WaPo Chat Nuggets

2 comments February 20th, 2007at 06:57pm Posted by Eli

Just a mini-roundup of some interesting tidbits I noticed in various WaPo chat sessions. The most alarming being this wingnut question at the end of Dan Eggen’s chat about the fired US Attorneys, one of whom has yet to be identified, and “is not in the West, from what [Eggen’s] been told”:

Baltimore: Has Fitzgerald’s name been mentioned as at least a candiadate to be fired? After the pursuing the Valerie Plame case for years after he knew he had no crime, I’d think the idea of firing him would at least occur to somebody.

Dan Eggen: I will post this just because there have been a number of questions along this line, inquiring about the identity ofthe other prosecutor.

We obviously put everything significant in the paper that we can confirm, and all that I have been able to confirm so far about the eighth unidentified prosecutor is that this person was called and informed on Dec. 7 that he or she was being fired, but has somehow negotiated out of it, at least until now. I have not confirmed a name.

But I am ALWAYS open to tips if anyone’s got one! My email is eggend@washpost.com and my direct line is 202-334-7542.

Oh my. That would be something. I doubt it’s Fitz – I’m not sure even Dubya has that much chutzpah. But if he did, it would make sense to wait until after the Libby trial to officially pull his plug to avoid (more) uncomfortable Saturday Night Massacre comparisons.
From Peter Baker’s chat on politics in general:

Old City:“The notion that there are “powers that be” across the media that get together and decide collectively how to treat a story would be funny if you saw how a news outfit really works. Honestly, there’s no conspiracy.” Yep, not on the news side, but on the editorial side Hiatt and Co. have had an agenda for quite a while now — and it ain’t liberal…

Peter Baker: The Post editorialists have a point of view and they use their page to express it. So does every newspaper. My point was that doesn’t have anything to do with news coverage. And for what it’s worth, Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Post editorial pages, also prints a variety of columns by people of widely differing points of view — from Richard Cohen and Gene Robinson to George Will and Charles Krauthammer.


And, of course, we have Howie…

Re: Plame: Do you think the press will push further about the Plame story after the trial? There’s been a bunch of interesting news in the testimony.

Howard Kurtz: I don’t think the trial has suffered for lack of media attention, and I’m not sure how long it lasts after the verdict, especially since a large number of Americans find the whole case incomprehensible.


Boston: Where are you getting that a large number of Americans find the case incomprehensible. The only poll I’ve see says 70 percent of Americans find the Libby trial to be very important. [I think they’re talking about this one, #41] It seems it’s the D.C. media that wishes it would go away.

Howard Kurtz: I’m the first to argue that the reputation of Washington journalism has hardly been enhanced by this trial. But the major MSM outlets have covered the trial every day. Outside of the media/political world, though, I believe there is very little interest in a former vice presidential aide who was hardly a household name and who is accused not of outing a CIA operative but of lying about what he did with reporters. I wish there was more public interest in the case, but as I watch Fox and MSNBC continuing wall-to-wall coverage of the latest Anna Nicole hearing this afternoon, I just don’t think there is. Maybe if federal trials were televised, the situation would be different.

Move along, nothing to see here…

Entry Filed under: Bush,Constitution,Corruption/Cronyism,Libby/Plame,Media,Politics


  • 1. MEC  |  February 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    “I wish there was more public interest in the case, but as I watch Fox and MSNBC continuing wall-to-wall coverage of the latest Anna Nicole hearing this afternoon, I just donít think there is.”

    I see that Howie is as defiantly clueless as ever. I don’t suppose he really thinks the public decides what stories the snooze media cover. It’s hard for the public to get interested in the Libby story if they don’t know anything about it because the snooze media are filling up the airtime with Anna Nicole and Britney.

  • 2. Eli  |  February 20th, 2007 at 9:39 pm

    He addressed that specifically. It was very strange.

    He basically said that although recent polling says that 61% of the population thinks ANS is overcovered, and only 11% are “following it very closely”, that 11% is who they’re catering to.

    No joke, it’s the first exchange on the chat.

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




February 2007
« Jan   Mar »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *