The Washington Post’s Dana Priest is a great reporter. Her work on the scandalous treatment of recovering veterans at Walter Reed earner her a well-deserved Pulitzer.
But once in a while, a newspaper will ask a reporter to take on assignments that aren’t especially well suited to the journalist’s strengths. Last week, for example, the WaPo had Priest doing an online Q&A with readers, fielding election-related questions.
Q: Sen. Obama’s and Sen. McCain’s positions seem closer than ever on Iraq. The differences seem to be between a two-year withdrawal plan and a four-year withdrawal plan, though U.S. planning could be rendered moot by Iraqi government demands for a withdrawal. What, then, is the point of all the talk of “differences” on Iraq — a war for which the most kinetic aspects are essentially over, as all major insurgent groups have been dealt severe blows and there has not been any sign of the civil war-type violence that typified 2006? Will Iraq end up being a major election issue? And if it is not, whom does that benefit?
Dana Priest: Well, Obama started out more radical and, as we have seen, is moving to the center. My bet would be that McCain drops his surge idea — too difficult to pull off right now — and both candidate [sic] will end up with positions that are even more similar. Iraq will become less and less of a major election issue as this happens (except the left will disown Obama as they have begun to do. But they have no where [sic] else to go (exception Nader, like I said) so it won’t matter.
Tim Fernholz noted that “this kind of analysis is ridiculous” and “almost nothing in that paragraph is right.”
And he’s right. The problem is that Dana Priest probably doesn’t know anything about electoral politics, and has no idea what she’s talking about here. I’m not necessarily blaming her for that — this isn’t her beat.
But the Post had her fielding questions like these anyway, which was a mistake, and she answered them foolishly, which was an even bigger mistake.
* “Obama started out more radical.” — Really? What, exactly, was ever “radical” about Obama’s position? He supported, and continues to support, a cautious withdrawal. I can vaguely understand a Post reporter thinking that Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich is “radical,” but why Obama?
* “Obama … is moving to the center.” — Really? Because in our reality, Obama hasn’t moved at all. His position is exactly the same as it always was. In fact, just two days before Priest wrote this, Obama gave a high-profile speech — down the street from the WaPo offices — which explained his policy and why his policy hasn’t changed.
* “My bet would be that McCain drops his surge idea.” — Really? Because McCain doesn’t seem to have anything else, and has staked his entire campaign on the merit of this idea in Iraq, and bringing the exact same surge policy to Afghanistan. Why would he “drop” his signature campaign issue?
* [T]he left will disown Obama as they have begun to do.” — Really? Because, while Obama certainly drew justifiable criticism on FISA, “the left” tends to agree with Obama’s withdrawal policy. Why would the Democratic base “disown” Obama on this?
I remember English teachers I had as a kid always told me, “Write about what you know.”
Note to Washington Post reporters: don’t write about things you don’t know.