Going Post-al

At this point, it's almost a cliché to say that the media loves to dish out scrutiny of powerful institutions -- except for itself. But like many clichés, this one has a grain of truth.

Case in point: the continuing controversy over the actions of Susan Schmidt, a reporter at The Washington Post who is notorious in Washington circles for allegedly serving as the primary conduit for leaks from Ken Starr's Office of the Independent Counsel. As I reported early last month, two readers of the Web site MediaWhoresOnline.com (MWO) sent Schmidt angry e-mail from their work accounts in late March, prompting her, they claim, to retaliate by forwarding the e-mails to their respective employers.

When I first reported the story, Schmidt hung up on me and two Post editors failed to return phone calls. Ombudsman Michael Getler's assistant told me he had just returned from a trip and couldn't comment. The only initial on-the-record comment on the allegations, in fact, came from National Editor Liz Spayd, who told Jason Cherkis of the Washington City Paper that Schmidt was the target of a "coordinated campaign" and that "[a]t some point, it can get annoying."

The controversy grew in the ensuing days, with MWO often fanning the flames. Eric Boehlert cited my piece the next week in a Salon.com article (Salon Premium subscription required) criticizing thin-skinned journalists. Then Getler dismissed the issue in an April 21 column on the Post op-ed page, saying only that the controversy had been a source of vitriolic partisan e-mail to the newspaper. He didn't mention Schmidt by name.

If Getler thought this would settle the issue, he was mistaken. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist Gene Lyons fired back with a column bashing the Washington press -- including Schmidt -- for its hypersensitivity to criticism. Though it was sent to his email list on April 24, the Arkansas Times reported that Democrat-Gazette editors did not print the story because they believed its allegations about Schmidt were not sufficiently proven. A week later, the paper finally published the column, which MWO has reprinted on its site.

Finally, an MWO reader claimed that Tucker Carlson called the two readers who had brought the allegations against Schmidt "liars" during a commercial break in the taping of CNN's "Crossfire" on April 26. When contacted, he denied any familiarity with the Schmidt case and called the characterization untrue, saying that he criticized the partisan targeting of a news reporter in general. Members of the audience who identified themselves as MWO writers brought up the charges, he said. When told of the specifics of the allegations, he said, "Good for Sue Schmidt."

There can no longer be any doubt that Schmidt did send the e-mails in question. After a phone conversation with Getler in which he refused to confirm or deny the allegations, I received an e-mail stating the following:

As I said, The Post views this as an internal matter and is dealing with it that way. I deal with news issues involving material the Post has published. My understanding is that Ms. Schmidt did respond to two e-mails there [sic] were written on the electronic equivalent of letterhead stationery. I'm told that the Post has no formal or written policy on this, and my guess is that it had not come up before. I'm told that Ms. Schmidt has been told that she should not have contacted the e-mailer's employers, and should not do it again, even though there was understanding of her feelings and her desire to let their employers know they were using the names of those organizations to attack her.

In addition, the supervisor of Andrew Rentschler, one of the readers, also confirms that she received an e-mail from Schmidt.

As I argued previously, while it may have been inappropriate for Rentschler and the other MWO reader (an associate at a prominent New York law firm) to send political email from their work accounts, Schmidt's response is unsettling. Vitriolic email from readers is part of the job in the modern media age. Her first responsibility as a reporter is to basic principles of journalism such as serving readers and promoting open debate on issues before the public -- not intimidating her critics into silence.

Moreover, the justification that Getler presents is misleading. What the ombudsman calls the "electronic equivalent of letterhead stationery" used by the two readers -- Rentschler and the associate -- was merely their work e-mail signatures, which were appended to the end of their e-mails. There is nothing about either reader's signature to suggest that their views represent those of an institution.

Post Managing Editor Stephen Coll and Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. have failed to return phone calls and e-mails seeking to discuss the way the paper has handled the story. And even Getler, the reader's representative, refuses to recognize this incident as being under his purview.

In sum, even for those who disagree with my view of Schmidt's actions, the Post's stonewalling and insistence on viewing the controversy as an "internal matter" seems painfully ironic. Consider this excerpt from Downie's new book The News About the News: American Journalism in Peril, co-written with the Post's Robert G. Kaiser:

Journalists have a special role in preserving one of America's greatest assets, our culture of accountability. Americans expect their leaders to behave responsibly, and usually take remedial action when they don't. This is an important reason why American society works better than many others... This is especially true for those who hold power in our government "of the people, by the people, for the people," but for others as well. Corporate officers hold power over companies and their customers. Foundation officers hold power over the distribution of vast sums of money. Those with power in film studios, television networks, book publishers and recording companies shape our popular culture. American society is diverse and decentralized; countless citizens exercise some power over the lives of other citizens.
Accountability is an important check on that power. Our politicians know that informed voters can throw them out of office; corporate CEOs recognize the authority of their boards of directors and the influence of their stockholders; a cop taking bribes knows he doesn't want to get caught. Good journalism is a principal source of the information necessary to make such accountability meaningful. Anyone tempted to abuse power looks over his or her shoulder to see if someone else is watching. Ideally, there should be a reporter in the rearview mirror.

The tectonic plates of American politics are moving, and the media is getting nervous.

Until recently, the establishment press unquestionably had the biggest megaphone in any given controversy. But now a news story or op-ed is pilloried on the Internet hours after it's released by webloggers like Andrew Sullivan, Joshua Micah Marshall, and Mickey Kaus, or partisans at sites like FreeRepublic.com and Media Whores Online (MWO), many of whom bombard their opponents with angry e-mail. (Disclosure: As a co-editor of Spinsanity, I also critique the political media online.)

In this changing world, the norms and practices of the lumbering print media leave it increasingly vulnerable to nimble online critics. Over the last two weeks, for example, New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman has blasted the right in columns on David Brock's book and Social Security. But Krugman-bashers like Sullivan have unlimited space and time to tear him apart for days between his twice-weekly 700 to 800 word columns. It's no contest, and it's even worse for news reporters who have no means for responding to critics at all.

The newest example of the war between the online and establishment media comes from Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt, who is "widely considered the most slavish recipient" of leaks from Ken Starr's Office of the Independent Counsel, according to an article by Marshall on Salon.com [Salon Premium subscription required]. Following her March 20 story with Neely Tucker on Robert Ray's final independent counsel report, MWO blasted Schmidt as "Steno[grapher] Sue Schmidt" and told readers to e-mail her, presumably to express their discontent with her reporting.

Two MWO readers, at least, did just that, and allegedly received much more than they were bargaining for.

Andrew Rentschler, an employee of a college in Pennsylvania, assailed Schmidt as having a "fanatical obsession with Clinton," said her work is that "of someone who has sold their soul to the devil," and asked if she was being blackmailed. An associate at a prominent New York City law firm wrote to Schmidt: "You sicken me. One last article filled with lies, distortions and blatant right-wing propaganda."

You get the idea -- the e-mails were, as the associate put it, "highly uncomplimentary," even abusive. But they did not threaten Schmidt in any way. These are the kind of garden-variety angry e-mails people in the political media receive all the time.

But after suffering through increasingly harsh criticism of her coverage of Clinton, Schmidt apparently snapped after receiving the emails, as MWO first reported (the story was then picked up by Jason Cherkis in the Washington City Paper).

According to both Rentschler and the associate, Schmidt researched the domain names the e-mails were sent from and forwarded their e-mails to their employers. While both have avoided repercussions, they are furious about what they regard as unprofessional actions from a journalist.

Is this a breach of faith? While Schmidt's actions break no hard-and-fast rules, it seems clear that journalists have a public interest obligation to not try to get people in trouble in their workplace for expressing their political views, however obnoxious they may be.

Aly Colon, a media ethics expert at the Poynter Institute, says that while Schmidt's behavior isn't "unethical," he "wouldn't necessarily encourage it." Colon believes journalists should allow the public to have its say, and then respond directly to the individual in question, calling that "more appropriate."

What's Schmidt's side of the story? What's the Post's policy on this? I can't tell you. When contacted by phone, an upset-sounding Schmidt said "I don't have anything to say" and then "I'm sorry, I gotta go" before hanging up on me. Calls to Managing Editor Stephen Coll and National Editor Liz Spayd went unreturned, and the assistant to ombudsmen Michael Getler said he had been out of the country and couldn't comment. Spayd, however, told Cherkis that Schmidt has been attacked by a "coordinated campaign" and that "[a]t some point, it can get annoying."

One wonders, however, whether the Post believes annoyance is a legitimate justification for what Schmidt did. Let's hope not. In the future, it'd be better for all involved if the Post just set up a blog and let Schmidt reply to her critics herself.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.