The Washington Post's executive editor should resign
It's becoming increasingly, dismayingly clear that The Washington Post (WPO) made a mistake when it hired Marcus Brauchli to be its executive editor.Brauchli came into the Post job a little more than a year ago with a big strike against him: As managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, he had allowed Rupert Murdoch, the paper's new owner, to push him around -- and ultimately out the door -- in contravention of the editorial-independence framework that the News Corp. (NWS) owner had agreed to. Rather than sound the alarm, Brauchli held his tongue, his amiable silence purchased by $3 million (or more) of Murdoch's money.
A failure of journalistic principle, or an instance of an honest guy making the best of tough circumstances? The case for the former scenario became apparent in July when the Post was revealed to be planning a series of off-the-record salons that offered corporate underwriters access to the paper's journalists and government policymakers. Brauchli and his boss, Post publisher Katharine Weymouth, distanced themselves by claiming they didn't know that the events were conceived in such a way as to violate the Post's ethics guidelines.
I took them at their word when I called for more moderation in the media feeding frenzy then under way. Still, an executive editor ought to know what his journalists are being used for. Strike two.
And now, strike three: Brauchli admitted he knew all along that the salons were meant to be off-the-record. He says the reporters who published his ignorance defense merely "misunderstood" the distinction he was trying to make, but he acknowledges that he knowingly allowed a false impression to be propagated -- one that misleadingly diminished his share of the blame and unfairly reassigned it to a business-side employee, Charles Pelton. It was only through the diligence of Pelton's lawyer that the truth ever came to light.
This is serious. This isn't about journalistic judgment; it's about integrity. Brauchli was given a chance to take responsibility, and he responded by falling back on the exact sort of obfuscation and hair-splitting that newspapers like his exist to demolish. And he's still doing it: In a chat with Post readers today, Brauchli faulted himself for failing to see to it that the salons were marketed correctly, but said nothing about his own role in propagating the "misunderstanding." No doubt he's a fine journalist in many regards, but the top editor of an institution like The Washington Post -- one of a handful of great American newspapers, and the first line of defense against government perfidy -- has to be more than just a fine journalist. He has to be a paragon.
Brauchli will probably survive this episode, if only because his boss, at whose pleasure he serves, shares his culpability. But he should offer his resignation. Columbia Journalism Review's Dean Starkman wrote back when Brauchli was merely a candidate for the Post job: "The day will come when the next executive editor of The Washington Post will have to choose between the easy way or the hard way." That day just came and went.



























Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-19-2009 @ 6:03PM
Johnson said...
This is way too tough on Brauchli to the point where one wonders if there was another motivation. Best I can tell and read, he has taken responsibility for the mistake and has shown himself to be honorable and I think your challenge of his integrity is a bit hasty and certainly thin. By virtually all accounts from anyone actually in a position to know, Brauchli is a solid newsman with very good journalistic instincts and is respected by all the journalists I know. He will survive...but that's because he should. It's good newsmen like Brauchli that we need leading our top papers.
Reply
10-20-2009 @ 11:52AM
Jeff Bercovici said...
Johnson, there's no other motivation except my disappointment. I was covering the Wall Street Journal when Brauchli left, and I, along with a lot of other people, thought it was a shame that he rolled over for Murdoch the way he did. As Dean Starkman pointed out, for the editorial-independence agreement to have any effectiveness, it would have required Brauchli to speak up. The agreement existed specifically for that scenario. I would argue that Brauchli had a responsibility to the Dow Jones shareholders who approved the deal in the belief that Murdoch's influence would be contained, at least at first, and he abdicated that responsibility.
In other words, if it were just the salons thing, yes, my call for Brauchli to resign would be way too harsh. But there's a pattern emerging. He is not looking like someone whose instinct is to speak truth to power no matter the consequences.
10-20-2009 @ 1:53AM
Dollared said...
The news about Brauchli trying to increase the profit margin on influence peddling (I know, a quaint, old-fashioned term from the days before it was legal to openly buy legislators) through the salons, along with his complete lack of integrity in ruining a man's career rather than tell the truth, indeed should provoke his resignation.
The corroboration of suspicions of Brauchli's low ethical standards is shown on WaPo's editorial page every day. Absolutely any any insurance company lobbyist, right wing torturer (from any country), global-warming-denier or middle-east-war-monger can get a dozen column inches to peddle bald-faced, provable lies at any time at Mr. Brauchli's house, free of any editorial review or fact checking.
The WaPo is the town crier in a town where the real local industry is people with power spending tons of money to defeat the truth. Brauchli's obvious intent is to get his cut, the truth be damned. Show him the door.
Reply