Sad times for The Washington Times

Via Memeorandum, I notice my buddy Jimmie Bise has blogged about the recent sad news at the Washington Times. I left a comment there:

You know, Jimmie, I tendered my resignation in January 2008, two days after they hired the Washington Post's John Solomon to replace Wes Pruden as editor. Right after Solomon's hiring was announced, one of my newsroom colleagues said to me, "If I had wanted to work for a Postie, I would have applied at the %$#&ing Post!"

Exactly -- but that colleague didn't quit. I did. And my decision proved to be the smart move. I got out before things went to hell, which has given me a two-year head start on establishing an independent career online, while most of my former colleagues who haven't already been kicked to the curb soon will be.

Understand this: I never had anything personally or politically against John Solomon, and Dave Bossie (a staunch conservative) described Solomon as a good guy. But I've always felt that any good organization should promote from within, which had been the general policy of the Washington Times.

During my decade-plus at the Times (1997-2008), the top jobs were almost always held by people who had proven their ability and their loyalty through years of hard work for the company. The most notable exception to that policy was when they hired Tony Blankley as editorial page editor and, given Blankley's national reputation, there was not much grumbling about that.

The decision of the newspaper's management to pass over Fran Coombs in favor of Solomon as Wes Pruden's replacement was a mistake. Solomon's subsequent hiring of his Washington Post buddy Jeff Birnbaum as a managing editor was a worse mistake, and hiring USA Today's Barbara Slavin as assistant managing editor was worse still.

With three top newsroom positions filled by recent outside hires, the effective message to the newsroom staff was: "Screw you, you're not good enough to deserve a promotion."

The Disgruntled and Dysfunctional
Like I said, I'm glad I got out before that happened. In any large organization, just about everybody will eventually get passed over for promotion at some time, and it's easy to become disgruntled.

The promotion I got in 2003, from assistant national editor to editor of the "Culture, Etc." page, was not the job I wanted -- I actually begged them not to put me there -- but loyalty is loyalty. And I did such a good job at it as to make myself irreplaceable. (After I left, the new editors eliminated the culture page, which President Bush had praised as his favorite feature in his favorite paper.)

When I was hired at The Washington Times in November 1997, I'd promised my wife I'd only stay three to five years, then parlay that national-level experience into a job at some paper in her native Ohio. Ah, but then there was the Lewinsky scandal, the impeachment, the 2000 election deadlock, 9/11 . . .

How could I walk away from the thrill of being smack-dab in the middle of stuff like that? So I stayed, even if I was stuck in a desk-job that wasn't exactly my cup of tea. In doing so, however, I was violating career the advice I've always given to others: "If you don't move up, move out."

An Ounce of Loyalty
Life is too short to waste time being bitter because you didn't get the promotion you wanted. Either make the best of the job you're in, or else find another company that will recognize and reward your abilities. If you're really good at what you do, you'll success, and the company that failed to make full use of your abilities will regret your departure.

Beyond the general decline of the newspaper business, much of what has gone wrong at The Washington Times was a function of faulty organizational dynamics. The spirit of teamwork was undermined because of a relative handful of spiteful, selfish, disgruntled malcontents who did not heed Elbert Hubbard's wise advice:

If you work for a man, in heaven's name work for him!
If he pays you wages that supply you your bread and butter, work for him -- speak well of him, think well of him, stand by him and stand by the institution he represents.
I think if I worked for a man I would work for him. I would not work for him a part of the time, and the rest of the time work against him. I would give an undivided service or none.
If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness.
If you must vilify, condemn and eternally disparage, why, resign your position and, when you are outside, damn to your heart's content. But, I pray you, so long as you are a part of an institution, do not condemn it. Not that you will injure the institution -- not that -- but when you disparage the concern of which you are a part, you disparage yourself.

There were too many people at the Washington Times -- only a handful, really, but enough to destroy the spirit of effective teamwork -- who thought they knew how to run a newspaper better than Wes Pruden and Fran Coombs knew how to run a newspaper. They have had their way and, as a result, the newspaper has been run into the ground.

It's a crying shame, and it remains to be seen whether The Washington Times can ever again become what it once was: The most important newspaper in the world, providing an invaluable balance to the liberal Post, reporting stories in the nation's capital that would have otherwise been ignored.

Tuckpo Update
Last night, I saw a friend who gave me the latest word on Tucker Carlson's long-delayed DailyCaller.com. They've reportedly gotten a new investment of $3 million and now expect to roll out in January -- at least six months later than Carlson promised in May.

Well, good luck with that, but I'm reminded of a conversation I had this past spring. After seeing what I'd written in the wake of the Culture 11 Hindenberg-at-Lakehurst implosion, I was contacted by guy who is affiliated with a major conservative foundation. He wanted to "pick my brain," as they say, about how an online news operation could be developed, and we talked for more than an hour.

Among other things, I explained that personnel is policy. What went wrong at Culture 11 had a lot to do with the fact that David Kuo was hired to run it. Kuo is a second-rater who couldn't make a profit on the snow-cone franchise in Hell, and there was nothing on his resume to suggest he knew anything about running a news operation. Hire the wrong guy at the top and you'll get bad results every time.

What I told my foundation-funded friend was this: If you're going to start a conservative news operation, the first thing you need to do is to hire Fran Coombs to run it. Nobody in Washington knows how to do it better, and anybody who tells you otherwise is wrong.

That was last spring. Given the subsequent success of BigGovernment.com, I'd say the second guy you need to hire if you're going to start a conservative news operation is Andrew Breitbart.

Whatever other decisions were subsequently made, any conservative news organization that could combine the Old School journalism savvy of Coombs with the New Media brilliance of Breitbart would be unbeatable. And you wouldn't need seven months and $3 million to make it happen.

As I say, I wish all the luck to DailyCaller.com. But it had better not suck.

The real (?) story behind the recent turmoil at The Washington Times

Because I worked for 10 years at The Washington Times, several people have asked me what I know about recent reports of chaos and catastrophe at the newspaper. As I've explained here from time to time, my decision to leave the Times in January 2008 was the result of various personal and professional considerations, including the desire to be able to do more of the kind of on-the-scene reporting that I did in the 2008 presidential campaign and the NY23 special election.

When "insider" tales about the operations of The Washington Times come out in the media, there's always an element of bias, as the news organizations publishing the reports are, at the very least, business competitors of the newspaper, if not indeed political adversaries. And because I was often mendaciously backstabbed by gossipy anonymous "inside sources," I know better than to accept at face value the stuff that gets leaked out of the Times newsroom.

However, a friendly fellow journalist recently asked me what I knew about the latest brouhaha at the newspaper, and I felt obliged to share what little I knew. Perhaps some good might be done by sharing with blog readers what I wrote to that friend:

Nearly all I know -- or think I know -- about the recent upheaval at The Washington Times is what has been reported in the media, and you know how badly misinformed such reports can be. I have talked to various sources, but they have conflicting tales, so there is not much in the way of "special insight" I can share with you. Keep those caveats in mind, then, as you read my summary of the situation as I understand it.
During Wes Pruden's long tenure as editor in chief, his most important role -- little understood by his detractors -- was to serve as a "firewall" between the newsroom and the Unification Church. It seems to me obvious that the Rev. Moon came to trust Mr. Pruden's judgment as a professional newsman, so that when the newspaper came under attack from various enemies (including certain disgruntled, disloyal and dishonest employees), it was Mr. Pruden's authority that preserved the independence of the news operation.
Over the past decade, as the Rev. Moon grew older, he gradually delegated responsibilities that he once undertook personally. As a result, it seems the internecine squabbles within the Unification Church became more troublesome than ever to the operations of the Times. After 2004, when it began to be rumored that Mr. Pruden would retire as editor in chief of the paper, there commenced a lot of jockeying for position and backstabbing within the newsroom, especially by Mr. Pruden's internal critics, who sought above all else to deny the editorship to Pruden's second-in-command, Francis Coombs.
The Rev. Moon has reportedly chosen his son, Preston, to succeed him as supervisory proprietor of the newspaper. I've never had any direct dealing with Preston Moon and have no cause to dislike him or to judge his abilities, although he has a Harvard MBA and is therefore to be presumed a shrewd businessman. However, it appears that Preston Moon allowed himself to be swayed by Mr. Pruden's critics, so that Coombs was passed over, given a generous severance deal, and John Solomon was hired from the Washington Post.
This past week, some have told me that, contrary to what has been widely reported, the real story behind the recent ouster of Solomon (and three executives at The Washington Times) was financial. Preston Moon had become concerned that Solomon was spending far too much on an ambitious "re-branding" of the Times. Preston was also reportedly concerned that, under Solomon, the paper was losing its once-formidable market position as the nation's premier conservative news-gathering organization.
Of course, my sources for that version of the story are second-hand at best, and I share this with you only by way of suggesting that the real story about this recent turmoil may be either more complex or more simple than most people suspect. And I trust you won't mind if share this message (without identifying its recipient) with my blog readers.

Jonathan Slevin, recently named acting president and publisher of the Times, has published a note addressing some of the recent media reports. As to what happens next, I haven't the slightest clue, and would hesitate to offer any suggestions.

Ouch, Boss!

OK, I probably deserved this shot from Michelle Malkin:

And no, it isn't "playing the victim" to expose their bigotry.
It’s calling them out.

Without naming me, she evidently refers to my post yesterday:

Grant that the editors of Newsweek hate Sarah Palin. We have every reason to believe that the choice of photo of Palin in shorts represented an attempt to diminish and belittle Palin, to portray her as a cheesecake bimbo, the political equivalent of Lindsay Lohan. . . .
That this is "sexist," OK. Gotcha. But does Sarah Palin want to assume a feminist victimhood posture, to say that she is being oppressed by the patriarchy?

Given that I don't like it when people tell me how to frame my response to attacks on me, I suppose that I shouldn't be telling others how to frame their responses to attacks on them. The Golden Rule, in other words.

So if I'm correct that The Boss was aiming that elbow at me, I acknowledge the fault was mine. Mea culpa.

The old rule in the Washington Time newsroom was, "When in doubt, blame McCain." When I resigned last year, I wondered how they'd get along without having me around as the reliable scapegoat.

Answer? Not too good. Not too good at all.

Ruh-roh: Jew-baiting behind TWT uproar?

Hmmmmm. And hmmmmmm. OK, this is kind of hard to sort out, so we'll bullet-point it:

• Jonathan Slevin co-authors a novel that depicts U.S. foreign policy as "hamstrung and optionless because of Arab and Russian tyrants, oil, Middle East politics, American evangelicals, Israel, and AIPAC."
• Slevin reportedly handpicks Michael Scheuer to review the book for The Washington Times.
• Three senior executives of TWT are ousted, while Slevin is promoted to acting publisher.
• Executive editor John Solomon is reported to be "considering his options."

Quite a pickle here. Of course, I admit that the title of this post is misleading, since criticizing U.S. Middle East policy is not the same as "Jew-baiting." (But tell that to David Frum vis-a-vis "Unpatriotic Conservatives.") I was just looking for a shorthand label.

Having friends on both sides of the paleocon/neocon schism, I'm kind of an odd hawk-dove hybrid -- a Zionist paleo? -- and wish there were some sort of fusionist middle ground or, at least, that the two sides would stop anathematizing each other. Decades of this Manichean either/or game gets tiresome.

Anyway, when I posted about this "atavistic anarchy" earlier, I imagined that the reported turmoil at my former workplace was just a business matter. If, as these liberal bloggers suggest, it turns out to be a function of global geopolitics . . . well, wouldn't that be a kick in the head? Or maybe it's about ethics because of Slevin's hand-picking the reviewer, which violated company policy.

I'm betting there are many people in the Washington Times newsroom who are now fondly recalling the Wes Pruden era as the Good Old Days. As a news philosophy, "Get It First, Get It Right" had the virtue of simplicity.

Bad craziness at The Washington Times

Back in the day, the motto was always, "When in doubt, blame McCain," but I had nothing to do with the latest onset of atavistic anarchy:

The Washington Times has announced major changes at the paper this morning, with three top executives gone in the process.
Those removed Monday morning include Thomas P. McDevitt (president and publisher), Keith Cooperrider (chief financial officer), and Dong Moon Joo (chairman).
Jonathan Slevin, previously vice president, has been named acting president and publisher . . .
News of the executive shake-up follows rumors swirling around the Times Sunday night that there could be a major change on the editorial side, perhaps including executive editor John Solomon. However, Solomon was not mentioned in the release about changes to the business side. (Solomon has not responded to multiple calls and emails for comment).
There's also been speculation that changes at the Times could be associated with last month's handover of power in the Unification Church, the paper's owner. The Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who turns 90 in January, handed over power to his three sons . . .

And there's more:

Following Monday's news that top executives of the Washington Times have been removed, senior editors will be briefed at 10 a.m. this morning by members of the paper's Board.
Managing editor David Jones notified staff in a memo obtained by POLITICO.
Jones is second-in-command to executive editor John Solomon, who has been rumored to be leaving the paper, according to staffers . . .

Those of us who got out when the getting was good were the object of much badmouthing at the time. I still occasionally run across claims that I was fired, instead of resigning shortly after Solomon was hired from the Post. As a colleague said to me at the time, "If I wanted to work for a Postie, I would have applied at the f---ing Post."

One of the basic misconceptions that outsiders (and some insiders) had about The Times was that every problem at the paper was a function of the paper's conservative-alternative perspective: "It's those wacky right-wingers! Blame them!" But the newsroom operation was excellent. The real problems were always on the business side -- advertising, circulation and promotion.

So when the new management began by decapitating the newsroom -- Wes Pruden retired and Fran Coombs ousted -- it was certain that there would eventually be further bloodletting. Now it's come, and we wait to see what happens next.

UPDATE: Management spews mumbo-jumbo in press release:

The Washington Times LLC today announced that it is continuing on its path toward a sustainable multimedia news enterprise involving leadership expertise from within The Washington Times and directed by its Board of Directors and its parent company, News World Communications LLC.
Today's industry conditions and the general economic downturn necessitate this team-based assessment, planning, and subsequent implementation of a plan to enable The Times to become a sustainable multimedia company in today’s challenging news industry environment. . . .
[New publisher Jonathan Slevin]: "Our assessment team looks forward to emerging with a market-based plan that supports the sustainability of The Washington Times and advances the Times' role as an important source of news and opinion for readers who value a diversity of information and analysis."

Whatever that means -- probably not much, really. You could boil it down to, "Revenue sucks, so we're ditching some guys with big salaries."

The larger problem is that new giveaway tabloids -- the Examiner and Politico -- are cutting into the two paid-circulation daily broadsheets in D.C., while a plethora of Web-based outfits make it more and more difficult for newspapers to break exclusive news. Hell's bells, you can get scooped by Twitter and Facebook nowadays!

Michael Calderone asks a good question

And gets an interesting non-answer from the new management of my former employer:

Brett Decker, the managing editor of the [Washington Times] editorial and opinion pages, has been fulfilling [editorial page editor Richard] Miniter's duties the past few months, said staffers.
When reached for comment, Decker did not discuss Miniter, but commented more broadly about the opinion pages in a statement to POLITICO:
"The Washington Times has been putting a new Opinion team in place incrementally this year," Decker wrote. "We're plugging different people into different slots to see what works best. That process is still ongoing as we fine-tune our lineup."

Miniter was at the The American Spectator's Pig Roast three weeks ago, enjoying some fine Virginia whiskey and a Dominican cigar, but the one thing we did not discuss was his job at the Times. Richard reportedly had a heart attack shortly after he took that job, and I don't envy him. I've often remarked that if I ever told the story of my 10 years at the paper, the title of the book would be I've Served My Time in Hell.

The Washington Times is arguably one of the world's most important newspapers, and during Wes Pruden's tenure as editor-in-chief, there were times when there wasn't really much argument about it. The job of the Times, as Mr. Pruden conceived it, was to cover the stories that the liberal media tried to ignore -- and to cover those stories with such accuracy and relentlessness that the liberal media was forced to pay attention.

To work for Wes Pruden was not always an easy job, but it was a job to be proud of -- kind of like playing football for Bear Bryant. Even if you cussed the Old Man sometimes, when all was said and done, there was a genuine pride in being part of his team.

Since they changed editors in January 2008, the Times has gone through what 'Bama fans might call their "Ray Perkins Era" and, if you believe some of the gossip, it's sometimes gotten perilously close to the Bill Curry brick-through-the-window stage. But I never burn my sources, so I'll invoke my Miranda rights here.

Brett Decker's got a very impressive resume -- he once worked for Bob Novak, that "Unpatriotic Conservative" == so I reckon he knows his stuff. With no effort at all, I could name a dozen people who'd be qualified to run that editorial page (hello, Jed Babbin), and another three dozen who think they'd be qualified (hello, Tucker Carlson).

It's a coveted and prestigious job, and plenty of people would crawl half a mile through broken glass to get it (which may explain whatever problems Richard Miniter has experienced in the job). So we'll see what happens "incrementally."

Perhaps Decker will consult Mr. Pruden, who's still a regular columnist with the title of editor emeritus. Maybe the managing editor of Human Events could offer some useful personnel advice. Or ask Scott Rasmussen who he'd recommend for the job. Just sayin' . . .

(Via Memeorandum.)

'Retract, Please': Letter to the Editor of the Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette

Dear Sir:
Your Oct. 7 editorial, "Palin Book: Already No. 1," contains factual errors which are defamatory and potentially libelous, to wit: "In 2006, Vincent teamed up with white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain to write a shrill book titled Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime and Corruption in the Democratic Party . . ."

Leave it to critics to judge whether or not Donkey Cons is "shrill" -- I suspect your editorial writer has not bothered to read it -- and ask yourself what authority there is for your assertion that I am a "white supremacist." Were this true, it would certainly come as a surprise to my numerous colleagues and friends, who are quite a panorama of diversity.

In the fourth paragraph of the aforesaid editorial, your writer was at least clever enough to cite two authorities for this defamation:

1. A "former Washington Times reporter," whom we need not name, and whose personal problems -- divorce, unemployment, etc. -- might be considered relevant to his motives for maligning me and for the veracity of his accusations.
2. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which began attacking me in 2000, after I published a feature article based on an interview with Kansas author Laird Wilcox ("Researcher Says 'Watchdogs' Exaggerate Hate Group Threat," 5/9/2000, Page A2, The Washington Times).

The Fifth Amendment of our Constitution means that I am not compelled to deny every false statement made about me. However, my silence cannot be considered proof that such statements are true.

When these accusations were first made, during my employment at The Washington Times, management decided not to respond, as to do so would tend to suggest that the accusers had some credibility. Therefore, I was required to maintain silence, rather than to make any rebuttal. By the time I resigned from the newspaper, in January 2008, to undertake a research trip to Africa, the appropriate time for explaining several falsehoods and misunderstandings had certainly expired.

Over the years, this malicious campaign against my reputation has metastasized spectacularly on the Internet, as individuals and organizations with various political or personal motives have elaborated and repeated them. Some of the original sources for these accusations (e.g., a column by Michelangelo Signorile) contained factual errors, which have been incorporated into the urban-legend mythology, producing a Gordian Knot of non-fact that is not worth the effort it would take to unravel it. Like ancient Alexander, however, I am prepared to swing the sword. Retract, please.

These charges have, as I say, taken on an Internet life of their own. However, never before have they been published in a print newspaper. Whatever malice against the former governor of Alaska inspired your publisher, editors and writers to undertake this false and dishonorable guilt-by-association smear, it was a most foolish blunder. Retract, please.

Having worked as a professional journalist since 1986, I have never forgotten the motto often repeated by those old-school editors who taught me the craft: If your mother says she loves you, check it out.

Hoping for warm friendship in the future, I remain sincerely

Your most humble and obedient servant,

Robert Stacy McCain

Co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of DONKEY CONS: Sex, Crime & Corruption in the Democratic Party

UPDATE: "Gee, Stacy, where did you learn this thing about letters-to-the-editor as a literary genre?" Like I say, sometimes you must ask yourself:

WHAT WOULD HUNTER S. THOMPSON DO?

UPDATE II: Former Washington Times intern Monique Stuart:

Now, for the most part, Stacy is staying above the fray. And, I applaud him for that. He shouldn’t have to defend himself against such wild accusations. And, the truth is, he doesn’t have to. . . .

Read the rest. And don't ever get on Monique's bad side.

Scandal for Steele at RNC?

Ralph Z. Hallow reports today on accusations of favoritism in hiring at the Republican National Committee. At the American Spectator blog, I write:

This is potentially devastating. There are too many out-of-work Republican operatives for the RNC chief to be awarding six-figure salaries under circumstances that invite accusations of favoritism. I've been a Michael Steele fan for years, but he must keep in mind those 77 votes for Katon Dawson on the sixth ballot.

It's already a Memeorandum thread, and we can expect some pretty acrimonious reaction from Steele's Republican critics.

As with so many previous problems afflicting the GOP, take note that this is not about ideology, it's about the "jobs for the boys" mentality of Beltway operatives. You've got no idea how many ex-RNC employees and unemployed former Bush administration staffers one meets at D.C. cocktail parties nowadays. This Hallow story will not ease their pain, and Steele could be destroyed by a toxic sea of grassroots discontent fed by Republican political professionals.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder is dismissive of Hallow's scoop, but talks of Steele's opposition inside RNC:

A good number of long-time members can't accept the fact that Steele controls the party. They don't like the people he's put in place, but they can't find any egregious internal missteps, aside from perhaps the faux pas of paying some of his aides a generous salary. Steele has opened up many RNC contracts to competitive bidding, even though he has been criticized for smaller financial decisions. (Emphasis added.)

I'm sorry, but paying $180,000 to an "outreach director" is a bit more than a faux pas, especially with so many GOP operatives out of work. My friend Tara Setmayer is communication director for Dana Rohrabacher for about $90,000 a year. Wanna bet Tara would have taken that "outreach director" job for $100,000?

UPDATE II: Saul Anuzis is live-Twittering Steele's lunchtime "future of the GOP" speech, Yet Another Invitation I Didn't Get. Longtime readers will note the pattern: The more important the event, the more likely it is to be Yet Another Invitation I Didn't Get.

Occasionally I do cover important events, not because I'm invited, but because somebody accidentally lets me find out about it so that I can B.S. my way past security. B.S.ing past security is a vital skill for The Least Important Journalist in Washington.

'Blah blah blah right-wing Moonie rag blah blah blah . . .'

It's kind of predictable, really: Whenever there is a lull in the Left's ongoing onslaught, a moonbat will go after The Washington Times and/or Fox News in an effort to convince himself that Evil Right Wing Corporate Media represents a shady conspiracy of some sort.

The latest example is by some assclown named Mark Karlin, whose starting and ending point is: REV. MOON! Wow, points for originality, Mark. Some person named "Ellen" praises Karlin's "excellent column" at NewsHounds.

Exactly what prompted this sudden burst of "investigative" moonbattery -- SCOOP! REV. MOON OWNS NEWSPAPER! -- I'm not quite sure, nor am I sure if they'll follow up with another startling revelation:

NY TIMES OWNED BY . . . A JEW!
ZIONIST CONSPIRACY SUSPECTED!

Yawn.

Congratulations, Rich Miniter!

E-mail press release:

Richard Miniter Appointed as Washington Times Editorial Page Editor
Washington, DC: Richard Miniter, a best-selling author, award-winning investigative journalist and former Wall Street Journal editorial writer, has been named Editor of the Editorial Pages and Vice President of Opinion by the Washington Times.
Mr, Miniter, who wrote two New York Times bestselling books, and won awards for investigative reporting at the Sunday Times of London, is a former editorial writer and columnist for the Wall Street Journal Europe and WSJ.com. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal as well as The Atlantic Monthly, Reader's Digest, National Review and The New Republic. He is a regular commentator on Fox News Channel, MSNBC, CNN, C-Span, and CNBC and many nationally syndicated radio programs.
The role of Vice President of Opinion is new, encompassing the editorial page, the op-ed page, and commentary pages. (Since the paper's founding in 1982, Editorial and Commentary pages were managed separately.) The new Vice President of Opinion will also oversee all online opinion, the opinion component of the new Washington Times wire service that distributes to more than 90 newspapers and other new products to be unveiled in the coming months.
Appointing Mr. Miniter is the latest in a series of bold moves designed to remake The Times, Washington Times President and Publisher Thomas P. McDevitt said. “After an extensive nationwide search, we are extremely pleased to find Richard Miniter, a veteran of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and a bestselling author.”
The editorial pages will remain true to conservative values, while reaching out for independent-minded and thoughtful writers of op-eds, Mr. McDevitt said. "We've been listening to our readers and they tell us they want sharp, fact-based analysis that challenges the conventional wisdom in Washington. Expect us to be more distinctive, contrarian, authoritative and conservative on our opinion pages. The challenges we face in this nation demand the very best opinion, analysis and a forum for solution-oriented debate. Rich Miniter and the team we are assembling at The Times are committed to providing that for our readers every day."
The Opinion pages will feature a new design in its print editions, starting on Wednesday, and the online Opinion pages will boast a new, easier-to-navigate design later this Spring. "While many of our readers' favorite syndicated columnists will continue to appear on WashingtonTimes.com, the mix on our print pages will emphasize original, news-breaking and exclusive content," Mr. Miniter said. "We value the reader's time and they want the very best insights as well as the finest selection of their favorite writers."
Mr. Miniter was a member of the award-winning investigative team of the Sunday Times (of London) in 2001 and 2002. Reporting from Darfur, Mr. Miniter was the first to publish an interview with a Janjaweed warlord in the field.
His New York Times bestselling book "Losing bin Laden" was a groundbreaking investigation that drew on dozens of senior Clinton Administration sources to reveal that the threat posed by bin Laden was known long before the September 11 attacks--and too little was done.
Mr. Miniter's second New York Times bestseller "Shadow War," based on war-zone reporting from Iraq, North Africa and Southeast Asia, was among the first to contend that the U.S. is winning the war on terror. Mr. Miniter's first book, "The Myth of Market Share," was published by Random House and was hailed by The Washington Post as a "must read for business executives."
Mr. Miniter is as comfortable in a newsroom as he is with U.S. Marines in Iraq, with rebels in war zones in Uganda, Sudan and Burma, and along smugglers' routes in Laos, Thailand and Cambodia, interviewing everybody from warlords and prime ministers to diplomats, soldiers and spies.
The Opinion pages will have a new operating philosophy while remaining faithful to its signature conservative values. "The Internet has transformed the environment for opinion writing,” Mr. Miniter said. “Every blogger has an opinion and the market for pure opinion is saturated. We are going to be different. Readers want editorials, op-eds and columns based on reporting and news. We expect our editorial writers to act like reporters and then add insight and perspective to explain what it all means. And we will respond at blog speed."
"Though our two departments operate separately, I'm thrilled to have our opinion pages under the stewardship of such an accomplished journalist as Rich,” said Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon. “I know Rich will honor The Washington Times' extraordinary editorial tradition built on the shoulder of giants like Tony Snow and Tony Blankley while transforming our print and online opinion for the 21st century with the same deep reporting and insight he has demonstrated through his career as an editorial writer, reporter and best-selling author.” (Emphasis added)

Congratulations, Rich.

UPDATE: Over at AmSpecBlog, I call attention to Miniter's quote about how the blogosphere has revolutionized journalism, a point I've tried to make for years:

The privileged positions within the newspaper industry enjoyed by op-ed columnists like David Brooks have been rendered obsolete by the rise of the blogosphere. Were there any justice in the world, the New York Times would have axed overpaid opinionators like Brooks and Maureen Dowd rather than eviscerating its news-reporting operation.
Good to see that finally someone in the newspaper business gets it.

I cannot be accused of sucking up to Miniter with any ulterior motive. I put in a decade at The Washington Times and walked away in January 2008. The timing of my exit was consciously chosen so as to assure that I left on good terms, and could not be accused of burning a bridge. And then Tom McDevitt made the mistake of hiring Jeff Birnbaum, who went on C-SPAN to proclaim that, until he was hired, the newspaper had lacked "real journalistic standards."

Rule 4 went into effect at that moment. Birnbaum can do nothing to repair the damage caused by his vicious insult to the men and women who have devoted their careers to making The Washington Times one of the world's most important news organizations.

The vile creature who would do such a thing -- to disparage his own employer and the professional journalists with whom he worked on a daily basis -- is unworthy of the respect that should be accorded to the lowliest clerk in the newsroom. Frankly, I was astonished that Birnbaum was not immediately terminated for making that statement, which seriously undermined morale in the newsroom.

During CPAC, I chatted briefly with former Townhall.com reporter Amanda Carpenter, and congratulated her on recently having been hired by The Washington Times. As is my habit when speaking to bloggers, I gave her the old "you haven't been linking me enough lately" patter. (Nobody can ever link me enough. My slogan is, "All Your Links R Belong 2 Us.")

Amanda responded, "Stacy, I can't link you as long as you're badmouthing Birnbaum. . . . He's my boss."

More's the pity, eh? That a fine journalist like Amanda should be required to report to a contemptible worm like Birnbaum is one of those cosmic injustices that breaks your heart.

Nevertheless, as I assured Amanda, I will be happy to link her work, just as I am happy to link Andrew Breitbart's column and the other excellent work produced by the good people of The Washington Times, who now include Rich Miniter. It would be unjust to hold against these good people their misfortune of being associated with The Worm, which is not their fault and which they are powerless to remedy.

Once, I contemplated vengeance against someone who had done me wrong, but was wisely counseled by my older brother, "Stacy, just let it go. Bad things happen to bad people. That a--hole who f---ed with you will keep f---ing around until he f---s with the wrong person, and that will be the end of him."

Wise advice, bro. And so it will be with The Worm. When the hammer falls on him, it will not be because of anything I've said or done, but because of his own evil. He will be the author of his own destruction, which will descend on him suddenly and from some unexpected source. I've seen this happen to many others who have thought they could deal unjustly with impunity.

Knowing this -- that The Worm's evil will destroy him -- I cheerfully told Amanda Carpenter to be careful. She should conduct herself at The Washington Times in such a manner that when the hammer comes down to smash The Worm, none of the slime splashes on her.

Thus, no one can doubt the sincerity of my hearty congratulations to Richard Miniter, as my avowed enmity toward The Worm means that my friend Rich cannot do me any favors, nor even admit that he is my friend.

Yesterday, I swore a vow not to bash Ross Douthat again until after Easter, a vow undertaken to please a friend who advised me that by bashing Douthat, I was undermining my standing with certain conservative intellectuals who are friends with Douthat. My friend could not understand why I would do this, despite my explanation of the sturdy principle involved. (Namely, when a 23-year-old Harvard graduate accepts a contract to write a book about what it's like to attend Harvard, he has participated in an act of injustice that requires atonement.)

Nearly everyone in Washington political circles is motivated by two factors: Career ambition and partisan ideology. At times, it's hard to distinguish the influence of these two factors, since advancement is usually accorded to those who successfully advance partisan interests. As a result, people in Washington avert their eyes to injustices -- the backstabbing betrayals, the self-serving cynicism -- rather than risk antagonizing the friends of the enemies they might make.

However, this is in itself an injustice, even to one's "enemies." I've got more than all the enemies a man could ever want. By nature I am a gregarious, cheerful, fun-loving person and, if it were up to me, the world would be filled with 6 billion of my personal friends. So if anyone considers himself my enemy, this is his choice and not mine.

When I see someone acting unjustly, which is the proper course of action as a Christian: To remain silent, or to admonish them? So when I see Evan McLaren disparage the entirety of CPAC as a convocation of time-serving cowards, the Punk-Smacking Heard 'Round the World is not an act of vengeance against McLaren. Rather, I am doing him a favor for which he should be grateful.

Rule 4 works that way. If I were concerned only with my own personal short-term benefit, I would have remained silent about Birnbaum's viciousness, and when Miniter was elevated to his new position -- a plan that has been in the works for several months -- I might have profited thereby. But that's not how I roll.

I write for money, but there are limits to my shamelessness in the pursuit of a dollar. If Birnbaum had insulted me by name, it would be the act of a Christian to turn the other cheek. But he purposely insulted people of goodwill -- excellent journalists whose wastebaskets he is not fit to empty -- and for this grievous wrong he has not even begun to atone.

How could I stand to see my face in the mirror if I let such an act as Birnbaum's pass without comment? Never mind the fine journalists, both living and dead, whose erstwhile worthy services to the Times were the intended objects of The Worm's insult. There are good, decent, hard-working people now in the newsroom of The Washington Times who suffer daily because of Birnbaum's continued employment at the newspaper, who carry the additional burden of being unable to mention the ignominy of being required to work for him.

They cannot speak out, but I can, and I will. Given the cosmic principle that my older brother expressed to me years ago -- Bad things happen to bad people -- when The Worm goes down, it will likely have nothing to do with anything I have said about him. Rather, it will be a natural consequence of his own evil.

Grateful as I am for the honor at having been associated with The Washington Times, how should that gratitude rightly be expressed? It would be distinctly ungrateful if I were ever to say anything nice about Jeff Birnbaum. And such are the circumstances of modern "employment rights" law that, no matter how deeply Tom McDevitt regrets hiring Birnbaum, he can't fire him now without inviting a lawsuit and a firestorm of bad publicity.

The Worm has 'em by the short hairs, and he knows it, and he thinks himself invulnerable. Nevertheless, the hammer will inevitably fall.

Congratulations again, Rich. And like I told Amanda, watch out that none of that splashing slime hits you.

Amanda Carpenter has 'real journalistic standards' and . . .

. . . a regular gig on Fox News, so the fact that she is a dangerous right-wing extremist will be politely overlooked by her relentlessly centrist new employer.

Congratulations, Amanda. Remember: Anything you can do to undermine that arrogant twerp Birnbaum will be dearly appreciated by your newsroom colleagues.

The chutzpah of 'civility'

Peter J. Parisi of the Washington Times:

The day before Barack Obama's inauguration as president, "Purple Nation" columnist Lanny Davis pleaded on this page for a return to civility in our nation's politics.
Mr. Davis, a proudly self-professed liberal Democrat, announced his co-founding of what he is calling the Civility Project in a bid "to change the polarizing, attack-oriented political culture that has become all too common in recent years and, instead, to bring civility back as the staple of American politics and life."
Sorry, Lanny, as worthy as your aims may be, that horse fled the barn long ago. And it was your side that battered down the barn door.
Beginning shortly after President Bush assumed office in January 2001 and running through his departure from the White House eight years later, Democrats directed nonstop invective at Mr. Bush, and his call for a "new tone" in Washington went unheeded on the left. From "selected, not elected" to then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri calling Mr. Bush "a miserable failure" in September 2003 to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid calling him a "loser" during a civics discussion with a group of teenagers at a high school in May 2005 to Howard Dean's many rants to the MoveOn crowd likening him to Adolf Hitler, the political incivility of "recent years" Mr. Davis decries has originated almost entirely on his side of the political aisle.
For the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee now to feign outrage (for fundraising purposes) at radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh's saying "I hope he fails," referring to President Obama's socialist economic agenda, takes some serious chutzpah - even for the DCCC.

Chutzpah? Oh, well, you wouldn't want to accuse Democrats of having . . . what's that word, Michelle?

UPDATE: The PW-lanche!

The Washington Times, neutered

Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic is a nice guy, but of course he has to recycle the obligatory "Moonie Paper" smear on The Washington Times, by way of praising new editor John Solomon's "modernization agenda," which gives the paper "newfound, mainstream credibility."

Look, I spent most of my last three years at the paper trying to get our coverage integrated into the blogosphere, so don't tell me about "modernization." The ownership dropped a reported $2 million to bring in consultants and we were four months from the planned launch of a new Web re-design when it was announced that they'd hired Solomon from the Post, and that Wes Pruden and Fran Coombs were leaving. I had a book research assignment that required travel, and so it struck me as a good time to leave, too. (National editor Ken Hanner hung around a few months longer and took a buyout.)

The Washington Times was originally conceived during Ronald Reagan's first term as an alternative to the "mainstream" Washington Post, and as an institution, the Times was quite consciously part of the conservative movement -- anti-communist, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-faith. The credibility of the news operation was built during a quarter-century of breaking exclusive stories, most often with a "hit 'em where they ain't" approach: Looking for stories and angles that the "mainstream" media ignored.

One of the things I did as editor of the paper's "Culture, Etc." page -- which ran on A2 Monday through Friday -- was to produce feature profiles about conservative authors and activists, giving them the kind of coverage no conservative ever got from the "Style" page of the Post. I did features about Michelle Malkin, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Brent Bozell, Ann Coulter, Angela McGlowan, Wendy Shalit, David Horowitz, Ward Connerly, Bill Bennett, etc., etc. Well, since I left the paper, "Culture, Etc." has been banished to the back pages and now it's just wire copy.

Some of the other changes in the paper are arguably improvements, but the fact is, there is no longer a conservative newspaper in the nation's capital. That is a real loss and, as I told Kirchick, the change brings into question the raison d'etre of the paper:

"It's a question of what the Washington Times is about," Robert Stacy McCain says. "The whole concept of 1982 was that Washington was too important a town to have one newspaper delivering the news from one perspective only. So the Washington Times was conceived as an alternative to the Washington Post. If there's no difference in the news coverage, how then is it an alternative?"

I'm very proud of my 10 years at the Times, and wish the paper well. But surrendering the paper's alternative identity strikes me as an enormous blunder -- and I know that I'm not the only person who thinks so.

They refused to fire me ...

... so I had to quit:

From: Robert Stacy McCain
To: Tom McDevitt
Cc: Wes Pruden, Fran Coombs, David Eldridge
Date: 01/16/2008 08:53 AM
Subject: RESIGNATION, EFFECTIVE JAN. 23

Friends:

You may recall that I attempted to quit The Washington Times in August 2007, and was persuaded not to do so by Wes Pruden and Fran Coombs. Well, Wes and Fran are leaving now, so I suppose now is as good a time as any for me to go.

My last work day in the office will be Wednesday, Jan. 23, though cleaning out my desk may take a few days longer.

In December, I signed a contract to produce a 70,000-word book by May 1, and have done a good bit of research, but have only had time to write 4,000 words so far. The business of producing the "Culture, Et Cetera" page five days a week, together with blogging and other duties at the paper, is really incompatible with the kind of work this book needs, including a two-week trip to [Very Dangerous Foreign Country] next month. (I've got a doctor's appointment today to get my first round of vaccinations for the trip.)

In 1997, my wife and I knelt together in our home in Georgia, and prayed that I would be hired by The Washington Times. Every time I've become dissatisfied with this job, my conscience has chastened me for my sinful ingratitude, knowing that I was complaining about an answered prayer.

When we loaded our belongings into a U-Haul truck and rolled north up I-81 in November 1997, we brought with us an 8-year-old girl, Kennedy, and twin 5-year-old boys, Bob and Jim. Kennedy's now a college sophomore doing a year abroad in Argentina, and the boys are 15. Meanwhile, we've added Jefferson, now 9, Emerson, now 7, and Reagan, now 5. So we've doubled our blessings and undoubtedly contributed to our nation's health care crisis, while also warming the globe for Al Gore. (Though I'm still not sure which of John Edwards' "Two Americas" we're part of, I know I don't want Hillary's village anywhere near my kids.)

Perhaps the most important lesson I've learned in the past 10 years is that the institution of The Washington Times is greater than any individual employee. Magical things happen when you pick up that phone, make a call and say, "I'm from The Washington Times." I've met TV stars, intellectuals, and political leaders. Publicists send me free books by famous authors and practically beg me to interview their clients. This kind of VIP treatment can create the impression that it's all about you. But it's not you, it's really the power and prestige of that name -- The Washington Times, America's Newspaper -- that opens all those doors for you.

As you might expect, then, it is with great sadness and reluctance that I have decided to resign from a job for which I prayed, at a paper I love so much. Or, at least I think I'm resigning. In my typical careless way, I haven't actually bothered to check the company's personnel policies. I've got three weeks vacation coming to me, and a huge pile of accumulated sick leave, and it might be more to my advantage to get fired instead of quitting.

Maybe David, Fran and Wes can decide between them who gets the pleasure and honor of finally firing me. Or perhaps you'll want to leave that task to John Solomon, so he starts his tenure as an instant hero to the SPLC, Media Matters and a thousand left-wing bloggers by ending my dreadful reign of terror. (Hey, I mean, if you believe that kind of stuff ….)

Whatever The Washington Times becomes without me, history indicates I'll never become more than I have been at The Washington Times. Let's face it: People routinely leave this place thinking they're going on to bigger and better things, and then promptly disappear. I swear last week I saw Bill Sammon's picture on a milk carton.

So that's me -- another loser wandering off the floodlit stage of The Washington Times, and into the darkened wings of journalistic obscurity. If you ever want an encore, just give me a call.

Sincerely,

Robert Stacy McCain

P.S.: I promise not to kick any doors or shout any profanities on my way out.

P.P.S: David, how about posting this e-mail on our Web site, so FishbowlDC links to us and at least we get some extra traffic out of it?

* * * * *

Well, David didn't do what I suggested -- another brilliant McCain brainstorm rejected! -- so I guess my personal blog is now scooping my employer. (Is it still too late to get fired?)

Over the years, there have been all kinds of wild rumors about me, my bosses, and The Washington Times. Now it can be revealed that one of those rumors was true:

Indeed, I must finally confess, I am The Karaoke King of DC.

(Notice, however, that Patrick Gavin mistakenly describes me as "a karaoke king," rather than "The Karaoke King." A correction is long overdue, Patrick.)

To prevent the spread of still more gossip and slander, then, let me try to explain the actual facts behind my decision to resign.


Opportunities and omens

First of all, as stated, I am under contract to produce a 70,000-word book by May 1. It involves traveling to a Very Dangerous Foreign Country (no, not Canada) and as anyone who's ever written a non-fiction book will attest, that final deadline crunch is always a soul-consuming nightmare.

Second, because The Washington Times staff is so small, there is no "backup" person cross-trained to fill in as "Culture, Et Cetera" editor: The page is published 260 days a year, and one person must edit (and sometimes write) the content for all 260 pages. So if I wanted to take three days off, I had to do an extra three pages in advance before I could leave. In effect, this means I haven't had a real vacation since 2003.

Given those realities, imagine trying to carve out, between now and May 1, enough free time to finish a 70,000-word book.

Third, John Solomon has just been named executive editor of The Washington Times. From what David Bossie told me at Monday's premiere of "Hillary: The Movie," Solomon is a great guy and an excellent reporter. (Anyone hated by Media Matters can't be all bad, even if he did commit the otherwise unforgivable sin of working for The Other Paper.)

Naturally, Solomon's first few weeks will be spent familiarizing himself with newsroom personnel at The Washington Times -- during the very period that I would be trying to juggle the "Culture Et Cetera" editor's job with the insanity of a book deadline.

In terms of making a good first impression on the new boss, this scenario had every omen of a career catastrophe.

Another answered prayer, you see.

A crisis and a lesson

The crisis that caused my August 2007 newsroom blowup and attempted resignation was, in the final analysis, the result of my conviction that I was in the wrong job -- right newspaper, just the wrong job. The "Culture Et Cetera" editor's job involves a lot of tasks that I've never been able to enjoy (e.g., putting together what's called an "advanced tout"), and those unwanted duties prevented me from doing the kind of work I'm best at.

Thus came that Tuesday in August when my editing duties had prevented me from completing the feature interview I wanted to write. Somebody was hassling me about something else, and I replied, "OK, how about instead, I resign in disgrace?"

Walked straight to my boss's office, said some choice words, and then stormed out, intending never to return. As far as I was concerned, at that minute, I was unemployed.

They talked me out of it, but I never could shake the conviction that I was in the wrong job.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Being "Culture, Et Cetera" editor can be a very sweet job at times. It's amazing who you can meet and what you can do, when you're the guy in charge of filling up 120 column inches of some of the most valuable news/feature space on the planet, five days a week.

And then there are those times when you've spent an hour fruitlessly searching for a wire story that can be edited down to serve as the 200-word "extra" on the page, and you think to yourself: "This is not what I came to Washington to do."

Yeah, somebody's got to do that stuff, but ... doing it for four years in my mid-40s? When I was a national award-winning columnist before I ever left Georgia? Nope, sorry.

You take the good with the bad, but I've always had a low tolerance for compulsory, anonymous drudgery. Still, I never forgot that I had prayed to be hired by The Washington Times, and if I was stuck doing such thankless tasks, surely God had a purpose. There must be some lesson here.

There was. I figured it out after John Berthoud died. This isn't the place to explain the whole thing, but just ask yourself how a man can spend his career as a leading activist in Washington, D.C., and never make a single enemy.

God said, 'Go'

So then I got the book deal. And then John Solomon was named as Wes's replacement and Fran's resignation was announced.

It was like God said, "Go."

Departing with sorrow and reluctance, then, I hope that I may -- as my resignation e-mail said -- eventually be called back for an encore.

Wednesday afternoon, I met with Fran and David, and we were all surprisingly cheerful, despite the uncertain future that faces each of us now. Like I told Dave, if you can't laugh in the face of danger, you're not a Christian.

Given that the "Culture, Et Cetera" page is planned in advance, there are several feature stories I've committed to write for the page that can't possibly be published before my last work day in the office next Wednesday. Also, my notoriously messy desk will have to be cleaned out.

Therefore, if I correctly understand how my departure will play out, my byline will appear a few more times while my three weeks of unused vacation time is burned off. And who knows? Maybe the new editor will let me do some freelance contributions in the future -- perhaps even some reporting from the Very Dangerous Foreign Country to which I must travel. So maybe I can stave off the fog of journalistic obscurity that has enshrouded others.

(You think I'm kidding? I watched a PBS special recently in which a reporter for Knight-Ridder explained how he had published articles in late 2002 and early 2003 clearly documenting the bogusness of pre-war intelligence on Iraq, yet nobody in Washington paid any attention. Right story, wrong paper. Welcome to the milk carton brigade, Warren Strobel.)

For 10 years, it has been my distinct honor and privilege to work for The Washington Times, which with unnecessary modesty calls itself America's Newspaper. I've spent the past decade telling my kids that their father works for the most important paper in the world -- and that's a neutral, objective fact.

Nothing can compare to the repeated thrill I've had of meeting new people, reaching out to shake their hand and proudly saying, "Hi, I'm Stacy McCain, from The Washington Times."

If I could stay, even in the wrong job, I know I'd never leave.

But God said, "Go."