Dave Weigel on the Dave Weigel affair

Since the what seems like the entire conservative blogosphere has invented an utterly false narrative about Dave Weigel, and about JournoList, it’s important for people to know some approximation to the truth.

And to Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds and others who are openly inviting more betrayals of trust, I have nothing to say that’s printable.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

7 thoughts on “Dave Weigel on the Dave Weigel affair”

  1. Sounds to me like he conceived of his job as gaining people's trust in order to betray it. Probably not an uncommon conception of the job among journalists.

  2. Brett, could you please point me to the people whose trust he first won and then betrayed?

    Thanks in advance!

  3. I think it is a grand idea for Brett to name names. Who did Dave burn?

    It would also be neat to hear about how Brett decries Dave himself getting burned, or wondering whither gutless cow orkers who were brave enough to dance with glee, anonymously, after someone else knifed him.

    I don't know Brett's take on the infamous JournoList, but I wonder what he thinks of the conservative versions. I know of two; I'm sure there are more. (not on either, and if I were I wouldn't be enough of a cowardly d*ck to burn anyone anonymously.)

  4. Brett's take on JournoList can be discerned in one of the recent threads before this one, or frankly it could easily have been predicted: he believes it was a malign implement of the liberal media conspiracy and was used to instruct its members in what to conceal and how to frame their reporting so as to better advantage the aforementioned conspiracy.

  5. Sure, Warren, I think his take is clear. I just wonder what he thinks of the lists started as, say, alum lists of former Young Republicans at certain schools, but are now much different. As I understand it, at least one of this is far more top-down, talking points oriented than the fever dreams about JournoList. (Disclaimer- I wasn't on it, and am basing my guess on what was revealed by the weasels. If they had better, I have to imagine they would have used it. )

    So, Brett, your thoughts thus far on anonymous burns and lists of fellow travellers?

    Oh, and the names?

  6. Brett, do me a favor. Google the Washington independent, and search it for Dave's articles. See the tone of them, and realize that — assuming the POST did any vetting at all — this is who they knew they were getting. Then tell me again that it is somehow credible that Dave was a 'sinister hypocritical plant.' His attitude there, his attitude in his articles for the POST, and his comments on Journolist — as far as we've seen them — seem 'all of a piece.' Maybe the journolist ones were 'saltier' but I'm sure you talk differently when you are talking to presumed friends, even at something like a convention where you don't actually know the person, just that they 'belong there.'

Comments are closed.