David Broder’s take on a journalist’s professional responsibilities sounds about right: “People think that we are part of the establishment and therefore part of the problem. I mean, what bothers me is the notion that journalists believe, or some journalists believe, that they can have their cake and eat it too…. You can be a public performer on the lecture circuit or television. I think that’s greedy.”
The irony, of course, is rich. Harper’s Ken Silverstein recently documented Broder’s extensive (and lucrative) moonlighting, in which he became “a public performer on the lecture circuit.” He spoke to groups that lobby Congress; he addressed organizations that work on issues he writes about; and he even accepted a 13-night “Rio and the Amazon” cruise in exchange for three speeches about presidents he has covered.
Today, the WaPo’s ombudsman, Deborah Howell, explored the propriety of Broder’s unprofessional conduct. (Howell conceded at the outset that Broder is a personal friend of hers. It’s hardly a stretch to wonder if she pulled her punches accordingly.)
Broder said he adheres to “the newspaper’s strict rules on outside activities” and “additional constraints of my own. I have never spoken to partisan gatherings in any role other than a journalist nor to an advocacy group that lobbies Congress or the federal government. Virtually all of the speeches I have made have been to college or civic audiences.”
The NAM, the ACCF and the national parents of the Minnesota group and Northern Virginia Realtors do lobby Congress. Broder later said he broke the rules on those speeches. He also said he had cleared his speeches with Milton Coleman, deputy managing editor, or Tom Wilkinson, an assistant managing editor, but neither remembered him mentioning them. Wilkinson said Broder had cleared speeches in the past. Editors should have been consulted on all of the speeches as well as the cruise.
“I am embarrassed by these mistakes and the embarrassment it has caused the paper,” Broder said.
Well, sure. When the “Dean” of the DC political media establishment violates his own paper’s ethics guidelines, and then fails to tell the truth about it, he should be embarrassed. Broder was required to get permission for his speeches, and didn’t. He said he didn’t speak to groups that lobby the government. He had. Broder said his speeches had been cleared. They weren’t.
It’s as if Broder saw the self-serving, borderline-corrupt political process in DC for years, and began to think politicians’ sense of entitlement applied to him, as well.
Howell concludes that Broder “should have followed his own and The Post’s rules.” That is, of course, true. But given that he didn’t follow the rules, and his defense for his behavior turned out to be false (and apparently deceptive), are there going to be consequences? Will Broder face suspension? Demotion? Is a 14-word concession enough, or will he be asked to publish a public apology?
Will he return the money he accepted? Will the Post curtail Broder’s career as a television personality on talking-head shows? (Remember, Broder said it was “greedy” for a journalist to be a “public performer” on television.)
The answer, of course, to all of these questions is that Broder will probably face no punishment of any kind. Howell’s tepid column on page B6 and her underwhelming acknowledgement that Broder “should” have followed the rules will, in all likelihood, be seen as a sufficient reprimand.
As Atrios noted, “It is really an accountability-free profession.”
Yglesias added, “Imagine the press’s treatment of a politician caught up in a serious scandal we tried to get away with just mumbling ‘sorry.’ I can’t imagine Mark Foley or Elliot Spitzer getting away with that.”
Quite right. The resolution here seems rather underwhelming. Broder sets high standards for those he covers, condemns those who fall short, and then seems entirely satisfied that a brief acknowledgement of wrongdoing is more than enough to put all of his own unpleasantness behind him. I suspect if David Broder were writing about David Broder, he’d be unimpressed.
Ironically, just today, Broder admonishes Barack Obama for turning down John McCain’s invitation for 10 town-hall debates and rejecting the public-financing system:
By refusing to join McCain in these initiatives in order to protect his own interests, Obama raises an important question: Has he built sufficient trust so that his motives will be accepted by the voters who are only now starting to figure out what makes him tick?
I don’t know, Mr. Broder, have you built up sufficient trust so that your condemnations about political propriety will be accepted by readers who are only now starting to figure out what makes you tick?