January 23, 2007 -- 12:15 PM EST // // Post a Comment
JOHN SOLOMON: WHAT'S A LITTLE INNUENDO BETWEEN FRIENDS?
Washington Post reporter John Solomon has just finished up his chat with readers. Looking through his responses to questions about his hit-piece on John Edwards, the only conclusion you can reach is that he's basically saying that there's nothing wrong with publishing innuendo on the front page of the Post.
I really don't think there's any other conclusion to be reached about what he said. Solomon, after all, appeared to say repeatedly that Edwards hadn't really done anything wrong. Here are the key parts:
A frontpage story doesn't have to always find wrongdoing or lead to prosecutions. It can simply illuminate how a candidate chose to address a basic requirement of his campaign -- achieving transparency on his or her financial dealings...Once again, Sen. Edwards doesn't have to break a law or even do something wrong to ask and answer these very basic questions.
So Edwards didn't do anything wrong. But the story is justified because Edwards didn't answer "basic questions" about the transaction, Solomon says. Yet at another point, Solomon basically concedes that he didn't actually have to answer these questions yet:
Sen. Edwards hasn't filed his financial disclosure form yet. He still has some time to do that. That's where he'll fulfill his legal obligation.
So now the story is justified by the fact that Edwards didn't disclose the sellers' identity earlier than he was obliged to. In other words, his behavior wasn't quite as perfect as it might have been. That's just beyond thin.
But put that absurdity aside for a moment. Here's the key point, one that Solomon and his editor are refusing to respond to, and indeed aren't even bothering to deny: Even if the story didn't directly allege wrongdoing -- in keeping with Solomon's concession now that Edwards didn't do anything wrong -- the story very clearly implied that there was something untoward about the deal. It trafficked in innuendo and suggestion in various questionable ways. If you go back and read the story, there's simply no escaping this fact. One of Solomon's in-house critics -- ombud Deborah Howell -- has suggested this, and she's right.
Yet Solomon defends the story and its placement. As he puts it, "I have no regrets at all about the story or its play in the Post." While conceding it didn't allege wrongdoing, he's nonetheless unrepentant about the fact that it implied untoward behavior. In other words, there's nothing wrong with putting innuendo on the front page of the Post.
To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.