure to the free market competition of hard work or ideas. A home schooled, talentless hothouse flower capable only of spewing pissy, priveleged, angry white rhetoric and devoid of any ability to put forth a cogent argument.

Did you even notice?
****************************************
During the Deborah Howell flap you said that "[T]he Post site’s standards…don’t allow profanity or personal attacks." Yet you allowed someone who called Coretta Scott King a "communist" and Dan Froomkin a "a lying weasel-faced Democrat shill" to start writing as a Washington Post online columnist.

**************************************** My raincoat is itching. Are you seeing any inconsistencies here Jim?

Today you told Salon that your editors had read "basically everything he’d written." But Ben wrote those things at Red State — a site that even casual netizens know wears its racism on its sleeve — under the pseudonym "Augustine." So either a) you didn’t know he was Augustine (though it seems like an obvious question — if you know he co-founded Red State, wouldn’t you want to know what he’d written as a blogger before hiring him as a blogger?) or b) those kinds of insults are okay if they’re being leveled by GOP political operatives on the pages of the post.blog and not by, you know, your readers.

I have to tell you, I was really tickled today by your arrivederci Ben announcement:

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

That’s so cute, Brady. These were the very same people — and I mean the EXACT same people, go and check the names (Paul Lukasiak , Brad DeLong and hundreds more) whom you characterized as "obscene," "vituperative" and consumed with "hate speech" when they showed up at the post.blog during the Deborah Howell fiasco. Oh how far we have come.

But I think you need to acknowledge that we have done you a big favor in all of this, Jim. As Steve Gilliard says:

Jim Brady will owe his employment to the skills of bloggers who ended Domenech’s employment at the Post before it got all over DC black radio. That would have turned this into a major problem for the paper. Calling Mrs. King a communist, something I keep harping on, because it is so vile and such a slander on her character and patriotism, and something so deeply racist, I wonder where a 24 year old learned this. But once it was clear that he did so, that ALONE should have been cause for terminating him.

I hope we’ve all learned a lesson here, Jim. One — don’t take advise from Hugh Hewitt. And Two — never ever bow to the right wing. Which I realize is pretty hard if you are naturally inclined to swing that way, but take Matt Stoller’s advice:

Do not appease the right-wing. When you do, and when you treat the conservative movement as if they are a legitimate source of information, you end up with WMDs in Iraq, 9/11 linked to Saddam, or on a small scale, an unethical racist trashing the brand of the Washington Post and the career of Jim Brady.

Stop appeasing the right-wing. It’s bad for you.

So Jim. The Columbo in me wants to know — how did I do? I’m sure there are fabulous gaps in the narratives you could fill in where Patrick Ruffini calls you on the phone and simply raves about Ben, or second-tier Bushistas toss you cocktail weenies as you sit on your haunches in the corner after his first creepy post.

So come on, you owe it to us. After all we’ve done for you. How exactly did Ben wind up on the pages of the WPNI?

Posted by: John | March 25, 2006 01:03 PM

HAHAHAHAHAAHAAAHHAAAAA! Hey Jim, when are you going to resign?

Posted by: Big D | March 25, 2006 01:21 PM

Hey Jim:

I noticed that you pulled the Ben Domench post on John Thompson off the Red America blog.

Since I took the time and effort to edit and proof the grade school level writing crap that Ben authored (the reason for my grading his efforts at D+ -- a gentleman's grade, by 6he way), the least you could do is to restore that particular to the Red State blog so I can see if he took my advice.

Jim, if I could be so familar and presumtious, may I suggest that you are not management material and should return to sports writing? Indeed, I channeled DR. Lawrence J. Peter this morning and he advised me that you are the embodiment of the Peter Principal: You clearly have reached (and possibly surpassed) your level of incompetence!

Posted by: Tom | March 25, 2006 01:22 PM

Knowing Ben personally, I can tell you he is a straight arrow. If he was a liberal, none of you would be judging him without hearing his side of the story. . . further, if we can't judge liberals by things that happened when they were 17, we shouldn't be judging conservatives for things that happened when they were a kid either. I find the Washington Post's conduct in this matter 100% disgusting.

Posted by: Sarah | March 25, 2006 01:38 PM

Thank you for getting the message on Red America. And just so it is clear, it is not simply a matter background checks on Mr. Domenech, or lack there of. It is that good journalism, watchdog journalism based in fact, does not need to be balanced. It needs to be answered by those accountable, particularly in this era of no over sight and zero ethics enforced by the current administration. The only balance you need is that if you continue with Red America you need to balance it with Blue America. I hope this is the plan and message received?
Sincerely,
Nancy A. Smith

Posted by: Nancy | March 25, 2006 01:45 PM

I disagree that plagiarism is "perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of". To me, a far more serious breach of ethics is to use the news pages to present biased opinions.

A plagiarized work, while produced using the work of others (a reprehensible act), is not as serious as deceiving the public by distorting reality to fit a political agenda. Those who indulge in it commit an offense of far more widespread and lasting import.

Posted by: Christopher Braun | March 25, 2006 01:46 PM

I am not surprised...

This fellow, Domenech, is just a chip off the Neo-Republican block. Finding the Holy Grail would be easier than finding his ethical replacement.

Posted by: vafireball | March 25, 2006 02:11 PM

On the other hand Mr. Brady.... success is usually preceeded by failure. I hope you will resist the pressure of all these posts accusing you of succumbing to pressure. Just think how happy your readership will be to have a new target for their rants. Obviously they have little else to do, certainly no constructive ideas have been broached in all this.
Personally I think balance would be restored by firing Froomkin, not to mention saving a few bucks is always nice. At the very least change the name of his column. "Briefing" implies the conveyance of new knowledge, not the rehash of other peoples ideas to fit an agenda. Actually if you just put up Froomkin's picture with a bubble saying "Bush stinks!" all bases would be covered.

As a general aside, would anyone out there in liberal land explain how "communist" is a racist label?

Posted by: shooter242 | March 25, 2006 02:14 PM

It's good to see that Howie Kurtz updated his article to change the word "graduated" to "attended" as Ben Domenech does not have a college degree. Domenech left the College without graduating, Associate Vice President for Public Affairs Bill Walker told the March 24 online edition of The New York Times.

Posted by: Get yer facts straight | March 25, 2006 02:21 PM

I have read some of the posts above and also at redstate.org this morning and I find it incredulous that his defending Conservatives seem to think that "what they did prior to age 40 just does not count". (I remind you that this is the same group that supports the death penalty of teensagers.)

If proof has been offered that Ben Domenech is a racist, bigoted plagerist then he is NOT a fine, moral, arrow-straight person. Deal with it.

Posted by: NOtoTruthiness | March 25, 2006 02:26 PM

After reading the many instances of theft, (because that's what it is), what stood out most was the lazy way he stole others' work. In most cases he simply DROPPED a few words from the original and slapped his name on it. His parents missed home schooling him on the finer points of "theft is bad." If I were one his college professors I'd be giving anything he wrote a good, hard, second look.

Posted by: Dano347 | March 25, 2006 02:27 PM

840 posts! Yow! And no advertising! Is this a great country or what!

Posted by: CT | March 25, 2006 02:32 PM

There was more to the remark that Augustine posted and it does show the racism...

redstate.org augustine's comments

Coming from a conservative, "communist" is an insult. Why did he call her a communist?

Posted by: Go read the whole post | March 25, 2006 02:35 PM

Shooter242 (March 25, 2006 02:14 PM):

I know:

1. your question, "...would anyone out there in liberal land explain how "communist" is a racist label?" was a rhetorical one, and

2. since I am on Washington Post territory I am certainly NOT in "liberal land!"

However, I would like to answer your question (and the frequent question of the, vile, long-dead and completely unlamented J. Edgar Hoover):

Ms. Coretta Scott King is a (recently deceased and well-respected) civil rights leader who was called a "communist" by a plagerizing, foul-mouthed, infantile nit-wit with connections to the current corrupt administration and its cronies (not to mention sycophants, of whom you seem to be one).

Slurring Ms. King with a completely unsubstantiated claim that she was a communist is the most racist thing anyone could do. Of course, you, Mr. Domenech, and the long-dead Mr. Hoover wouldn't recognize a racist statement if it kick you in the butt.

Posted by: hterrya | March 25, 2006 02:48 PM

Thank you for allowing a True Conservative the opportunity to demonstrate True Conservative values: stealing, non-truthtelling then crying and blaming others (liberals: as in those who believe in freedom and democracy) when one's actions are caught out.

As your blogger is doubtless a believer, as seems to be WAPO, in our imperialistic actions in the world today, and as he is now in need of a job, you might contact him and let him know of opportunities to serve in the USMC, USA, USN, or USAF.

He should put his ass where is mouth is instead of, like WAPO, the converse.

Posted by: VietVet_&_StillPissed | March 25, 2006 02:53 PM

...Conservatives seem to think that "what they did prior to age 40 just does not count...

You have George Bush to thank for that excuse.

Posted by: | March 25, 2006 03:38 PM

It is good to see some results in the recent fight to protect the truth in media. The Wa. Post must now stay on this kind of course, as now they know we're all watching.
Note the specific mention of "journalistic integrity" above.
Thats all we want, Blue or not.

Posted by: sketchyd | March 25, 2006 03:44 PM

... and who thought it was a good idea to hire a 24 year-old snot-nosed social climbing political shrill butt kisser (excuse me, hack) as an opinion maker for a prestigous national voice?

Maybe a good start would be to hire adults and not children?

Posted by: betatron | March 25, 2006 03:45 PM

Sarah-
Ben HAS told his side of the story. He finally (after a few attempts to weasel his way out of it) admitted to being a plagiarist, both during college up through his "professional career." So I suppose your reference to him as a "straight arrow" comes from the "it's okay if you're a Republican" cornerstone of the wingers' moral code?

Posted by: nwgal | March 25, 2006 04:08 PM

Here is a summary of problems surrounding the Domenech Disaster from a very good article by Jamison Foser at Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603250001) -- [SEE HOW EASY IT IS TO GIVE CREDIT FOR CUTTING AND PASTING?]:

* WashingtonPost.com executive editor James Brady denounces progressive readers who "insult" Post employees, but hires employees who insult progressive readers.

* The Post hired a Republican operative to write a blog, equating that partisan political activist with its own reporters.

* The Post's media critic [Howard Kurtz] repeatedly downplayed and distorted progressive criticism of the newspaper in order to dismiss it.

* Post national political reporter/columnist [Dana Milbank] distorted progressive criticism in order to dismiss it, while insulting readers.

* The Post's ombudsman [Deborah Howell] feels free to comment on WashingtonPost.com bloggers who she thinks are liberal [Dan Froomkin], but deflects questions about a Republican operative hired to write for the website.

###

Posted by: Seth | March 25, 2006 04:14 PM

Hey, Jim Brady, when are you going to retire?

Hey, Jim Brady, when are you going to retire?

Hey, Jim Brady, when are you going to retire?

Hey, Jim Brady, when are you going to retire?

Hey, Jim Brady, when are you going to retire?

Hey, Jim Brady, when are you going to retire?

Hey, Jim Brady, when are you going to retire?

Hey, Jim Brady, when are you going to retire?

Are you finally listening?

Posted by: No Name | March 25, 2006 04:40 PM


Jim Brady STILL hasn't resigned ?

What is he waiting for ?

Jim Brady STILL hasn't been fired ?

What are they waiting for ?

Posted by: Mike | March 25, 2006 04:52 PM

"Slurring Ms. King with a completely unsubstantiated claim that she was a communist is the most racist thing anyone could do. Of course, you, Mr. Domenech, and the long-dead Mr. Hoover wouldn't recognize a racist statement if it kick you in the butt."
--hterrya

Hmmm. Nope, I'm still not seeing it. By this logic, if I called Froomkin a socialist, I must be making fun of the handicapped. No, this is just another liberal overreach into the absurd. Thank you for endorsing unilateral victimhood, and I hope it continues on to another loss at the polls. Heh.

Posted by: | March 25, 2006 05:27 PM

Mr. Brady:

I realize that the odds of you seeing this are miniscule, but just in case you end up trolling through your comments for this post reading offers from other bloggers to take over Red State, I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring as well.

I have been an observer and participant in politics off and on for more than 25 years. Since September of 2004 I have been writing about politics and other topics at my blog Right Wing Nuthouse (http://www.rightwingnuthouse.com).

I consider myself something of an independent conservative rather than a Republican.

I am interested in the position and would consider it a singular honor to write for the Post.

Sincerely,

Rick Moran
elvenstar522@aol.com

Posted by: Rick Moran | March 25, 2006 05:52 PM

Even Domenech's statement that Teresa Heinz looks like a "oddly shaped egotistical ketchup-colored muppet" sounds too similar to Dennis Miller's earlier calling James Carville "a muppet who accidentally was washed on hot."

Get your own material.

Posted by: | March 25, 2006 05:57 PM

Resign Jim.

Posted by: overseasreader | March 25, 2006 06:22 PM

I honestly don't understand what the trolls are doing here.

1. You're not going to convince anyone who is actually intelligent.

2. If you like little Benny Baby's, um, material, just follow his stench to wherever he ends up next ...


There. That takes care of that. On to the real question: when will higher ups at the Post pay for this ?

How many cancellations will it take ?

Posted by: Emel | March 25, 2006 06:24 PM

Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaa! Ben Domenech is actually posting in these comments?

Who bets we could google 'his' responses and find someone else penned them?

Jesus, kid, you got a pants down spanking and you dare walk around with your pink bottom criticizing others?

Ben, sweetie, listen up: go get some real schooling about 'honesty' 'integrity' 'honor' 'respecting the intellectual product of others through proper use and attribution' and don't even think about getting back on the computer until you've learned those concepts and are ready to practice then.

Posted by: Kimberly Stone | March 25, 2006 06:41 PM

"When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings."

Hey Jim, everyone is really getting on your case, whic his too bad, but I just want to help... you should try using this site when doing background checks, you'd be pretty amazed at how thorough this thing is:

http://google.com

Posted by: Will | March 25, 2006 06:42 PM

oh, p.s. THROW ANOTHER SHRIMP ON THE BAR-B!

ha!

Posted by: Will | March 25, 2006 06:43 PM

"On to the real question: when will higher ups at the Post pay for this ?"

Probably the same time heads roll at the NYTimes for Judas Miller. *sigh*

Posted by: Will | March 25, 2006 06:46 PM

Ben:

You need a job, don't you?

www.goarmy.com.

Good luck.

Posted by: Just a suggestion | March 25, 2006 06:48 PM

Plagiarism is most definitely NOT the worst sin a journalist can commit. The worst sin is writing falsehoods. This fact apparently comes as a revelation to the Washington Post.

Posted by: jack rudd | March 25, 2006 07:09 PM

I too have been suggesting ChickenHawk Ben checkout http://goarmy.com but the Marines are looking for a few good men too. Ben probably fancies himself more a flyboy type like General Lemay or maybe a Commodore in the Navy. The Coast Guard is below his status although it is quite good in homeland defense against the IslamoFascists he's so frightened of.

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 25, 2006 07:12 PM

How could a paper such as yours make such a hugs mistake. Hopefully you have learned that hiring right wing hacks to "balance" journalists who are doing their job by practicing strong watchdog journalism is absolutely wrong. Represent the right and the left with opinion columns but do not continue "Red America" by itself. You haven't offered a "left wing" column to any journalist and you caved in to the right and embarrassed yourselves. You need to resist doing that again to maintain the respect from readers that you desire.
Ellen Afromsky

Posted by: Ellen Afromsky | March 25, 2006 07:51 PM

Now if the idiot that hired him would resign, things might start to turn around for the WP.

Why does a newspaper need a blog anyhow? A blog is nothing more than personal ranting or (at best) amateur investigative journalism. The WP does (is supposed to do) REAL investigative journalism.

Stop trying to latch on to the latest buzzwords because they test well with the 18-24 year old demographic. Don't set up a WaPo Myspace page. Don't put the editor-in-chief on facebook. "Fair and balanced" is a meaningless buzzword designed to legitimize the republican party's corporate spin machine. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HIRE NEANDERCONS JUST BECAUSE BILL O'REILLY CALLS YOU NAMES! Just do your freakin' job of being the watchdog of government.

Posted by: Jason | March 25, 2006 09:03 PM

Dear Mr. Brady,

I recently read the below list on Media Matters (www.mediamatters.org). I believe the Washington Post needs publically to address these specific issues if it wishes to have journalist credibility:

* WashingtonPost.com executive editor James Brady denounces progressive readers who "insult" Post employees, but hires employees who insult progressive readers.

* The Post hired a Republican operative to write a blog, equating that partisan political activist with its own reporters.

* The Post's media critic repeatedly downplayed and distorted progressive criticism of the newspaper in order to dismiss it.

* Post national political reporter/columnist distorted progressive criticism in order to dismiss it, while insulting readers.

* The Post's ombudsman feels free to comment on WashingtonPost.com bloggers who she thinks are liberal, but deflects questions about a Republican operative hired to write for the website.

* The Post has paid nowhere near as much attention to evidence that President Bush is breaking the law by authorizing domestic wiretaps without a court order as it did to President Clinton's comparatively insignificant relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

* Post polling director Richard Morin and Deborah Howell have given misleading, nonsensical, and insulting reasons for the Post's refusal to ask a poll question about whether people support impeachment proceedings, claiming among other things that such a question would be biased -- even though the paper asked such questions about President Clinton.

* In 1994, the Post called for an independent counsel investigation of the Whitewater deal, even while acknowledging that "there has been no credible charge in this case that either the president or Mrs. Clinton did anything wrong." Now, the Post says there is evidence that President Bush's domestic spying operation is illegal -- but it won't call for an independent investigation.

(the full article from which this list was taken is at www.mediamatters.org)

Posted by: Spike McGillicutty | March 25, 2006 09:13 PM

Ben could always become a US Senator. We all remember Plagerising Joe Biden...

Posted by: Joe Davis | March 25, 2006 09:38 PM

I think the Washington Post got a very lucky break here, in that the debacle will be remembered by most as a nipped-in-the-bud plagiarism scandal, rather than an ongoing miscalculation that would have continued to sully the Post's reputation and alienate readers who can tell the difference between journalism and partisan activism.

As numerous commenters here and elsewhere have pointed out, the fundamental and inexplicable mistake that the Post made was to accept at face value the right wing agitprop that reporting facts that reflect badly on the Administration is ipso facto evidence of "bias" that needs to be counterbalanced by explicitly conservative voices.

I cannot fathom how you are unable to recognize this as part of a long-running effort to "game" the media system by systematically discrediting any reporting that leads to inferences critical of those currently in power. If you had either brains or courage, you would be outraged at the slurs levelled at your reporting by these cynical manipulators, and report them for what they are.

Instead, you react like a scolded dog by offering the most craven concessions, thereby appearing to confirm the truth of the original charge.

You should be smart enough to understand that you are never going to win that game. If you report honestly and factually about this Administration, the criticism from the right is going to continue. Nothing will stop it short of becoming a propaganda organ of the federal government.

So you have a choice: either stand up for effective journalism and wear the yapping from the right, or give in altogether. All you have suceeded in doing with Ben Domenech is soiling your own nest. And you are very fortunate that one of the less obvious aspects of that young man's fundamental dishonesty has offered you a lifeline out of the morass.

Posted by: Mork | March 25, 2006 10:03 PM

How come "a liberal Web site" was able to find quickly and easily that this White House Guckert-style media tool was a serial plagiarist, but the Washington Post was clueless? Shame on you, and shame again for thinking that you have to hire a blatant neo-con propagandist to provide "balance" for journalists who tell the unvarnished truth. One White House employee "allegedly" stole from Target and another stole from Salon.

Posted by: Tenka Mammunts | March 25, 2006 10:05 PM

In all seriousness, I would like to know how this idiot's name came up in the first place. Was it plucked from a large stack of resumes, or what? Let's hear it.

Posted by: you know me | March 25, 2006 10:32 PM

"How come "a liberal Web site" was able to find quickly and easily that this White House Guckert-style media tool was a serial plagiarist, but the Washington Post was clueless?"
Posted by: Tenka Mammunts | March 25, 2006 10:05 PM

Because, obviously, they don't employ teams of people to scour the internet looking for things like that. No news organization does (or would), I'm sure. Like normal people, it would be sort of an unspoken "honor code." You could look forever for skeletons of any kind with anyone, but is that what you want? You WANT editors to do thorough background checks including inspections of every single word they've written? You WANT editors to dig into everything in their past? Should they assume the worst and work from there, or investigate as is done (by thousands of people) with Supreme Court nominees and candidates for federal political office?

Where do you draw the line, then?

What if Ben Domenech was a former drug user or recovering alcoholic? Or had a DWI on his record? You lie if you say you wouldn't have made that an issue. But how do you know the journalism/opinion field isn't FULL of people with that in their past? And should all with such things be automatically excluded from a job? How many of you amateur investigators are guilty of the same things?

It's good that a plagiarist isn't still here. Conservatives don't want him here either. But your "investigation" turned up things like (horrors!) homeschooling. It's laughable, and you look like fools for shrieking about everything else besides the plagiarism.

You screech about "balance," but apparently you haven't looked at all at the other blogs here. It's mind-boggling. I suppose, though, you wouldn't be satisfied until you had a "progressive" (what a hilarious misnomer!) bomb-thrower on the staff here. It's glaringly obvious.
Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

Do you really want YOUR hysterical words to be seen by Joe Average American WaPo reader, who knows nothing else about "progressives?" I can imagine people I know in REAL LIFE finding this mess and thinking "WTF?" and not returning to this part of the WaPo web site, because of the utterly insane hysteria here. "Netroots" has become synonymous with "Nutcases." It's fun for conservatives like me who read blogs to watch the meltdowns sometimes, but usually, it's just pitiful and embarrassing to watch.

And you know, just because you've kept the profanity from your comments here (for a change), it doesn't mean you don't come off as wild-eyed, hysterical, and possibly dangerous.

Posted by: Beth | March 25, 2006 10:36 PM

The WaPo is not like the Cable and Network news outlets. The WaPo will not be able to add new customers by hiring "provacatours" hoping to create controversy.

Readers are different from viewers of a TV screen. Lower your standards to an O'Reilly type format will gain you only more subscription cancellations.

The way to jazz up Newspapers and online News outlets, is with the News and the Truth.

I come here to wapo.com now and then for a gander, but it's not part of my steady reading diet as you still have Woodward working there.

The WaPo had the gall to critic the NYT's over the Miller affair, but still has Woodward on board.

Good luck on the way down.


Posted by: ZappoDave | March 25, 2006 10:36 PM

"hiring right wing hacks to "balance" journalists who are doing their job by practicing strong watchdog journalism"

Who said he was there to balance news reporters? YOU GUYS DID. Not the Post.

Are you people stupid, deranged, or both?

Posted by: Beth | March 25, 2006 10:41 PM

If there is a conservative voice largely underrepresented in U.S. media and public life, it is a voice that is concerned for the rule of law (including international law), for fiscal integrity and for keeping government out of the private lives of citizens. There are such voices, you even have one in your print edition. It shouldn't be hard to find a young, internet savvy one somewhere. This is a voice that people with a wide range of views will find interesting at least some of the time. The crazed neo-con voice appeals only to crazed neo-cons and there are fewer and fewer of those around every day.

That neo-con voice owns television and talk radio. People who read are mostly not much interested in that perspective any more, even those of us that are interested in a very wide range of views. More tax cuts for the rich and permanent war and not much else are getting pretty threadbare for anyone with half a brain.

Posted by: Robert Paehlke | March 25, 2006 10:47 PM

WaPo's contempt for its readership is reflected in its decision to hire an imbecilic sock puppet to blog on its site. Clearly, the Jurassic-era media giant was hoping to cash in on a trend that, ironically enough, was created in the first place as a reaction against its own dereliction of duty in the news gathering process. It's worth noting again that the corporate media reported on non-existent WMD's in Iraq long after blog and webzine readers were informed of the fact, a trend that continues to this day. But rather than hiring a proven talent (someone who knew how to "provoke" by truth telling) WaPo enlists the services of a "homeskooled" political operative with a long history of plagiarism, and a racist to boot. Unable to see beyond their own reflections, (privileged, white, male) WaPo's online editorial team will no doubt dredge up another smarmy little arseclown from the shallow talent pool of right wing punditry. And they wonder why their readers continue to defect to more trustworthy news sources.

Posted by: Violet | March 25, 2006 10:55 PM

As a conservative blogger who has hired and fired my share of journalists and other employees, I can see how an editor could hire someone who turns out to be a big disappointment. Been there. Done that. And I'm sure that everyone who's commented on this here has had the same experience or will before your careers are over.

The difference is that most of us make our mistakes in private. This is a very public fiasco, but it's being handled professionally and expeditiously. That's more than you can say for any recent president who's faced personnel problems.

My hope is that wapost.com can find a conservative blogger who is more than a partisan name caller and blind follower of anyone. What's needed is a critical voice that can poke holes in the arguments posted by pundits and politicians from both the left and right. There's so much dumb stuff published every day that it wouldn't be hard to blog all day on the silliness.

But remember, the most successful bloggers are more than empty-headed journalists. They're people who have expertise, experience, integrity and the energy to work beyond a 9-5 day.

Posted by: Oldedit | March 25, 2006 11:15 PM

Add me to the list of disgusted observers. It was bad enough that the Republican party was hijacked by nitwits, and now one of the last few dignified newspapers carelessly bought into this godforsaken disgrace.

That B.D. "resigned" does not forgive the transgressions upon what little intelligence remains.

This is a big deal. I'll get my news from people I can trust, and it won't be the WA Post.

Q. Hammond
Alexandria

Posted by: Quandell Hammond | March 25, 2006 11:35 PM


Jim Brady STILL hasn't resigned ?

Jim Brady STILL hasn't been fired ?

I'll check back tomorrow ...

Posted by: M | March 25, 2006 11:44 PM


Plagiarism isn't close to the worst offense of a journalist. The worst offense is making stuff up.

Posted by: R | March 25, 2006 11:58 PM

Still PLAIN WRONG? Still PROUD of it?

..might've guessed as much...


So just change the site name to "Red Face" tomorrow - your re-launch will be ALL THE RAGE, trust me.

Posted by: Hiam A. Yankee | March 26, 2006 12:59 AM

Washington Post readers ombudsman Deborah Howell on the Domenech issue, 2 days following his resignation, in a 5 web-page article:
"


. . . "
Nothing.

Posted by: WillYa | March 26, 2006 01:33 AM

This is a truly dark day in the history of the Post. There simply is no way that a competent and honest news professional could have hired this young man. Either the Washington Post has sold out, or they have a dishonest or incompetent person doing their hiring. It's that simple. If the Post wants to recover its reputation, it must fully air this entire episode, and rid itself of whoever was responsible.

Posted by: Mike | March 26, 2006 01:54 AM

Yep, 5 pages on the Post's war coverage. Dare we believe she would actually tackle the pre-war buildup? No chance; Howell tackles the strawman of whether the intrepid Post war correspondents are reporting too much bad news to suit DOD, and bravely sides with the Post. I'm glad that critical question has been answered for the readers, who so depend on the ombudsman to remind us that the proud Post reporters can sit on softballs and hit them out of the park.

Posted by: Tony | March 26, 2006 02:02 AM

What if there was a plant that could replace all of the trees that are cut down for paper and paper products, all of the cotton grown, (and the tons of pesticides and fertilizers it requires to be pumped into the ground) and give farmers a new and easier crop to grow, and as a bonus, produces seed oil that could significantly reduce our "addiction" to foreign oil, all on the same acre? Imagine how much better off we'd be if there was a plant like that. Of course there is, and its the longest, strongest, and most durable plant fiber known, and it's called Hemp. Not using it for the betterment of our country is nonsensical, and we're not serious about alternative fuels if we waste the chance for obvious solutions.

Posted by: DS | March 26, 2006 02:08 AM

Here's an idea for a column from Deborah Howell: Does the WaPo Ombudsman respond to critism more often from the left or right?

Articles by Deborah Howell about Dan Froomkin: More than One

Articles by Deborah Howell on the Domenech issue...zilch

Washington Pose ombudsman Debrah Howell on whether or not the Post is "balanced" on news from Iraq...yep.

Deborah Howell is neither fair nor balanced.

Posted by: Rodrigo Devivir | March 26, 2006 02:28 AM

I would like to complain to the Ombudsman about the recent 5 page suck up to the right wing's "print good news about Iraq" whining, written by Deborah Howell.

Oh...you mean she is the Ombudsman?

Er...when do Ombudsmen do reporting? Aren't they supposed to answer reader concerns?

Oh...I see. The Post has redefined the role to be "right wing hack".

Posted by: John | March 26, 2006 02:29 AM

It's too bad the Washington Post Ombudsman is writing columns about whether or nor the Washington Post is printing enough "good" news about Iraq. It seems to me that an Ombudsman should be responding to reader complaints. I can count over 2,500 reader complaints on this blog alone.

Howell is not doing her job if she doesn't cover Domenech.

Posted by: Rodrigo | March 26, 2006 02:34 AM

What is the lesson here? That right-wing hacks are hacks? Or is it that you can hire a whipping boy?

Posted by: Loquacious Fool | March 26, 2006 02:44 AM

Do you really want YOUR hysterical words to be seen by Joe Average American WaPo reader, who knows nothing else about "progressives?" I can imagine people I know in REAL LIFE finding this mess and thinking "WTF?" and not returning to this part of the WaPo web site, because of the utterly insane hysteria here. "Netroots" has become synonymous with "Nutcases." It's fun for conservatives like me who read blogs to watch the meltdowns sometimes, but usually, it's just pitiful and embarrassing to watch.

And you know, just because you've kept the profanity from your comments here (for a change), it doesn't mean you don't come off as wild-eyed, hysterical, and possibly dangerous.

Posted by: Beth | March 25, 2006 10:36 PM

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Beth,
This is a wonderful bit of projection dont you think? Criticizing the left blogosphere as wild eyed, crazy and dangerous in an effort to demonstrate the need for civility in debate. Do you know what we on the "left side of the blogosphere" enjoy? Pointing out the innaccuracy, hypocrisy and banality of the RW talking points particularly from indignant parrots like yourself. I particularly enjoyed the intimation that most journalists particpate in the same shameful behavior that Ben Domenech did. It is the standard GOP fall back position. You know well Democrats do it too. It reveals the true ethics of conservatives to be situational and not principled. See ya hack.

Posted by: Mark S | March 26, 2006 02:45 AM

Dear Washington Post:

You'd do well to to explain why a partisan operative who admits he is not a journalist and who has a history of racially charged rhetoric, homophobic bigotry, and serial plagiarism was given a platform at the Washington Post.

Posted by: Susan | March 26, 2006 02:50 AM

"Slurring Ms. King with a completely unsubstantiated claim that she was a communist is the most racist thing anyone could do. Of course, you, Mr. Domenech, and the long-dead Mr. Hoover wouldn't recognize a racist statement if it kick you in the butt."
--hterrya

Hmmm. Nope, I'm still not seeing it. By this logic, if I called Froomkin a socialist, I must be making fun of the handicapped. No, this is just another liberal overreach into the absurd. Thank you for endorsing unilateral victimhood, and I hope it continues on to another loss at the polls. Heh.

Read this:

http://haloscan.com/tb/stevenewsblog/114329371838853658

and tell anyone how it wasnt a racial slur again? And just because the executive editor is ignorant of the historical meaning of the reference doesnt mean the rest of us are.

Posted by: Mark S | March 26, 2006 02:52 AM

Another sorry spectacle of incompetence, politically-driven pandering and rank hypocrisy at the WP.

Mr. Brady, did you, at any point in this pathetic farce, actually do what I did last night, out of curiosity--click on RedState and spend a good hour or two reading what people actually write over there?

Sorry to say, but that young right-wing hack is treated as a martyr now and considered to have the literary skills of Dr. Johnson. It is an echo chamber of delusion coated with faux piety. It is, using a word pitched on the intellectual level of that site's vocabulary, creepy.

What on earth were you thinking? What on earth are you doing, giving such drivel legitimacy? Has the dumbing-down of discourse in America reached such pathetic lows?

Pathetic. Do the right thing and resign, if you are so blind or so without scruples. Such calculation does not befit respectable journalism.

Posted by: Longtime Online Reader | March 26, 2006 05:22 AM

May I predict what the WP does for an encore? OK, thanks: Let's hire a 90 year old conservative; oh, and one with no searchable record of his/her neoconning.

Posted by: Jones | March 26, 2006 06:23 AM

So you are going out of your way, to find insult outside the realm of common usage?
I think the common term for that is "masochism". Actually though, I like my original characterization of it as "unilateral victimhood". It sounds so much more "intellectual", and less like typical wallowing in self-imposed misery.

Posted by: shooter242 | March 26, 2006 06:49 AM

Progressives. One has to admit a grudging admiration for a political movement that has the brass to name themselves after a disproportional tax system.

Posted by: shooter242 | March 26, 2006 06:54 AM

The Post should have vetted Domenech's background better.

http://getkickedoffaplanewearingthis.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Robert A Jones | March 26, 2006 08:31 AM

I don't know who suggested Christopher Buckley, but what a fantastic idea! He'd be expensive but so worth the bucks.

What I'd love to see is a dialogue between Buckley and Jane Hamsher. Wow. I have no idea of the conversation would be vicious attack or agreement, I just know I'd love to read it and it would be elegant.

Add Jesus General it would be awesomely surreal.

Thank you for keeping the comments open. It looks like you're beginning to comprehend the nature of the blog. Maybe you should require whomever takes over to keep the conversation open.

Since most conservative blogs seem to shut down or start deleting like crazy when the weather gets rocky (this isn't leftist snark, it's absolutely true--check it out on a day of blog hopping.) you'd have to find someone tougher than usual if you want to go red state.

Posted by: Kate R | March 26, 2006 09:37 AM

"How come "a liberal Web site" was able to find quickly and easily that this White House Guckert-style media tool was a serial plagiarist, but the Washington Post was clueless?"
Posted by: Tenka Mammunts | March 25, 2006 10:05 PM
__________________________________________

About 2 weeks ago the NYTimes did a post about them on the(NYT,ed. page) new Blogger column. That is where I heard about them.

Because it was listed as conservative, I visited the site... posted there and was Immediately told "Good-by, good riddens". This group does not brook dissent. Now it is obvious why.

Read their rules for posting and their mission statement. In light of the new developments, it is a laugh.

Posted by: VaFireBall | March 26, 2006 10:01 AM

How come you don't have Kos and Firedoglake listed in the trackbacks? You do know that makes you guys look as petty (or human, depending on your POV) as gloater.

Posted by: | March 26, 2006 10:22 AM


Jim Brady STILL hasn't resigned ?

Jim Brady STILL hasn't been fired ?


I'll check back tomorrow ...

Posted by: Mike | March 26, 2006 10:42 AM

I just saw Howie Kurtz performance on CNN's ' 'Reliable Sources' and he seemed to tell Markos Moulitsas that Box Turtle Ben's plagarism wasn't such a bad thing..
Kurtz:.."And also, to go back to somebody's college newspaper writings to find out they did plagiarize is not usually part of a typical background check when somebody is hired. Let me move..."
Moulitsas pointed out that the plagerism included the National Review...
Why does Howard Kurtz consistently take the movement conservative line on these things?

Posted by: Bill Alexand | March 26, 2006 12:38 PM

Dear Mr. Brady:

Domenech was meant to appease people upset with Froomkin. Who will the Washingtonp Post hire to appease people upset with Domenech?

Posted by: Please Answer | March 26, 2006 12:48 PM

What can I possibly add to this discussion over the latest brouhaha that hasn't already been said? A song comes to mind:

"Things are seldom what they seem,
Skim milk masquerades as cream;
Highlows pass as patent leathers;
Jackdaws strut in peacock's feathers.

Black sheep dwell in every fold;
All that glitters is not gold;
Storks turn out to be but logs;
Bulls are but inflated frogs.

Drops the wind and stops the mill;
Turbot is ambitious brill;
Gild the farthing if you will,
Yet it is a farthing still.

Wink is often good as nod;
Spoils the child who spares the rod;
Thirsty lambs run foxy dangers;
Dogs are found in many mangers.

Paw of cat the chestnut snatches;
Worn-out garments show new patches;
Only count the chick that hatches;
Men are grown-up catchy-catches."

Far be it for me to imply those words are my own. Alas, they are not. They are selected verses from "Things Are Seldom What They Seem" by Gilbert and Sullivan from "HMS Pinafore" (1878).

Posted by: Philip | March 26, 2006 01:35 PM

After reading through these responses, it seems quite clear to me that most of the posters (pun intended) are, indeed, liberal. Is that bad? No. But clearly, if the Posters here represent the readership of the Post, perhaps the Post should just ditch the notion of having a conservative viewpoint. As someone else said, why would a liberal want to read the National Review or watch Fox News anyway?

For the record, I am a conservative, and do enjoy reading alternative points of view. In doing so, I hope that I'm a little more tolerant of liberals and what makes them tick.

Posted by: Paul H. | March 26, 2006 02:58 PM

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Posted by: Len Cleavelin | March 26, 2006 03:18 PM

It's not as easy to nail down plagiarism as some of the posters to this forum have indicated. It is the cardinal sin of the publishing world. However, plagiarism does not require intent (i.e., it can be committed negligently). Indeed, at least according to my law school's code of academic conduct, the mere failure to cite a string of three or more words constitutes plagiarism. Given the amatuer nature of most blogs, it would be difficult to find any that would be free from some form of violation under my school's code.

Posted by: Joel | March 26, 2006 03:34 PM

From:
Sent: 03/24/2006 12:15 AM
To: HowellDC@washpost.com
Subject: Froomkin vs Red America

Ms. Howell,

I understand that you have chosen not to comment on the growing plagiarism scandal involving the post.com's newest addition. You are instead referring complaints to the website's executive editor and claiming it is not in your jurisdiction. I find that odd considering you wrote a piece highly critical of Froomkin, who is a WEB ONLY columnist. What prompted the sudden change in the scope of your oversight?

Her response?

I may comment later.
Deborah Howell
Ombudsman
The Washington Post
202-334-7521 (office)

Posted by: clonecone | March 26, 2006 03:44 PM

So you are going out of your way, to find insult outside the realm of common usage?
I think the common term for that is "masochism". Actually though, I like my original characterization of it as "unilateral victimhood". It sounds so much more "intellectual", and less like typical wallowing in self-imposed misery.

xxxxxx

Is this some type of RW code?

mas·och·ism (ms-kzm) KEY

NOUN:

The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.
The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by oneself.
A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.


Maybe you should go back to redstate? They like that type of pseudo-intellectualism and dont care if you are a plagiarist.

Posted by: Mark S | March 26, 2006 03:58 PM

"The internet is chock-full of sites where readers can get obviously partisan writing. The Post and the The Post.com shouldn't endanger its own standing as a respected news outlet by hiring partisan bloggers from either side."

I agree absolutely. The Post is lowering itself by getting involved in the whole partisan red state/blue state business. More than ever, especially since cable news are basically opinion shows where the partisan spin of the day is regurgitated for the viewers, media outlets like the Post should remain above the fray and simply report what is happening.

When Clinton was President, there was no shame in having dogged reporters hounding the White House and pointing out its every error. Why all the glancing over the shoulder now and agonizing over "balance?" To a casual observer, it certainly looks like the Washington Post is over-analyzing itself into a dark and deep whole from which print journalism may never recover.

Posted by: Alexander Smith | March 26, 2006 04:21 PM

I'm wondering when the sober upper management will acknowledge that this blog thing is a failure? WaPo has no idea what it is doing. You are the joke of the on-line world. Now, when will Howell and Brady appologize?

Posted by: california_reality_check | March 26, 2006 05:10 PM

I hope you could reveal more details about this. I'm extremely unhappy about this.

Posted by: Rob | March 26, 2006 06:19 PM

Beth-
Are YOU "stupid, deranged, or both" (to use your own words)? The Post was very clear in their intent, even if they didn't precisely word their explanation the way you want them to.

Posted by: justfortoday | March 26, 2006 06:21 PM

"Conservatism" should not equate with hate-filled, name-calling left-bashing any more than "left" or "liberal" should equate with "those who hate America." Anyone who subscribes to either of these equations should stop and give sober, serious, and possibly lengthy consideration to when the division of opinion in this country became so acrimonious -- as well as to whom the acrimony first emanated from (and continues seemingly unabated from). Remember that in the settling dust of the Twin Towers, while we as a nation were struggling to figure out why we would have been so targeted, that it was the right who immediately bought into President Bush's nonsensical line that it was because "they" (Al Qaeda or whoever) "hate our freedoms." This then proceeded swiftly to any questioning of this assertion or any critical look at the role of the U.S. in world affairs being equated with "hating America" -- an even more absurd assertion. I put it to you plainly: the "hate" pullulating through American society these days is the fault (and there is no kinder or more appropriate word) of rightist jingoists such as Ben Domenech. "Opinions" such as his give conservatism a bad name, and giving column inches to such "opinions" does anything but achieve balance.

Posted by: Kerry Canfield | March 26, 2006 08:22 PM

Dear Mr. Brady:

I am trying to get my mind around the bizarre and sorry story of Ben Domenech, and you know an important piece of it that I don't. I hope that you can help me.

I cannot understand why somebody like Ben Domenech--somebody who regards Jefferson Davis as a lover of America and Coretta Scott King as a communist--would possibly be regarded as a suitable hire for washingtonpost.com. Somebody so out of touch with basic American values, so mean-spirited, of such bad judgment.... It would seem predictable that the odds were very good that he would prove a source of great embarrassment and humiliation, even if it was not clear how beforehand.

Add to this the fact that how Mr. Domenech carries himself reminds Glenn Reynolds that he just can't call himself a conservative if Domenech is one (http://instapundit.com/archives/001261.php) and that more than three years ago Tom Maguire strongly suspected Mr. Domenech of making stuff up (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2002/07/i_like_to_think.html), and the decision to hire Mr. Domenech becomes well-nigh incomprehensible.

Surely there must be--somewhere in Mr. Domenech's record--some amazingly powerful good points: some clips of absolutely dazzling quality that blew the socks off you and your colleagues, and made you overlook Mr. Domenech's extraordinary and obvious deficits.

What were these clips of his that so impressed you? Could you please point me to them? If you can, it would be very helpful.

If you can't, that would be very helpful too, in a different way. I'm told that the betting in the print _Post's_ newsroom is that this was a pure nepotism hire--with the value of exposure to Mr. Domenech's readers or its effect on the reputation of the _Post_ the last thing on decision makers' minds.

Yours,


Brad DeLong

Posted by: | March 26, 2006 09:36 PM

"We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations."

Since when was 'surface' a verb?

Posted by: Paul Murray | March 26, 2006 10:28 PM

"It was unfair to mouthpiece one side without having REAL balance."

*Sigh.* It seems the posters are no better.

Posted by: Paul Murray | March 26, 2006 10:31 PM

"I put it to you plainly: the "hate" pullulating through American society these days is the fault (and there is no kinder or more appropriate word) of rightist jingoists such as Ben Domenech."

Dear Canfield,
Since this section opened I would estimate that over a thousand comments have been posted, the majority of which are derogatory, derisive, and demeaning to either Mr. Brady, the Washington Post, or Mr Domenech.
Of that huge number of posts conservatives have contributed possibly fifty. Regarding where hatred originates, the evidence staring you in the face overwhelmingly proves you wrong.

Posted by: shooter242 | March 26, 2006 10:40 PM

"I cannot understand why somebody like Ben Domenech....
..would possibly be regarded as a suitable hire for washingtonpost.com."

Dear Delong,
Perhaps you should consider that after the avalanche of hate mail visited upon Ms. Howell over a semantic disagreement regarding Mr Abramoff, and the cascade of hate mail to and about Mr. Domenech, the Post wasn't able to find anyone else brave enough to withstand the inevitable onslaught from the "peace" party.

Some bloggers don't have comment sections and some bloggers don't allow dissension. Apparently the Post didn't want to insulate themselves in that manner. Given those working conditions, Domenech may be the best they can do. Regarding vetting, as pointed out elsewhere, an "Army of Davids" with an axe to grind is alway going to be more thorough than any one organization.

As for Mr. Domenech's "style", consider all the posts that preceed you. His writing mirrors a great number of the people motivated enough to log in. Perhaps the Post thought he was able to reach that multitude on their own terms. That is the basis of marketing is it not?

In the end, all this originated with the complaint from the Post political reporters that Dan Froomkin was being mistaken for an actual journalist. Perhaps that should be examined first?

Posted by: shooter242 | March 26, 2006 11:03 PM

Thanks God that the Post is getting rid of those who commit the mortal sin of plagerism. No longer will we have to read anything by Joe Biden, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Martin Luther King, and dozens of other liberal icons, plagerists all. Think of all the trees that will be saved by a much smaller paper once the Post completes its purge.

Posted by: jack adams | March 26, 2006 11:09 PM

Shooter 242: The word is spelled precede.

Jack Adams: it is plagiarism.

Learn to spell, you pathetic trolls.

Posted by: Tango Belle | March 26, 2006 11:28 PM

You know what continually amazes me? That these high-end newspapers like the Times and the Post -- the pinnacle of newspapers in newspaper-land -- hire these bright young kids and then expect them to be 20-year veterans overnight. Guess what? They're going to crack under the enormous pressure of expectation. They don't have the thick skin, they won't fight back with their editors -- mostly because they're afraid of losing the golden boy (or girl) status -- and often stuff will slip through the cracks because of that. The pressure to produce. Veterans of journalism should take a moment to reflect and think of how "green" you were in your 20s. What would you do if you were suddenly given this immense priviledge of becoming "famous" and working at a paper that most journalists spend their lives trying to get hired by? And without years of conditioning and story writing, what happens if you suddenly run out of ideas?

I'm not saying coddle them. I'm not saying don't hire them (like that double negative?). I'm just saying -- be realistic, and proceed accordingly.

Posted by: Peg | March 27, 2006 12:27 AM

Regarding Brad DeLong's letter: I very much would like an answer to this. This thing has reeked of cronyism and nepostism from the start.

I would like an answer to another question: Do Howard Kurtz or his (former?) GOP-operative wife have personal connections to the Domenechs?

Kurtz's repeated and dishonest downplaying of Ben's hate rhetoric, plagiarism and fabrications, both in The Post and on CNN, has been an outright scandal.

Posted by: mike | March 27, 2006 12:33 AM

Does The Washington Times promote fair and balanced commentary by having a liberal blogger? Nobody has brought this up and if they do I suppose I'll consider dropping my subscription to The Washington Post and subscribe to The Washington Times because of their fairness.

Posted by: Daniel | March 27, 2006 01:13 AM

Write to Brady's and Howell's bosses and demand that those two either explain themselves to the readers or resign.

If the powers that be at the Washington Post have any grasp of the bottomline, they will remove those hacks.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | March 27, 2006 07:44 AM

Hardly a soul to support in this tired but noisy rondele.

Dogs with fleas (legacy boys, GOP shill fathers, the Bradys of the media world, Krempasky of RS and so on) to the right of me...

dogs with fleas (and shrill Democratic-tied-in blog pages) to the so called left of me.

Pox on you all.

Good Night and Good Luck.

Posted by: Marisacat | March 27, 2006 09:41 AM

As a reader of your newspaper, I was very disappointed that you hired a right-wing hack to “balance” the journalists who provide important and necessary watchdog role over our leaders and our government. Although I was pleased to see that Ben Domenech resigned, I was disappointed in you for undermining the important role of the media in making this a democracy. If you want opinion columns, the right and left should both be represented, but it was unacceptable to continue "Red America" by itself.

Posted by: Julie | March 27, 2006 11:12 AM


Jim Brady STILL hasn't resigned in disgrace ?

Amazing chutzpah !

I'll check back tomorrow !

Posted by: Mike | March 27, 2006 11:19 AM

Please don't insult your readers' intelligence. I vote Democratic, but also read William Safire (when he had his column in the NYT) David Brooks and just discovered Ben Stein's column in the Times business section (he worked in Republican administrations). All three have proven experience as writers and thinkers, so despite my utter disagreement with their views, I read them and value what they have to say. Is this so hard to figure out? Don't abandon your journalistic integrity when you hire anyone, blogger, reporter, clerk, etc.

Posted by: Citizen Voter | March 27, 2006 11:39 AM

WaPo - quit trying to 'balance' objective truth with partisan lies.

Your job is to inform your readers, not placate the ruling party.

Hiring partisan liars and spinners seems an odd way to rebuild your paper's credibility following the WMD fiasco.

Posted by: Carot | March 27, 2006 12:08 PM

Brady writes: "When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings", which is certainly correct. BUT, he and his colleagues WERE aware of Domenech´s toeing the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld line, his inability to think for himself and his tendency to repeat right wing talking points. For that, and that alone, a serious editor should be deeply ashamed.

Posted by: Peter J. Kraus | March 27, 2006 12:10 PM

I'm glad this whole "Red America" bull blew up in your face. You ought to be ashamed of yourself to have "balanced" an experienced journalist interested in actual facts with a juvenile right-wing shill. That's "fair and balanced" Fox news style, and we have had enough of it.

Posted by: JailNeoConvicts | March 27, 2006 12:24 PM

Please keep the news free of right wing propaganda.

Posted by: Edan Hughes | March 27, 2006 12:47 PM

Who ARE Brady's and Howell's bosses?

Just the fact that they have not fired the both of them is evidence of the fact that the incompetence just keeps going up the food chain.

Way to put your brand in the crapper.

Posted by: AJ | March 27, 2006 01:01 PM

From where I sit balanced means telling the whole truth. Setting up shills to regurgitate spin is antithetical to credible journalism. Please avoid such endeavors in the future. Thank you

Bill Brennan

Posted by: Bill Brennan | March 27, 2006 01:10 PM

Don't you know that it's wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right-wing spinners.

Posted by: Toby Friedman | March 27, 2006 01:16 PM

Being objective is more important than trying to offset one viewpoint with an extreme opinion on the other side.
I would rather read a logical analyst than extreme voices on either end of the spectrum. There are more than 2 views on any subject. There is more than extreme left and extreme right.

Posted by: American Liberal | March 27, 2006 01:19 PM

Hurray for the resignation--though I'm not sure if you took into account the thousands of reader comments you received asking for his removal on the basis of his blog alone. Don't start over again--we've had enough.

Posted by: Sam | March 27, 2006 01:22 PM

I started reading White House Briefing because I wanted to know what was going on with the president. I still do. The assumption that truth is a two headed red-blue monster, with both sides shouting at one another - and an opinion page that desperately tries to keep both sides happy - is a travesty of journalistic integrity. I don't care who else you pick, just find someone with something new to say, and with writing skills to boot. That should narrow the field considerably.

Posted by: jrb | March 27, 2006 01:39 PM

The Post may have not known Domenech was a plagarist... but they did know he wasn't a journalist. They knew his credentials were nothing more than being a shill for the Republican administration. Where, among his many RedState blog entries, were any critical thinking or analysis skills displayed? Where in his writings was anything but parroting of the party line? Some may criticize the Post for being too liberal... but at least it's writers are trained in journalism, and trained to seek comment and open themselves up to different points of view. Domenech had no such training. Out of all the conservatives to choose from, the Post chose one with no college degree? It's almost as if the Post wanted this venture to fail... wait a minute... maybe that's it.

Posted by: Adam | March 27, 2006 02:07 PM

It's truly sad that the best we can consider a "victory for free speech" these days is to prevent proven liars from writing for major news publications.

Oh well, it's still a victory, we'll take it! A big *high five* to all of us who put on the pressure.... And to the Post: you better watch what you try to sell as news, because we're watching you, and we will always demand that you tell the American people the truth!

Posted by: Mikester | March 27, 2006 02:19 PM

Adam - You know, I hadn't considered that possibility. It makes sense. This looks like an inside sabotage job. I mean, they couldn't have been this incompetent by mistake. No, there is something more here. This whole blog thing is too bizarre even for WaPo. They have had major help in this failure. The question is what do they have to gain from driving the WaPo into the ground? I don't get it. Is it a bitter pill to prevent a takeover? Ideas?

Posted by: california_reality_check | March 27, 2006 02:19 PM

I am tired of seeing journalists with integrity, like Dan Froomkin, being labeled by rabid right-wingers as "liberal" or anything else. The way I understand him, Mr. Froomkin is simply keeping an eye on our government officials to make certain that they do not overstep their legal boundaries under the Constitution. To me, this is a non-partisan function of the the Free Press, the fourth pillar of our democracy. Froomkin's style of watchdog journalism also fits well within the respectful journalistic legacy of Edward R. Murrow, who had the courage to fight both the offending establishment as well as CBS to do what is right.

The fact that your ombudsman, Deborah Howell bought into the right-wing spin and publicly called Froomkin "liberal" in one of her columns is very disturbing. Her position calls for more objectivity than to be caught up in right-wing rhetoric.

Posted by: Michael Karp | March 27, 2006 03:19 PM

Although the resignation of Domenech may appear unfortunate, it can be viewed as a blessing as the Post has avoided potential embarassment arising from Domenech's radical right wing views.

Also, a lesson can be learned here; don't try to balance views from the left with extreme fringe views from the right.

A lie is not a point of view.

Posted by: Paul Armstrong | March 27, 2006 03:33 PM

Cronyism.

Nepotism.

Shame on The Washington Post.

Shame, shame, shame!

Heckuvajob, Brady.

Posted by: disgruntled reader | March 27, 2006 03:38 PM

One of the most brilliant, yet insidious strategies of the new conservative movement was to label the mainstream news media as "liberal". This accomplished several significant objectives simultaneously: 1) It shifted the entire spectrum toward the right: The right-leaning media were moved to the center (Fair and Balanced??!!), the right wing extremists, hate-mongers, and de facto bigots were given a legitimate platform, and the true liberal media were shifted off the chart altogether, 2) It has led people--average citizens--to doubt the veracity and reliability of the mainstream media, whose greatest "sin" is not in distorting the news, but in simply reporting the news (Shoot the messenger.), 3) Most alarmingly, it discouraged the main stream media from doing their jobs... thus leading to the Judith Miller phenomenon.
I'm convinced that the continued hegemony of far right-wing media is the greatest threat our country faces at present. They have an incredibly powerful voice, all the more so because there is too little said to discredit them. I am disturbed that responsible news outlets hold themselves smugly aloof from this controversy. Our country, and its principles, are under attack from those who would destroy us. No, the threat is not from the Middle East, but the enemy within. It is now generally accepted as fact that the New York Times and Washington Post are "a pack of lies" (Trust me... I live in Texas, and hear this sort of thing frequently.)
If the Washinton Post would like to offer balance in the world of journalism, and has any sense of duty to our nation, then fight back--actively. Don't cave in!

Posted by: Jeff Levine | March 27, 2006 04:07 PM

GOOD RIDDANCE

Posted by: DAN RODRIGUEZ | March 27, 2006 04:42 PM

It is important to read RedState where Ben has returned to roost. It's all about how they are battling evil people who called him names (gasp) and threatened his family with violence (huh?). It's all about how they are the true guardians of civility and reasonable discourse on the internet. Then go back and look at thier discussions, and how they constantly veer into "treason" and "hanging" critics of the war, and "locking them up." It's all very very dysfunctional.

Posted by: ArgleBargle | March 27, 2006 04:44 PM

[Off topic]

Has anyone else noticed the comment box at the bottom of some articles? I first noticed it at the end of Deborah Howell's extended article "The Post and the Whole Picture in Iraq" yet it appears to be nonfunctional. I wrote The Post questioning this, but don't expect a reply any time soon. I'm interested in knowing if this is a soon-to-be-released new feature, or a holdover from days past.

Posted by: MJ | March 27, 2006 04:57 PM

Stay true to journalism - especially with it comes to editorial blogging. Don't fall down the slippery slope of trying to please the Right Wing. Despite what they think, they are NOT the majority in the United States of America. The problem is that the dumb and dumber of America (neither left nor right) just follow in lockstep to whoever has the catchiest political phrases. They will wake up, one by one, from their zombie snooze and vote the scoundrels out!

Posted by: SJH | March 27, 2006 05:09 PM

Why is The Post censoring trackbacks from liberal and centrist blogs?

Why pretty much only trackbacks from rabid right-wing blogs?

This is beyond appalling. Does The Post have no shame whatsoever? Good luck with your new target audience -- I doubt they'll take much time from watching Fox News to read you. But Rove and Mehlman sure are happy with you I'm sure, so you can look forward to those cocktail party invitations. Oh, the frisson of power!

Posted by: slouching towards bethlehem | March 27, 2006 05:28 PM

I am still waiting for all of the breathless righteous indignation and wall-to-wall coverage that accompanied the Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair revelations. Where are the bitter recriminations and high-level management firings that a debacle of this magnitude requires? Where is the pious soul searching, the hand wringing, and the affirmative action bashing? Silly me, Ben is not a person of color easy to demonize, my bad. I suppose the hiring of a fraudulent partisan wingnut is the post’s idea of diversity. The Washington Post has absolutely no credibility. Mr. Brady's statement simply doesn't cut the mustard. This is not the paper that Mrs. Graham would be proud of.

Posted by: trevorwells | March 27, 2006 05:31 PM

Regarding Jim Omodt's comment below...

As regards your statement above, "Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commor or be accused of".

A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.

Shame on you, sir.

...Jim, the period should go within the quotation marks. Always helps to check your own grammar when criticizing someone else's.

Posted by: Anne | March 27, 2006 05:33 PM

Ah, who cares. When I say "George", you say "Mason"! When I say "George", you say "Mason"! When I say "George", you say "Mason"! When I say "George", you say "Mason"! When I say "George", you say "Mason"! When I say "George", you say "Mason"! When I say "George", you say "Mason"! When I say "George", you say "Mason"! When I say "George", you say "Mason"! When I say "George", you say "Mason"!

Posted by: | March 27, 2006 05:37 PM

So is the Post or Jim Brady ever going to write an article explaining this mess or do they know that it's just incompetence and thus there's no need for an explanation?

Posted by: Huh | March 27, 2006 06:59 PM

I think the integrity of the Washington Post now has a black mark on it. The huge question is why no one checked this klown out before they gave him the job. Just like with the bush administration, it's either a willful disregard for the truth and integrity, or just plain stupidity and laziness.

Posted by: Ron Weales | March 27, 2006 07:30 PM

Mr.Brady, frankly I am getting a little bored with this blog. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy how stupid your posts are. In fact I look forward to them, it's amusing to watch you scramble every time you open your mouth. But the problem is you just don't post frequently enough to qualify as a blog. Look we've beaten this Dominatrix character around for like 5 days and you fired the guy so there's not really much left for us to play with. Maybe you can trot Ms. Howell back out for another round?

Posted by: Bored | March 27, 2006 08:03 PM

Without question, the kid was a lightweight and more intent on 'stirring it up' - whether through creativity or repetition - rather than providing objective commentary. Quite frankly, he brought nothing of substance to the table; his comments on Mrs. King were ample evidence to that score.

The Post has been sliding down the credibility scale for the past several months with me and, possibly, several years with regular readers.

Funnily enough, this quick dismissal actually buys some time with me for the Post to 'get its act together.'

Posted by: TroubleBoy | March 27, 2006 08:23 PM

D: "That Ben fellow was a goll'dern disaster!"

J: "Yeah, no kiddin' D."

D: "Criminy, I hate bloggers!"

J: "Complete idiots, no discipline, shoot-from-the-hip, jump-to-conclusions, no diligence, focus...uh,you know.

D: "I know I need a drink"

Posted by: Bubby | March 27, 2006 10:12 PM

Good riddance. When will people realize the far-right wingers not only have an agenda, but they are dirty as well? Liars liars pants on fired! ;-)

Posted by: Fatherman55 | March 27, 2006 10:45 PM

Huh - You will get no explanation from WaPo or Brady. There is no one at home.

Posted by: | March 28, 2006 07:03 AM

The only blogger that The Post currently has who is clearly tied to a political party is old Ford/Nixon hand Ron Nessen.

His blog typically reflects extreme, hard-right views. We're talking about a guy who cites Human Events online, that cesspool where Ann Coulters go to die.

Doesn't that mean that Jim Brady has to hire for 'balance', oh I don't know, maybe a radical left-anarchist blogger? Or a Marxist-Leninist? Or a radical-pacifist Christian like a Quaker? It gets confusing this 'balance' thing, but The Post certainly seems committed to tilting itself rightward, and crazyward.

Posted by: mz | March 28, 2006 08:40 AM

I am glad that Ben Domenech resigned from the Post, but I have to say that I was shocked and disturbed by his being given the Post's sanction to begin with. Domenech had no background in journalism and obviously was a shill for extremist views, and these facts must have been known ahead of time. It's one thing to load your opinion pages with a series of center-right to far right columnists (with very little balance even from the center-left, I must say) so long as they are at least somewhat responsible members of the journalistic community, but Domenech is far beyond the pale. One would think that the steady stream of revelations of pay-for-propaganda among right-wing "journalists" and the steady stream of revelations about the gullibility of the mainstream press in response to the Bush administration's flat out lies would lead a rational, responsible institution to turn to people who are willing to ask tough questions and to hew to a strict code of ethics, not to hire a someone who does neither and is proud of it. (Speaking of ethics, why is Howard Kurtz's conflict of interest in having a paid position with CNN while writing a column on the media not a problem?) As it is, I no longer take seriously anything I read in the Post that has anything remotely to do with politics, which ought to be the Post's forte.
If you want to add an intelligent blog to your list, why not Altercation or the Daily Kos? Sure, they're liberal (nothing wrong with that), but they both have a history of telling the truth, to put it bluntly, which Domenech and more than a few of the current opinion page writers do not. It should be no surprise that, at the moment, it is the center-left that is hewing to a higher standard regarding truth--it's a sad fact that the right wing has decided to make war on facts, but that was their decision, and they should be called to account for it, not given further license to lie.
Sincerely,
Hunter Crowther-Heyck

Posted by: Hunter Crowther-Heyck | March 28, 2006 09:48 AM

Since you have now even gone as far as linking to an Italian weblog that references the Ben Domenech debacle (how many of your readers are going read click on that ?) hey, why don't you link to the tour de force open letter Jane Hamsher wrote Jim Brady?

Interesting, you continue to maintain this thread, yet not a peep from WaPo's top brass regarding a reshuffle at the top.

Your shareholders must be thrilled.

You are as tone deaf as this administration.

Posted by: Tango Belle | March 28, 2006 09:51 AM

How about going for honesty and effectiveness as journalistic goals, rather than seeing them as signs of a "liberal" voices to be "balanced" by right-wing spin? The Post has a public service responsibility beyond the bottom line. Please don't be temptedto hire another spinner like Ben Domenech.

Now that Domenech has been dumped, how about the other right-wing spinners the Post has given a podium to for so long without any public-service or truth-telling justification. You could start with Novak. I doubt a case can be made for him as either a voice for public good or seeker of truth.

Posted by: David Rogg | March 28, 2006 10:09 AM

Since when is the the role of a newspaper to balance the viewpoints of its columns? The hiring of Ben Domenech was an ill-conceived idea and dilutes the accountable and responsible journalism that has been the trademark of the Washington Post. Please do not succumb to the "politically correct" mindset that is ruining our country.

Posted by: Mary McIlrath | March 28, 2006 10:17 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Domenech

Posted by: | March 28, 2006 10:20 AM

This this as a lesson to please never again hire right-wing spinners to "balance" journalists who are doing their job by holding power accountable. I am very concerned the way The Washington Post may be going.


Posted by: William McMullin | March 28, 2006 10:56 AM

Kirk: "Bones, can you help this blog?"

Dr. McCoy: "It's dead Jim."

Posted by: | March 28, 2006 11:00 AM

No new posts in three days?

Heckuva blog, Brady...

Posted by: A Hermit | March 28, 2006 11:14 AM

Jim Brady is still in hiding. What a cowardly weasel!

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | March 28, 2006 11:21 AM

Greetings. I have a comment on the "Red America" fiasco that recently stained your honorable press.
The profession that you have chosen, to be part of the fourth estate, is arguable the most important, more so than politics or the bench. The free press is what allows the entire American democracy to function, and separates it from the "non-free" countries. It is the free, unbiased, balanced, objective, courageous, and HONEST, American press that allows our citizens to make intelligent and informed decisions, based on their opinions gleened from press released information.
Please seek that place of honor within yourself, and keep vigilant to the responsibility that you have shouldered by joining this vital institution, which is guaranteed by the very first law in the Bill of Rights, the first Amendment. Please resist those in politics, business, the military, and everyone who would seek to influence the free press, to their own advantage.
Please seek to find the balance in this country, and present both sides in an objective manner, so that American democracy can continue to work. "Red America" is a frightening specter which could become an all too real situation unless you fight against authoritarianism, and seek your own professional, ethical independence.
Respectfully,
Rev. Dr. DeJay Miers, J.D.
P.O. Box 2114
Snowflake, Az 85937

Posted by: Rev. Dr. DeJay Miers, J.D. | March 28, 2006 12:39 PM

Good accurate reporting of facts does not need to be balanced on either side by muckrakers who simply give their own biased opinions. You took a step in the right direction by "firing" Ben Domenech.

Posted by: J Larson | March 28, 2006 12:59 PM

About time people come around to see the truth. The media is already so full of plagiarists and bigots, we don't need any more polluting our newspapers and web sites. Good riddence Ben, and Washington Post, keep this in mind the next time you cave into rightwing pressure.

Posted by: David | March 28, 2006 01:13 PM

Every time the Washington Post caves in to pressure from rabid partisans on the right the paper embarrasses itself. I am wondering when you guys are going to learn this lesson and decide to stand up for journalistic integrity. Aside from the issue of associating the Post with disgraceful bigotry and plagiarism, your cluelessness with regard to the concept of "balance" is breathtaking. If you want to balance a partisan activist on the right with one from the left in the name of balance, go ahead. But please don't pretend that a right-wing zealot like Ben Domenech somehow merely "balances" someone like Dan Froomkin who is simply performing the job of a responsible journalist by attempting to hold our elected leaders accountable. If Kerry had won the election would you have balanced his criticisms of the president with a column by an extreme left-wing activist? I think we all know the answer to that.

Posted by: miasmo | March 28, 2006 01:31 PM

Lying and plagiarism are not "balance." When will Ms. Howell make a comment on that matter?

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 28, 2006 01:40 PM

No new posts in three days?

Heckuva blog, Brady...

Posted by: A Hermit | March 28, 2006 11:14 AM

Jim Brady is still in hiding. What a cowardly weasel!

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | March 28, 2006 11:21 AM

..........

Maybe they're waiting for you kids to finish your collective tantrum before they return.

Any parent knows, you don't reward tantrums.

Get a life.

Posted by: Beth | March 28, 2006 01:53 PM

I particularly enjoyed the intimation that most journalists particpate in the same shameful behavior that Ben Domenech did. It is the standard GOP fall back position. You know well Democrats do it too. It reveals the true ethics of conservatives to be situational and not principled. See ya hack.

Posted by: Mark S | March 26, 2006 02:45 AM

Do you have a reading disability? If so, I apologize in advance. Otherwise, where on earth did you dream up the idea that I said other journalists or anyone else "did the same?" I've consistently condemned Domenech's plagiarism, and I don't allow for excuses of any kind, from anyone.

CITE. Quote. Show me--I need a laugh.

I also asked in another comment, "are you stupid, deranged, or both?" I think your response (above) to my comment about the WaPo not hiring hundreds of researchers for each employee answers the question quite well. Thanks.

"Who am I? Why am I here?"
--Adm. James Stockdale

Posted by: Beth | March 28, 2006 02:16 PM

Beth is really Brady. Lil' Jim is too afraid to come out and explain himself to the Washington Post readers. Remember them, the people who actually PAY for a subscription? Or will you remember them, Beth/Brady when you get fired because of a declining bottom line brought about by your journalistic incompetence?

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | March 28, 2006 02:23 PM

I feel bad for George Will who is conservative, but an articulate and creative thinker. It's all so embarrassing.

Posted by: sympathy | March 28, 2006 02:50 PM

I applaaud the resignation of Ben Domenech. I feel that your paper should be reporting unbiased accounts of national and world events and not "balancing" what you perceive as a liberal viewpoint with one which is blatantly right wing. Let the public make up its own opinion and do your job of just reporting the news as it occurs.

Posted by: Raphiell Nolin | March 28, 2006 03:51 PM

Following the politically charged controversy over the Dubai Ports World deal, both Congressional Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of Arab-baiting, manipulating facts and creating a climate of fear.
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), however, has taken the shameful debate a step further, likening Arabs to skinheads.

Schumer, New York’s senior senator, was the first to criticize the DP World deal and has been its most vocal opponent. On March 20th, the New York Observer reported that when confronted by journalists who suggested that his opposition to the deal was a result of anti-Arab bias, Senator Schumer responded by saying:

“Let’s say skinheads had bought a company to take over our port,” he said. “I think the outcry would have been the same.”

Senator Schumer’s disgraceful comparison of Arab businessmen to skinheads is deplorable. As Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), a committee that provides support to Democratic Senators running for election, Schumer’s irresponsible statement is especially troubling.
“Senator Schumer’s brazen remark runs contrary to the Democratic Party’s principles of inclusion and diversity,” said AAI Executive Director Nidal Ibrahim. “The Senator owes Arab Americans an apology. Democrats need to recognize that Schumer may do more harm than good if he continues as Chairman of the DSCC.”

Posted by: M.A | March 28, 2006 04:35 PM

It just goes to show, when you want the truth go to a newspaper, when you want readers turn to blog. I hope the Post sticks to the truth from now on.

Posted by: George M | March 28, 2006 04:58 PM

The Washington Post needs to think about the issues raised in this post -

From http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/


A couple of months ago when Deborah Howell was "deluged" with "uncivilized" comments about her failure to correct a blatant misrepresentation, the Washington Post ombudsman and others had a shrieking fit of the vapors and spent days on the fainting couch mumbling incoherently about the rude insults they had to endure. I thought Howell would have to take a leave of absense and get herself to a nunnery for a few weeks just to regain her belief in the goodness of mankind after such an assault.

As was amply demonstrated, the vast majority of the comments were not, in fact, crude or filthy. They condemned the Post for uncritically recycling RNC talking points and failing to provide proof of their assertions. And they used aggressive language to do it.

But as Busy, Busy Busy's Elton Beard noticed, Howell only seems to be truly stunned, angry and upset by certain kinds of criticism. Others, not so much. Here's Howell this past Sunday:

One critic of the coverage is John Dowd, a Washington lawyer: "I can't subscribe to your newspaper anymore because you have lost all sense of balance and perspective in your coverage of the war in Iraq and against the terrorists. It is clear to those of us who have our sons and daughters who are in harm's way that you support the terrorists and you are opposed to the efforts of our Marines, all who are sacrificing so that you are free to publish without interference."

Dowd's son Dan is a Marine captain, just back from his second tour as a helicopter pilot in Iraq. Dowd sees his son and other U.S. and Iraqi soldiers "as the most selfless people I've known in my life." I found his letter haunting; it pains me that he would think Post journalists support terrorists.

Beard says:

Think about that.

A reader accuses Washington Post journalists of siding with Goldstein - er, terrorists - and Deborah Howell doesn't think, this man is either demented or trying to manipulate me. She doesn't crumple up and toss the letter and she doesn't add it to her loony folder, already overflowing with missives from crazed liberals. She does not take offense at the slur on her colleagues. Quite the opposite. She takes the complaint seriously

It pains her to think this fine man believes that the Washington Post supports terrorists. She's "haunted" by that criticism. But those of us who would like the Post to correct their errors are uncivilized beasts from the fever swamp who are dragging down the discourse. That's very revealing, I think. Deborah Howell, like so many of her brethren, has so internalized rightwing criticism that it doesn't even seem unreasonable anymore. She "understands" it. This man called her a traitor to her face and all it does is make her feel sad. She doesn't even know that she has completely absorbed the right's criticisms.

And when liberals point out that she has become subsumed by a radical Republican establishment, when they bring attention to the fact that she no longer even knows when she is being manipulated and abused --- she gets angry and tries to kill the messenger.

The truth is that we are not trying to destroy the media with our barbaric uncouth ways and unflattering criticisms. We are trying to save it. It's not surprising that they have become self-loathing, addicted to RNC spin and dependent on the approbation of the Republican establishment. We can all see why they would no longer be able to tell the difference between rational conservative discourse and RNC propaganda. They've been under sustained attack for years.

That's why we've decided we need to stage an intervention. The first step is to wake them up and make them realize that when a reader calls them a terrorist sympathizer the proper response is not to "feel pained" or be "haunted." It's to recognize that the person who is saying it is a deluded rightwing nutcase --- and then get righteously pissed. That is not a benign charge --- they are fighting words.

And conversely, when someone calls them on an error, the proper response is to admit it and correct it, not become freaked out by the passion of those who demand it. These two kinds of feedback from readers are not equivalent and the second is certainly not more deserving of anger and shock than the first. Being called a traitor to your country is a deeply offensive insult. Being told you are not doing your job correctly may be insulting, but it's hardly in the same league. The fact that Deborah Howell cannot see that --- and takes the first one more seriously than the second --- is the very essence of the problem with the mainstream press.

Posted by: Blobby | March 28, 2006 06:10 PM

The following is an on-the-record statement by The Washington Post's Ombudsman, Barbara Howell, regarding the Ben Domenech affair:

"I can't defend it. It's a f*ckin' disaster."

Source:
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/digitaldrifter/?p=31

P.S. -- Dear censor, please do not delete this post. I repeat: this is a statement on the record by your own Ombudsman, and your readers have a right to know this.

Posted by: mike | March 28, 2006 06:19 PM

When will Brady appologize to Jane Hamsher?

Posted by: | March 28, 2006 07:38 PM

Do Jim Brady and WaPo management even care that this part of the paper has become a bad joke?

If you want a successful web operation, you have to respond to user comments more rapidly, otherwise you will lose the readers.

Posted by: lib | March 28, 2006 07:41 PM

Jesus Effing Christ, this is one long string of comments. So many idiots asking for jobs here... I think I'm the most qualified. Plus, I'll always reveal my sources. I'll also pay them. That's ethical, isn't it?

Posted by: Clayton | March 29, 2006 12:01 AM

Greetings,
I guess, I should have known that the Post would shirk it's duties through lowering journalism standard's, bending to outside conservative pressure just to gain a tiny bit more market share, and finally to become involved in what I refer to as "Boutique Conservatism." I see many outlet's attempting to be "Al things to all people" because they aren't satisfied with being the best at "one specialty" and greed becomes too important to pass. Remember the ex-University of Texas Football Coach Darrell Royal and what he said to a young reporter the night before the National Championship game at the Cotton Bowl when asked if he planned to run the wishbone offense in tomorrow's big game? The Coach replied, "we're gonna dance with the fiddler that brought us here. . ."

Bootspurs
Fort Worth


Patriotism is a religion, the egg from which wars are hatched.": Guy de Maupassant


Posted by: bootspurs | March 29, 2006 12:53 AM

I don't understand why a well respected paper like yours is becoming so slanted. Opinion is great but if it's on politics (or anything else) then represent each side and not this "Red America" alone. Many times these can be very insightful except when you have a near Fox "News" situation of demagoguery that actual damage our democratic process. Why are you throwing a person like Domenech in to do this online column when it doesn't appear that anyone has done some simple looking into his background to see he is a slanted bigot that plagerizes! I think the idea of representing both sides is a great but not a Bill Oreily wannaby. You guys are better than this aren't you?

Posted by: Nitro | March 29, 2006 01:05 AM

I'm trying for the thousand-post award. Dinner with Has Ben?

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 29, 2006 03:36 AM

Does Ms. Howell know about this whole debacle? When may we expect her reply?

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 29, 2006 03:38 AM

Damn! Missed it by that much.

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 29, 2006 03:40 AM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com exists only for my amusement. It serves no other purpose.

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 29, 2006 03:42 AM

Got news?

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 29, 2006 03:43 AM

Got balance?

Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | March 29, 2006 03:44 AM

This Domenich affair is endemic to corporate media and a major reason why I declined The POST's(and the NYtimes) offer of a subscription. Although there are journalists trying to work honestly within the system, I simply do NOT trust ruling class media as whole! Try "The Nation"
or "Guerilla news network"(GNN.org: I believe) online.

Posted by: James McGreevy | March 29, 2006 10:20 AM

" It is clear to those of us who have our sons and daughters who are in harm's way that you support the terrorists and you are opposed to the efforts of our Marines, all who are sacrificing so that you are free to publish without interference." --John Dowd

"The first step is to wake them up and make them realize that when a reader calls them a terrorist sympathizer the proper response is not to "feel pained" or be "haunted." It's to recognize that the person who is saying it is a deluded rightwing nutcase --- and then get righteously pissed. That is not a benign charge --- they are fighting words.

And conversely, when someone calls them on an error, the proper response is to admit it and correct it, not become freaked out by the passion of those who demand it. These two kinds of feedback from readers are not equivalent and the second is certainly not more deserving of anger and shock than the first. Being called a traitor to your country is a deeply offensive insult. Being told you are not doing your job correctly may be insulting, but it's hardly in the same league. The fact that Deborah Howell cannot see that --- and takes the first one more seriously than the second --- is the very essence of the problem with the mainstream press." --Blobby
-------------------------------------

So we have the "fighting words" and the "feedback". This is just a defense of being crude. Or worse, an advocacy for verbal abuse as substitute for reason as a debating style. Essentially, this is the same rationale for killing people as a "political statement" as opposed to being common murder.

Posted by: shooter242 | March 29, 2006 01:26 PM

"It's dead, Jim."

Posted by: Dr. McCoy | March 29, 2006 03:52 PM

Has the post and Jim Brady decided that they never need to explain their actions here?

Posted by: John | March 29, 2006 05:41 PM

Poor Ben

Posted by: getalife | March 29, 2006 08:30 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/27/21308/6963

Poor Ben!

Posted by: getalife | March 29, 2006 08:31 PM

Accountability? Nah, Apologies? Nah...

Over 1000 post and still no word...

You'd think the shareholders would revolt...

Posted by: Tango Belle | March 30, 2006 09:07 AM

Hello?
Hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow?

Ack!

(sound of a blog dying).

Posted by: Smafdy | March 30, 2006 09:45 AM

this sucks

bring Ben back (and his mum, too, this time)

Posted by: daver | March 30, 2006 04:32 PM

Who cares about emailed articles. Why don't you list how many posts this blog has and have been unanswered? HMMM?

Posted by: | March 30, 2006 05:00 PM

So....

nobody's home.

anyone want to have a party?

Woooooooo.

Woooohooooo!

Party!

Yeah!

anybody wanna' dance?

Posted by: Smafdy | March 30, 2006 07:21 PM

Hey WaPO, brace for the DC talk radio offensive! You thought you could keep us reading while you shilled for this Administration and led the cheers for war. Well, you are about to be reminded that you have readers (more and more former readers) to serve. Watch as your circulation melts away. You ignore your home town and you betray your faithful readers, and what do you expect? Time for your wake-upcall.

Posted by: Joel | March 31, 2006 02:37 AM

I love this blog. It's like an ongoing testimonial to the editorial cowardice of both Brady and Little. I especially love how their initial enthusiasm for dialogue with their readers simply evaporated in the wake of those readers holding them accountable for their truly awful editorial decisions. Turns out what they were interested in was the appearance of editorial competence rather than the substance of it.

Kind of like this administration. They managed the stagecraft of the presidency for a while, but can't quite handle the policy aspects of it and that's biting them in the butt now.

Posted by: AJ | March 31, 2006 09:09 AM

"I love this blog. It's like an ongoing testimonial to the editorial cowardice of both Brady and Little. I especially love how their initial enthusiasm for dialogue with their readers simply evaporated in the wake of those readers holding them accountable for their truly awful editorial decisions. Turns out what they were interested in was the appearance of editorial competence rather than the substance of it. "

AJ gets the Exposing The Fools award. I applaud you.

Also, Brady's a wanker.

Posted by: Taniwha | March 31, 2006 10:08 AM

When we getting a conservative blogger? Why be beholden to all these left-over hippies WaPo?

Posted by: Mama Cass died for your sins | March 31, 2006 12:47 PM

Would love to see the Washington Post do a story on how the White House, the Republican Party, and republican advertisers make demands on the editorial policy of the newspaper. It could be a blockbuster. Anyone here up to it? Could be a Pulitzer in it for you!

Posted by: rwcole | March 31, 2006 03:59 PM

The blog is still up and running.

Maybe they've:
given up on blogging altogether
figured out editing comments is a useless exercise.
begun an experiment to see how long people will remain angry enough about Ben to keep posting.

Whatever the reason, it's interesting.

Posted by: look at that! | March 31, 2006 04:24 PM

AJ | March 31, 2006 09:09 AM :

"I love this blog. It's like an ongoing testimonial to the editorial cowardice of both Brady and Little. I especially love how their initial enthusiasm for dialogue with their readers simply evaporated in the wake of those readers holding them accountable for their truly awful editorial decisions. Turns out what they were interested in was the appearance of editorial competence rather than the substance of it.

Kind of like this administration. They managed the stagecraft of the presidency for a while, but can't quite handle the policy aspects of it and that's biting them in the butt now."

AJ -- Well put.

It's very much like a Cargo Cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult).

TBogg coined the phrase "Bush cargo cultists" for the undying Bush loyalists (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006/03/bush-cargo-cult.html).

But you can argue that the Administration itself is a Cargo Cult. They do all the public leadership-like stuff just like they've seen from Churchill on down, and print all that background signage, without realizing that without the competence and the policy substance it's not going to work -- just like the Melanesians after World War II lighting fires along immitation airstrips, thinking it would bring the cargo back because that was what the white people did (notice how in that photo there's even a fake wood airplane and an immitation control tower).

As you say, The Post seems to have been infected with this disease -- "If we just manage to look bloggy enough..."

Posted by: mz | April 1, 2006 01:08 AM

I love that -- "if they look bloggy enough"

If we keep posting to this blog, do you think they will keep it going?

Maybe we can make turn this blog into a sort of Dadaist project among those of us who still check it out. We can help them make it look "bloggy" -- fake troll posts, the faux earnest poster still waiting on a response, the periodic postings from the Vietnamese restaurant in Alexandria, the true believers in truthiness, etc. Could be fun ... and I bet Jane and the folks at FireDogLake could have some kinda fun with it.

Posted by: AJ | April 1, 2006 10:29 AM

Posted by: AJ | April 1, 2006 10:29 AM

Great "idear" AJ!

We've got Ubu in the W.H.

A Dadaist blog project sounds perfect.

Posted by: Tango Belle | April 1, 2006 01:10 PM

Very well, let's get this "Blog Cult" going!

Posted by: mz | April 1, 2006 02:54 PM

BEN IS A REAL AMERICAN PATRIOT SET UP BY THE LIBERL MEDIA

YOU FEKNG LIBRAL SCUM THINK YOUR SO CLEVER BUT YOUR JUST TRAITORS

LIKE THEY SAYD AT REDSTATE THE DEATH PENLTY TO THE LEBRAL TRATORS WHO GANG ON BEN!!!!!

DYE LIEBRAL VERMIN SCUM!!!!11

Posted by: 4TH AMENT PTRIOT | April 1, 2006 03:06 PM

The scary thing is that people at RedState did advocate the death penalty for all of us 'character assassins' here (see quote below). And no, it's not a joke, if you read their site regularly you know they really mean it. Eliminationist rhetoric has become so common on the right that it's even seeping into the traditional media (see Ann Coulter on the cover of Time) without any of their self-important guardians of civil discourse even batting an eye.

"My support of the death penalty, is based upon the concept that certain offenses against society are worthy of forfeiture of the offenders life. Unfortunately, that concept has become limited to the taking of anothers life. I, on the other hand, am quite comfortable of including acts that denigrate the society as a whole. Traitors easily are included in my parameters as are character assassins, abortion practioneers and their apologists, and those who would lie to gain power to corrupt. Consequently, be glad I'm not King or Thomas would have his wish substantially fulfilled."

Posted by: mz | April 1, 2006 03:20 PM

I would like to apply to Washington Post for Jim Brady's position. He clearly does not want to do the job. I will definitely be more responsive to the readers, and gurantee not to hire a loser like Ben Domenech. And when I make a mistake, and I am sure I will, the correction will be swift.

Oh I will indeed create controversy to get readers, but not the kind that tends to portray the Washington Post as a rudderless institution whose management has no understanding of this thingy called blog.

Posted by: lib | April 1, 2006 10:32 PM

Ben Domenech resigned? When did THAT happen?

Posted by: smafdy | April 2, 2006 09:38 AM

Wow, Deborah Howell's column is so much fluff that I wonder if she takes her role as an omsbudsman seriously? Seriously, she get's 4,000 letters of complaint, prints one, and offers no further insite into the Post's view of balanced journalism.

When the omsbudman writes a column explaining how reporters should behave on tv, radio, and live chats, you know she doesn't actually care how they act in the newsroom or on the printed page.

Posted by: Get a new omsbudsman | April 2, 2006 12:33 PM

Well now. You have tried to bury the wash.blog link. Good job. Brady still there? Pity.

Posted by: | April 3, 2006 12:58 PM

Brady and Little have reached unheard-of levels of cowardice. You cannot even link directly to this blog any longer. You have to do a search to find it.

When is WAPO going to get rid of these ridiculous little cowards?

As for Howell, she came out of hiding to write a meaningless column about journalists' responsibility to the WAPO's franchise. About time!

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | April 3, 2006 01:14 PM

4TH AMENT PTRIOT

You are my kinda guy ... wanna meet up at TGIF and knock back a few drinks? I'll be wearing pink and carrying a copy of Scooter's novel. How will I recognize you?

Posted by: Ann Coulter | April 3, 2006 09:50 PM

DUH ANN

COMBT BOOTS BLAK CARGO PANTS AND CAMO TANK OVIUSLY

THAT WAS A STPID QUESTION BUT TATHS ALRITE I DNOT LIKE WEMEN WHO TRY TO BE TO SMART

TELL BEN TO COME TO

Posted by: 4TH AMENT PTRIOT | April 4, 2006 01:32 AM

Hands off my man there Annie. I'm packin' heat.

Posted by: Laura I. | April 4, 2006 08:53 AM

Patriots everywhere salute the exemplary blogginess (def.: style of debate and dialogue without any of the actual substance of either) of this blog.

Brady, you are hereby nominated for a "Tip of the Hat" at Colbert Nation.

Posted by: S. Colbert | April 4, 2006 12:17 PM

I'm looking for a new job, Jim. No blogging credentials but LOTS of connections in this town. I know the goods on EVERYBODY dontcha know. There's no way I'll be worse at this than little Ben.

Posted by: T. Delay | April 4, 2006 12:27 PM

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Hey, can I get a job at the Post?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein | April 4, 2006 01:17 PM

Hey Jim Brady,

You should hire Tom DeLay as your "conservative" blogger. I hear he'll be having a lot of time on his hands.

For good measure, I suggest you throw in another "moral value" man who suddenly lost his employment last night. You know? His name is Doyle, I think. He used to be Deputy Press Secretary at the DHS, but he got naughty...

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | April 5, 2006 12:20 PM

Who you calling conservative there buddy? Tom Delay is fair and balanced -- as honest as the day is long -- a paragon of personal and political virtue -- giant among elves -- pearl among peas -- and a handsome man.

Posted by: S. Hannity | April 5, 2006 01:30 PM

Stiil tryin to put lipstick on the PIG? Brady still there? Geez.

Posted by: | April 8, 2006 01:50 PM

It's apparent that Idaho Governor Dork Kempthorne will be approved as President Goober W. Bush's Secretary of the Interior. Have you been watching Kempthorne? He's the Governor who bounces bad checks in Boise! Call Editorial Reporter Dan Popkey at the Idaho Statesman. He could share some interesting information with you. (208) 377-6200.
Marvin Yates
Boise

Posted by: Marvin Yates | April 8, 2006 10:30 PM

I can't believe you idiots are STILL HERE whining! Get a life, losers!

Posted by: Mothereffer Sheehag | April 13, 2006 01:51 AM

LETS TAKE BACK THE OIL PRICES

Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to
>
> hit
>
> close to $ 4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might
>
> go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We
>
> need to take some intelligent, united action.
>
>
>
> Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea. This makes
>
> MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain
>
> day" campaign that was going around last April or May!
>
> The oil companies just laughed at that because they
>
> knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by
>
> refusing to buy gas. It was more of an
inconvenience
>
> to us than it was a problem for them. BUT, whoever
>
> thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can
>
> really work. Please read on and join with us!
>
>
>
> By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at
>
> about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently
>
> $2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the
>
> oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us
>
> to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at
>
> $1..50 - $1.75, we need to
>
> take aggressive action to
>
> teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace..not
>
> sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each
>
> day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we
>
> are going to see the price of gas come down is if we
>
> hit someone in
the pocketbook by not purchasing their
>
> gas! And, we can do that WI THOUT hurting ourselves.
>
> How?
>
>
>
> Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop
>
> buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if
>
> we all act together to force a price war.
>
>
>
> Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T
>
> purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies
>
> (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not
>
> selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their
>
> prices. If they reduce their prices, the other
>
> companies will have to follow suit. But to have an
>
> impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon
>
> and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now,
>
> don't wimp
>
> out on me at this
point...keep reading and
>
> I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of
>
> people!!
>
>
>
> I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us
>
> send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and
>
> those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 =
>
> 3,000)...and so on, by the ti me the message reaches
>
> the sixth group of people, we will have reached over
>
> THREE MILLION consumers.
>
>
>
> If those three million get excited and pass this on to
>
> ten friends each, then 30 million people will have
>
> been contacted! If it goes one level further, you
>
> guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!
>
>
>
> Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people.
>
> That's all!
>
> (If you don't understand how we can
reach 300 million
>
> and all you have to do is send this to 10 people....
>
> Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician.
>
> But I am . so trust me on this one.) :-)
>
>
>
> How long would all that take? If each of us sends
>
> this
>
> e-mail out to ten more people within one day of
>
> receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be
>
> contacted within the next 8 days!!! I'll bet you
>
> didn't think you and I had that much potential, did
>
> you! Acting together we can make a difference.
>
>
>
> If this mak es sense to you, please pass this message
>
> on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL
>
> THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP
>
> THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
>
>
>
> Kerry Lyle,
Director, Research Coordinator
>
>
>
>
>

Posted by: W.C. from louisiana | April 13, 2006 10:12 AM

I can hardly believe it. The Domenech thread and J. Brady still here. So the blog was discontinued yet the Domenech Thread is turning into a fixture.
What a weird place this is.

Posted by: Tango Belle | April 23, 2006 01:43 AM

Awesome blog. Peace out until next time TabathaOster

Posted by: TabathaOster | May 18, 2006 11:00 AM

Reality and Morality in a combat zone by Major Peter Kilner.

It is both good and bad news that Major Peter Kilner has lectured readers whose approaches to making moral judgments on wartime actions are fundamentally flawed. It is good news because I have hope that his boxing ring metaphor puts all of us who make moral judgments on war in the same arena. This is as good a place as any to confront the enemy who the Major sees are either those who are convinced the war, or wars, is wrong or are so convinced of the rightness of "our cause" (meaning war?) that they refuse to acknowledge that our soldiers sometimes make choices that are clearly wrong and for which they should be held accountable. It is bad news that the Major makes the assumption that he speaks for his "fellow soldiers" who he believes fully recognize that they are responsible for their individual actions and who "continue to exhibit remarkable restraint."

The really sad part of the Major's machination is evidenced in his assertion that "our permission to do violence to other human beings is constrained by our obligation to do so only when it is morally justified." The really troubling aspect of his logic is not that "people are unable to reconcile the fact that unjust actions can and do occur within a war," but that in his view the current war, or wars, are "morally justified." He goes on to berate those who favor the current war efforts and who "equate supporting the laws of war (italics added) with being unpatriotic and disdainful of the troops" with failing to recognize that their argument is both insulting to soldiers and corrosive to the foundation of the military profession! You can't have it both ways, right?

Perhaps we should now drag out the archaic architecture of our venerable Constitution and the "ancient fiction" of the Nuremburg Principles and parade these in front of our honorable officer cadre.

Citation one:

the U.S. Constitution, to which the president swears allegiance, to the American Congress. Article 1, Sec. 8(11) states that "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war." As Alexander Hamilton indicated, the president is commander-in-chief, but he is to fulfill his responsibilities only within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress. As Alexander Hamilton indicated, the president is commander-in-chief, but he is to fulfill his responsibilities only within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.


Citation two:
Principle I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave-labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Where the good Major has keen insight is in his assertion that "this war's battlefields are terribly complex." He sights examples that should make grown men who are apparently wise enough at the age of 35 when they first become eligible to run for President to cringe in fear and indecision. Whose fault is that? Is it that of the voters of this country? Is it that of the country's elected representatives? Is it that of Osama bin Laden? Shouldn't we all take a deep breath and ask these questions in a bipartisan manner?

Finally, Major Kilner is also right on the money, in my opinion, when he points the finger at Leadership: "American military history reminds us that war crimes can be prevented by small-unit leaders with moral courage and judgment." Unfortunately, we don't have those qualities in our current crop leaders who are busily strategizing about the Big Picture at Camp David and in Baghdad.

Posted by: Phil Brandt | June 13, 2006 07:42 PM

It is a big relief that he has gone. Had done a lot of foolish things Just hoping they do not hire someone like him.

S.K.
Work From Home Information Provider

Posted by: | June 27, 2006 09:22 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company