Criticizing the Critics

[Ericandblueboy]

Marc creates a false dichotomy in this paragraph.

I don't believe there's a false dichotomy. I think Marc assumes too much. Just because someone is a professional critic, it doesn't mean that critic is knowledgeable about every kind of food. But when it comes to a pro and a amateur on the same subject, I think the pro would generally be more knowledgeable. In this case, the subject can't just be food in general, it has to be broken down. Just like there are people who study European history vs Asian history.

[Ericandblueboy]

This is completely false and cynical. Bloggers, or any other critic, can obviously know their subject extremely well and still be able to write objectively about them and their 'art'. This is not just true in restaurant criticism, but all across the spectrum. Fisher may be standing up for the old-school so-called journalists, but his argument comes across as biased, and, dare I say, naive.

You're right that bloggers can be objective but that doesn't make Marc's statement false. In fact, I think he's right about 99% of the time. Most people do cozy up for special treatment, and once they received special treatment, they can hardly maintain objectivity. When you say completely false, you're saying it can never be the case. That's blatantly untrue. There are plenty of restaurant owners/chefs/managers that post on here and their restaurants probably don't get as much criticism because they're members of this "circle." I love the fact that I can post a request and some chef will actually reply but I hardly think I'm going to be capable of being completely objective when someone's doing me a favor.

[jparrott]

I don't believe there's a false dichotomy. I think Marc assumes too much. Just because someone is a professional critic, it doesn't mean that critic is knowledgeable about every kind of food. But when it comes to a pro and a amateur on the same subject, I think the pro would generally be more knowledgeable. In this case, the subject can't just be food in general, it has to be broken down. Just like there are people who study European history vs Asian history.

Not to mention that most restaurant critics know f---all about wine.

[Miami Danny]

You're right that bloggers can be objective but that doesn't make Marc's statement false. In fact, I think he's right about 99% of the time. Most people do cozy up for special treatment, and once they received special treatment, they can hardly maintain objectivity. When you say completely false, you're saying it can never be the case. That's blatantly untrue. There are plenty of restaurant owners/chefs/managers that post on here and their restaurants probably don't get as much criticism because they're members of this "circle." I love the fact that I can post a request and some chef will actually reply but I hardly think I'm going to be capable of being completely objective when someone's doing me a favor.

Certainly the motive cannot be to be a fair and unbiased judge of the food and the dining experience on behalf of readers, because developing a relationship with the restaurateur instantly colors that dining experience and makes it impossible for the writer to serve the reader's interests

.

Mr. Fisher is impugning the motives of an entire class of people whose 'motivation' he could not possibly know, yet he states said motives with certainty. I can't argue with his certainty, I do not know the man's motivation for writing this piece (loyalty, fear, a noble desire to explain the truth as he sees it, etc.), but the truthfulness of his argument can certainly be called into question. In addition, I don't necessarily think that that free appetizer I got from my friend the chef or restaurant owner, is necessarily going to taste better or compel me to write a better review of the establishment. I'm certain of that, because I've done it any number of times. It is also done by others, who know their subjects intimately, in every other artistic field, as well as in sports and politics, to name two, all the time.

[sphere777]

Mr. Fisher is impugning the motives of an entire class of people whose 'motivation' he could not possibly know, yet he states said motives with certainty. I can't argue with his certainty, I do not know the man's motivation for writing this piece (loyalty, fear, a noble desire to explain the truth as he sees it, etc.), but the truthfulness of his argument can certainly be called into question. In addition, I don't necessarily think that that free appetizer I got from my friend the chef or restaurant owner, is necessarily going to taste better or compel me to write a better review of the establishment. I'm certain of that, because I've done it any number of times. It is also done by others, who know their subjects intimately, in every other artistic field, as well as in sports and politics, to name two, all the time.

Well, I think that the connections between critic and artist are always fraught with peril. In a non-food example, I wrote three issues of a DC music zine before going to graduate school. Also, I was in a band at the time. A well-known DC indie musician/producer helped us master the band's recordings and make them semi-listenable, enough that we put out a CD EP. Not too long after, I got a free copy of his band's latest CD in the mail (not too unusual, I was hooked up with his label). When I listened to it, I thought it was great and said so in my zine. A year or so later, I put the same recording on and found it wanting. My tastes don't change that quickly, so I tend to think that my close association with him changed my viewpoint.

So I don't think it's so easy to maintain objectivity when you have a personal relationship with a chef, artist, musician, what have you.

[Miami Danny]

Well, I think that the connections between critic and artist are always fraught with peril. In a non-food example, I wrote three issues of a DC music zine before going to graduate school. Also, I was in a band at the time. A well-known DC indie musician/producer helped us master the band's recordings and make them semi-listenable, enough that we put out a CD EP. Not too long after, I got a free copy of his band's latest CD in the mail (not too unusual, I was hooked up with his label). When I listened to it, I thought it was great and said so in my zine. A year or so later, I put the same recording on and found it wanting. My tastes don't change that quickly, so I tend to think that my close association with him changed my viewpoint.

So I don't think it's so easy to maintain objectivity when you have a personal relationship with a chef, artist, musician, what have you.

Your example shows that in one minor incident, perhaps you may have gone easy on a friend. And perhaps you feel that you were, and would be, unable to be objective about the work of someone you know. I wouldn't exactly call that "fraught with peril".

[Ericandblueboy]

Mr. Fisher is impugning the motives of an entire class of people whose 'motivation' he could not possibly know, yet he states said motives with certainty. I can't argue with his certainty, I do not know the man's motivation for writing this piece (loyalty, fear, a noble desire to explain the truth as he sees it, etc.), but the truthfulness of his argument can certainly be called into question. In addition, I don't necessarily think that that free appetizer I got from my friend the chef or restaurant owner, is necessarily going to taste better or compel me to write a better review of the establishment. I'm certain of that, because I've done it any number of times. It is also done by others, who know their subjects intimately, in every other artistic field, as well as in sports and politics, to name two, all the time.

I know I can't be objective so I avoid putting myself in a situation where I would know restaurant owners/chefs. From what I've read online, i.e., Chowhound and here, I don't believe most people can be objective. You really think after getting free apps and trading backslaps with the chef or owner, you're gonna blast his food? I sometimes don't post about a restaurant because I have nothing good to say but omitting a material fact is no different than making up a favorable review. I believe it's a small minority who have ethical obligations who can know their subject and attempt to remain unbiased. That's just my point of view.

[Miami Danny]

You really think after getting free apps and trading backslaps with the chef or owner, you're gonna blast his food?

I have. I also know chefs and restaurant owners I can not stand to be in the same room with, who have received positive notices from me. And that hurts more than dissing friends, believe me. And in sports or politics, or the arts, if you spend any time in the field, you pretty much know everyone. So the idea that Fisher proffers is false, and he actually makes no argument in support of his opinion. Additionally, he makes no distinction between bloggers, CH'ers, Yelp'ers, DR.com'ers, etc., where there are obviously varying degrees of experience and knowledge.

[DonRocks]

[You're both making reasonable arguments; all I ask is that this doesn't disintegrate into a pissing contest (which it hasn't yet).]

[Waitman]

I want to live in Danny's world, where every amateur with a laptop is as smart, perceptive and informative as the people who spend their professional lives studying some subject or another, and nobody plays favorites with people who fuck them, flatter them or give them free food.

Until I get my passport stamped at that particular border crossing, though, I'm going with Fisher on this one.

I have no reason to doubt MD's declarations of strict discipline in regards to his reviews (though, as with people who tell me how smart their children are or how hard they work, I reserve the right to remain skeptical until proper studies can be undertaken). But this would simply make him the rare exception, not living proof.

On the whole, professionals know more. A lot more. They've been doing this stuff every day, for a living, in a profession where some hungry pup (possibly a blogger) will take their job in a minute if their production slips, quantitatively or qualitatively. You just don't learn as much when you have to earn a living otherwise and no one's picking up the tab for diner. (And, let's not forget, for a lot of bloggers, it's the restaurant who's picking up the tab for dinner. Trash a couple of places, and see if the publicist puts you on the list for the pre-opening of the next hot place.)

Critics are a little more jaded, and so less likely to gush about the flavor-of-the-month. Bloggers can be a little like kids who think they just discovered sex -- a little more impressed with themselves and a little less discerning about the long-term value.

And, while a critic whose reviews get suspiciously positive risks reputation and income, a blogger who does the same thing risks little more than free drinks and kitchen tours.

Sure, no one's perfect. There are great bloggers and crappy critics. And the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.

But that's the way to bet.

And, PS, anybody who goes out of their way to star-fuck chefs, as the blogger Fisher picked on seems to do, is not to be trusted in the slightest. There's a huge differences on a lot of levels between being recognized and being an ass-kiss.

[Michael Landrum]

Interesting how those decrying the illegitimacy of bloggers tend to fall almost exclusively into the category of print journalists. Luckily for Mr. Fisher, No Child Left Behind will fund a most comfortable retirement, even if it is on the back of the children left behind.

(In case anyone thinks I am being too obtuse, check out the many stories written by real journalists decrying Kaplan's takeover of inner city and other impoverished communities schools' curricula).

[Michael Landrum]

Also interesting how the masterfully boring and poorly selling champion of one outstripped media (radio, well, a certain type of activist radio) would fail to see the parallels between the subject of his bemoaned loss and the rise of a new, empowering populist media.

(In case any one thinks I am being too obtuse, Mr. Fisher wrote a tremendously boring book about what should have been a very exciting, grippingly revelatory subject--one that stands in stark contrast to his currently espoused views, so much so, in fact, that one would tend to believe that the views espoused in that book were a mere pose).

[Sthitch]

(In case any one thinks I am being too obtuse, Mr. Fisher wrote a tremendously boring book about what should have been a very exciting, grippingly revelatory subject--one that stands in stark contrast to his currently espoused views, so much so, in fact, that one would tend to believe that the views espoused in that book were a mere pose).

I aslo had thought that Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Stroke would be far more gripping.

[Michael Landrum]

I aslo had thought that Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Stroke would be far more gripping.

I guess this means that it is up to me to point out that the glowing review of the book written by this crusading champion of independent, professional criticism was written by, wait, could that be? Why yes, the Washington Post!

Good thing I am only a blogger, because a real journalist would find evidence of self-serving hypocrisy.

[Miami Danny]

I guess this means that it is up to me to point out that the glowing review of the book written by this crusading champion of independent, professional criticism was written by, wait, could that be? Why yes, the Washington Post!

Good thing I am only a blogger, because a real journalist would find evidence of self-serving hypocrisy.

From Tom Sietsema-"Furstenberg. (Full disclosure: The baker and I are longtime friends.) " So I guess the Fisher rule applies:

But toward what end? To get a free meal? To develop the chefs as sources? Certainly the motive cannot be to be a fair and unbiased judge of the food and the dining experience on behalf of readers, because developing a relationship with the restaurateur instantly colors that dining experience and makes it impossible for the writer to serve the reader's interests.

[DonRocks]

From Tom Sietsema-"Furstenberg. (Full disclosure: The baker and I are longtime friends.) " So I guess the Fisher rule applies:

Foul! Tom has always disclosed this friendship, and has never said he's unbiased regarding Mark Furstenberg.

[Miami Danny]

Foul! Tom has always disclosed this friendship, and has never said he's unbiased regarding Mark Furstenberg.

according to Fisher:

developing a relationship with the restaurateur instantly colors that dining experience and makes it impossible for the writer to serve the reader's interests.

(my emphasis)

You agree?

[DonRocks]

My only complaint would be the alcohol prices. Given the reasonable prices for their food, I think the drink prices are out of balance. I can swallow that a bit more easily with the wine because I felt the wines were of good quality, but my pre-dinner cocktail was $14! I don't think I even paid that much at Restaurant Eve. I know cocktail prices have gone up, but I think $14 given the menu here is outrageous. With only that, the glass of dessert wine, and the glass and a half portion of the greco, I spent $110 w/tax and tip, $40 of which was food.

Because I came into the restaurant world from the wine world, this post cuts deeply into one of my biggest grievances with restaurant criticism - beverages (and the cost thereof) don't seem to matter much, despite them often being 50% of the bill!

And I'm not singling out individual critics - just pick up a Zagat's, Fodor's, etc.

[Miami Danny]

Because I came into the restaurant world from the wine world, this post cuts deeply into one of my biggest grievances with restaurant criticism - beverages (and the cost thereof) don't seem to matter much, despite them often being 50% of the bill!

And I'm not singling out individual critics - just pick up a Zagat's, Fodor's, etc.

Don, I agree. In fact, locally, Tom Sietsema slammed Biergarten Haus today without mentioning one beer. Odd.

[mdt]

Don, I agree. In fact, locally, Tom Sietsema slammed Biergarten Haus today without mentioning one beer. Odd.

His only mention of beer is that it is an all-German list. Probably a good thing since they don't seem to be doing that well with the food.

[Miami Danny]

His only mention of beer is that it is an all-German list. Probably a good thing since they don't seem to be doing that well with the food.

Not to beat a dead horse, but his mention of an "all-German list" is also obtuse. There are over 1300 breweries in Germany. And I'm guessing that many people go to a place named Biergarten Haus for the beer, not to revisit their teenage love of sauerbraten.

[TedE]

Not to beat a dead horse, but his mention of an "all-German list" is also obtuse. There are over 1300 breweries in Germany. And I'm guessing that many people go to a place named Biergarten Haus for the beer, not to revisit their teenage love of sauerbraten.

He's the food critic, and wasn't it one of his little "First Takes" or whatever they call them?. Read Fritz's take (conveniently posted along with Tom's blurb) for a better lowdown on the bar aspect of the place.

[DonRocks]

He may be the 'food' critic as you say, but he certainly 'critiques' decor, noise level, etc. He is not the design or audio critic, is he? Drinks are an integral part of dining, especially for a 'beer garden'.

[Please stop obsessing on this.]

[jparrott]

Now be fair. He mentions Donna teasingly cautioning two women not to drink too much wine

And therein uses 30 or 40 words that might've been enough to highlight an interesting bottle or three. Or praise (or damn) the coffee. Or describe the water glasses. Or SOMETHING.

Tom Sietsema has an editor. The editor's job is to make sure that the best possible picture (given space and other constraints) of a restaurant appears in the Sunday magazine and online. If Mr. Sietsema is unwilling or unable to evaluate the wine offerings of a significant restaurant, said editor has at least two other people available to him (namely, Messrs. McIntyre and Wilson) to do the job. It wouldn't take very long to do, and wouldn't take much space to write up.

The fact that the reviews published under Sietsema's byline repeatedly ignore what represents 30-60% of many diners' checks (i.e., wine, aperitifs, and digestifs) means that Sietsema's editor does not find it important. That is poor.

[The Hersch]

Well, I don't care much for Sietsema's work in general, and rarely read it. I detest the Washington Post, and never buy it. I read Ezra Klein's blog, and that's about the only contact with the Post I usually have. Soon, I hope, the Post will be a thing of the past. People who want to find out about restaurants in Washington and environs shouldn't go to the Post; they should come to donrockwell.com.

P.S. You did realize, I hope, that I was using irony to express agreement with you.

[jparrott]

P.S. You did realize, I hope, that I was using irony to express agreement with you.

Yes . It just gave me a vehicle to pivot to the real issue.

[DonRocks]

My friends, the sooner you realize that traditional restaurant critics don't know the first thing about beers, wines, or liquors, the sooner you'll begin living a more stress-free life and begin taking things for what they are. I am not singling out Tom - a fine restaurant critic - because he's merely one of hundreds of examples that I describe who work in the profession. There are probably less than 1,000 people, total, in the country that have an expert's grasp of both food and wine, and very few of them are working as critics.

[Joe H]

Well, I don't care much for Sietsema's work in general, and rarely read it. I detest the Washington Post, and never buy it. I read Ezra Klein's blog, and that's about the only contact with the Post I usually have. Soon, I hope, the Post will be a thing of the past. People who want to find out about restaurants in Washington and environs shouldn't go to the Post; they should come to donrockwell.com.

P.S. You did realize, I hope, that I was using irony to express agreement with you.

"I detest the Washington Post, and never buy it."

"Soon, I hope, the Post will be a thing of the past."

Any other time I wouldn't respond to a post like this but having recently spent a few hours at the Newseum I couldn't help but respond. I could not disagree with you more PASSIONATELY. You should spend a few hours at the Newseum and perhaps you'll have a different attitude towards the Press. I am not a fan of spending $125+ a year (perhaps more, much more?) for the Post. Still, it is irreplaceable and worth it.

So is Tom and his opinion.

[jparrott]

My friends, the sooner you realize that traditional restaurant critics don't know the first thing about beers, wines, or liquors, the sooner you'll begin living a more stress-free life and begin taking things for what they are. I am not singling out Tom - a fine restaurant critic - because he's merely one of hundreds of examples that I describe who work in the profession. There are probably less than 1,000 people, total, in the country that have an expert's grasp of both food and wine, and very few of them are working as critics.

Sure. Which is why I blame the editor.

The review isn't being published in the Tom Sietsema Weekly...it's being published in the Washington Post. The editor's job is to represent the interests of The Washington Post, and recognize that a review as filed does not preset a reasonable picture of a restaurant under review. Whether that means giving a credit to a beverage program reviewer or just getting a few uncredited comments from a knowledgeable associate, it's the editor's responsibility to make the paper of record's view of a place as complete as is reasonable, given space and budget considerations.

[DonRocks]

Sure. Which is why I blame the editor.

The review isn't being published in the Tom Sietsema Weekly...it's being published in the Washington Post. The editor's job is to represent the interests of The Washington Post, and recognize that a review as filed does not preset a reasonable picture of a restaurant under review. Whether that means giving a credit to a beverage program reviewer or just getting a few uncredited comments from a knowledgeable associate, it's the editor's responsibility to make the paper of record's view of a place as complete as is reasonable, given space and budget considerations.

What makes you think editors know any more about wine than critics?! Yes, in theory, they should recognize balance, but what about for places without good wine programs? Think: Honey Pig vs. Inox.

[jparrott]

What makes you think editors know any more about wine than critics?! Yes, in theory, they should recognize balance, but what about for places without good wine programs? Think: Honey Pig vs. Inox.

The editor doesn't have to know about wine. The editor just needs to know that a review of a fine dining restaurant (that is the sequel to a restaurant that (for better or worse) had been recognized as having one of the premier wine programs in the world) should address the wine program. Beyond that, the editor has multiple recourses. Hell, Don, you could go in, see the list, ask to look at the cellar, and be able to formulate 30-60 words about it, all in less time than it takes to drink a glass of prosecco.

By repeatedly demonstrating a lack of this recognition, Mr. Sietsema's editor does a disservice to Mr. Sietsema, The Washington Post, and its readership.

[DonRocks]

Hell, Don, you could go in, see the list, ask to look at the cellar, and be able to formulate 30-60 words about it, all in less time than it takes to drink a glass of prosecco.

Yes, Jake, but I know what I'm doing. This is not a knock on any individuals; just a dose of reality.

[SeanMike]

By repeatedly demonstrating a lack of this recognition, Mr. Sietsema's editor does a disservice to Mr. Sietsema, The Washington Post, and its readership.

And, to be honest, perhaps about 95+% (I'd say even 99+%) of folks who read the review and rely on it for whether or not they should go know wine to the point where, well, it'd matter.

The smart folks I know who know wine will have looked at the wine list ahead of time - folks like me, who don't know wine, might hear Tom say "this wine list sucks", "it's overpriced", or "it's great" but when I get there, I'm still going to end up putting myself in the hands of the sommelier one way or the other.

The argument being: the number of people that in-depth knowledge, or even just passing knowledge, of the wine list might influence is less than might be swayed by cutesy lines about possibly overindulging ladies.

[jparrott]

Yes, Jake, but I know what I'm doing. This is not a knock on any individuals; just a dose of reality.

Which means you could be one of the 5-10 guys the editor could pull from his/her rolodex to get that information for each forthcoming review. Read what I wrote. The editor doesn't have to be the guy to do the evaluation. But if TS can't/won't do it, the editor needs to find someone who will.

[jparrott]

The argument being: the number of people that in-depth knowledge, or even just passing knowledge, of the wine list might influence is less than might be swayed by cutesy lines about possibly overindulging ladies.

I dunno. I think I'd like to have some help spending half of my check amount.

[SeanMike]

I dunno. I think I'd like to have some help spending half of my check amount.

Yes, but I wouldn't trust a restaurant review for that. Perhaps I'm just saying (worse) what Don is, but I don't trust restaurant reviews for their opinion on anything but the food, and a bit about the restaurant decor. Their thoughts on cocktails, beer, or wine I mostly ignore unless it's someone whose taste I completely trust (and not even always then - I know some folks whose tastes just don't match with what I like).

And too many people don't *care* - they just order based off price.

[DonRocks]

I dunno. I think I'd like to have some help spending half of my check amount.

That's always been my beef: in fine dining, drink costs add up to 50% of the diner's bill. And nobody takes the time to review drinks well.

[jparrott]

That's always been my beef: in fine dining, drink costs add up to 50% of the diner's bill. And nobody takes the time to review drinks well.

I believe we've reached the stage known as "violent agreement."

[leleboo]

I believe we've reached the stage known as "violent agreement."

This is where a "like" button would come in handy.

[DonRocks]

How much I was reminded of the importance of the Press.

May I humbly suggest that this IS the Press?

[DaRiv18]

The fact that the reviews published under Sietsema's byline repeatedly ignore what represents 30-60% of many diners' checks

Of course, the framing issue in this particular Seitsema review spotlights what represents 10% of every every diner's check in DC.

[zoramargolis]

I'm a bit late to the fray, but many years ago the Los Angeles Times established a protocol for having both a restaurant critic and a wine writer review fine dining restaurants, and their columns appeared side by side. Now, if I am not mistaken, they have one person who both reviews restaurants and writes about wine--Mark's friend Sherry (S. Irene Virbila). I don't see why the WaPo couldn't do the same.

[kirite]

I'm a bit late to the fray, but many years ago the Los Angeles Times established a protocol for having both a restaurant critic and a wine writer review fine dining restaurants, and their columns appeared side by side. Now, if I am not mistaken, they have one person who both reviews restaurants and writes about wine--Mark's friend Sherry (S. Irene Virbila). I don't see why the WaPo couldn't do the same.

It's a great idea, but in these times of buyouts, my hunch is that the WP would not want to put more money into restaurant reviews by hiring a wine/drinks reviewer.

[Joe H]

I seem to miss the days of when we talked about the texture of a risotto or, as Tom mentioned in his review, the source of a particularly good budino.

[jparrott]

It's a great idea, but in these times of buyouts, my hunch is that the WP would not want to put more money into restaurant reviews by hiring a wine/drinks reviewer.

It could be a freelancer. It could be a group of people that rotate going with Tom on one of his visits. It could be uncredited. It could probably be unpaid. We're talking 30-60 words per review. You could probably do it without ordering any wine, or certainly without ordering any more wine than TS would order anyway in the course of his visits.

[ol_ironstomach]

What makes you think editors know any more about wine than critics?! Yes, in theory, they should recognize balance, but what about for places without good wine programs? Think: Honey Pig vs. Inox.

This is an issue about reporting on what is available; unless the list is entirely predictable, it's worth characterizing in at least a few words. Even if those words are "the list is entirely predictable."

The scale and breadth of a beverage program is rarely a matter of balance; a factor like cultural context carries far more weight (nobody should complain if a South Asian or West African restaurant lacks a wine program), and we even choose to celebrate any unexpectedly ambitious programs that materialize (Sushi-Ko, the Gin Joint, Ray's the Glass, the cocktail list at Eve).

BTW, at least the last page and a half of this conversation really should be moved to one of the Sietsema or WaPo threads in News&Media.

[Joe H]

This is an issue about reporting on what is available; unless the list is entirely predictable, it's worth characterizing in at least a few words. Even if those words are "the list is entirely predictable."

The scale and breadth of a beverage program is rarely a matter of balance; a factor like cultural context carries far more weight (nobody should complain if a South Asian or West African restaurant lacks a wine program), and we even choose to celebrate any unexpectedly ambitious programs that materialize (Sushi-Ko, the Gin Joint, Ray's the Glass, the cocktail list at Eve).

BTW, at least the last page and a half of this conversation really should be moved to one of the Sietsema or WaPo threads in News&Media.

"BTW, at least the last page and a half of this conversation really should be moved to one of the Sietsema or WaPo threads in News&Media."

It might be more timely to discuss Tom's lengthy two and one half star review of Galileo III.

[Mark Slater]

The editor missed the location reference "in the old Butterfield 8 location".

[Michael Landrum]

I don't detest the press, I detest the Washington Post. You can romanticize it all you like. Pentagon Papers, Watergate, all that. That has nothing to do with the Post of today. The Post that brought us George W. Bush and his wars that will not die. The Post that strives nearly every day to destroy Social Security. The Post that ran a story on its front page during the 2008 campaign that basically reported "Many believe Obama to be a Muslim; Obama denies it." The Post with an editorial page so virulently right-wing that one wonders how anyone can still believe it to be a liberal paper. It isn't. It is, as Dean Baker calls it, Fox on Fifteenth. It disgusts me. It represents the worst in modern journalism, and I'm cheering on its demise.

Edit: Let me just add that I not only detest the Washington Post, I detest it more than any other institution in modern American life.

I would avoid taking this dialogue even further off topic, but the "Criticizing the Critics" thread is locked, and the timing of this article makes it impossible for me not to point out that the Kaplan branch of the Post (although I would argue that the Post is more of a subordinate branch of the Kaplan operations today) has made, silently and with little scrutiny, a sickening amount of profits from co-opting the curricula of inner city schools through No Child Left Behind targeting.

This may help explain the financial motives for the entire editorial stance of the Post having shifted to that of a proxy voice for the same for-profit and transfer of wealth forces subverting so much of American life today.

(Note to censors: This is one instance where a transfer of a post to a different thread would be appropriate and inoffensive).

[The Hersch]

I think I mentioned somewhere once upon a time that I love Michael Landrum from afar.