A Leaky Post Newsroom

mediabistro ^ | Nov 17, 2005 | FishbowlDC

[james500]

The Post's internal critiques are proving to be a real opportunity for internal discussion -- and the critiques in the wake of the Bob Woodward controversy of this week are no exception.

Now in the wake of more revelations and debates over leaked information, the internal message boards are humming with a debate over, well, leaks from the message boards.

Today they're debating the propriety of the critiques, given that the more interesting ones often end up leaking outside the newsroom--and being posted on blogs, running in Washingtonian magazine, and even--horror of horrors--being quoted by Howard Kurtz in the paper itself.

"I hardly see any point in having critiques and comments if they are to be publicized outside the paper. How can we write candidly when candor merely invites violations of confidentiality? Many readers say they distrust us. Well, now I find myself wondering if we can trust each other," the Post's Jonathan Yardley writes.

Full debate after the jump.

[jjmcgo]

I'd love to see the Washington Post's internal critiques on MD4BUSH.
I can't see how anyone could be proud of the paper's role in that story.
Unless they were a Democratic Party operative working as a journalist.

[Mo1]

Funny though, they didn't feel that way when CNN and/or Eason Jordan "covered" for Saddam so they could stay "in country" and report "the truth" to us, did they?

Because CNN protected their hero Saddam

[RobFromGa]

They can dish it out but they can't take it.

What a bunch of spoiled brats. They make their living from leaks and they expect that their actual words are never going to come back to haunt them...