One of the most disturbing contemporary media zones is the Washington Post opinion page. It is just very very close to the "intelligence community," as Jeff Bezos is building the information infrastructure for American intelligence agencies; the initial contract seems to be worth some $800 million (links below). They've recently hired a former CIA director as a columnist, which strikes me as bizarre; I'm wanting independent voices, myself. Here he calls for Trump to stop insulting the CIA, an utterly dominant theme of the whole opinion operation for years now. "Trump is playing with fire when he insults intel": it sounds vaguely like a threat, coming straight from the heart of the CIA. Is that how the Post editorial board thinks about opinion journalism? The columns of Max Boot - who has written that Morell column word for word for years himself - often appear to have almost been dictated by intel sources. The editorial board itself defends intel continuously, in exactly the same terms that it defends itself.
On many days, it appears to be something like a full annexation. It's partly a matter of regulatory capture: they think they're cultivating sources but the sources are cultivating them. It's a particular danger for a DC news operation, but they seem not to be resisting at all, and it occurs to me to wonder why. When I first started tweeting in this vein, I was like: I just hope that the CIA doesn't store its data with Bezos and didn't follow his divorce too closely, harhar. Did a quick Google, and it's far worse than I could have imagined: the problem is underpinned by an extreme conflict of interest to the tune of billions as the years go by. I'm sorry, I guess I think the Post editorial board should be in a crisis. Let's get this precise: The problem isn't the appearance of a conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest. The problem is the extremely vivid appearance that this conflict is distorting the journalism.
a few items:
Intel chiefs strike a blow for truth
I was in the CIA, stop insulting me, or something bad might happen
"undercutting the intelligence community is literally a life-or-death matter"
So then you start going through the foreign affairs columns of Jackson Diehl or David Ignatius or Fred Hiatt, as well as all the editorials, looking for moments where the positions they are expressing are not, more or less, what one suspects are the views of the intelligence establishment, on Syria, say, or Ukraine, or Venezuela. Right now, I'm afraid I'm not seeing any. One problem with being an intelligence official is that you can't publicly express your views. Fortunately, however, you have The Washington Post opinion page. It would be terrible to accuse David Ignatius - who I've read for many years - of not speaking for himself. But the whole way the Post is operating is undermining his credibility and that of everyone involved.
The Post people might ponder how they themselves regard media operations which are evidently very close to the intelligence agencies in their respective countries. They might think about the overall effect of the secret police here and there, now and then, on journalism. Seek the light, y'all.
Washington Post, I am saying this for your own good. I've been reading you since I was a child. My grandfather was a White House correspondent and political columnist for you (and my grandmother your film critic). Ask yourself: what would Meg Greenfield say? Tell the shade of Mary McGrory that you're hiring columnists now straight from Langley.
