Is It A Fair Playing Field

The Washington Post hired a conservative named Ben Domenech to blog at the WAPO site. This was marked for disaster before it began. The Post is a liberal news outlet and conservatives never have a fair playing field when they work for the left. Allegations arose, not long after the blog partnership started, that Domenech committed plagiary. The accusations came from a large number of left wing bloggers and it appears that the avalanche could not be stopped. Mr. Domenech resigned before the WAPO had a chance to push him out.

Did he commit plagiarism? I don’t know. If there were allegations it would seem that the prudent thing to do would be to check it out before deciding upon a course of action. Hell, Dan Rather got more than the benefit of the doubt and it was more than a week before that was sorted out. I am sure Jason Blair from the NYT got more than a day while people looked into the allegations and I know Michael Oleskar of the Baltimore Sun had a good bit of time lapse before it was decided that he did in fact commit plagiarism.

Ben Domenech should have known that this would happen. The left does not believe in a fair playing field. Conservatives who work for leftist media outlets are not treated as well as the leftists who work at places like Fox news. Perhaps all this uproar was to take the attention away from ABC’s John Green and his display of obvious media bias.

Trackback:
Washington Post | The Unalienable Right

[tag]Ben Domenech[/tag] [tag]Washington Post[/tag] [tag]Plagiarism[/tag] [tag]Fox News[/tag]



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

10 Responses to “Is It A Fair Playing Field”

  1. Bosun says:

    One thing that the left is not liberal or tolerant (using dictionary definitions). There appears to be a lot of back biting and selective prejudice in the liberal ranks.

    It is unfortunate that he did not last. Rush did not last on ESPN and Michael Savage was gone in about a day with that aids comment. The radio host whose slip of tongue regarding Miss. Rice, is actually a stanch conservative republican and has aspire to work for Miss Rice. The left would not listen to his apology. However, when one of their own messes up, makes a mistake, or speaks out of turn, it is ok. MSM is controlled by the liberals of the forth estate. If it does not wash with them it does not wash.

    I should hope that Mr. Domenech did not do it, and, I wish him well.

  2. Spike says:

    The guy is a fu*king plagiarist. And people think it’s about politics? Jeez, what happened to commentators who could actually think of something on their own?

  3. Big Dog says:

    Spike, he might or might not be. I have not seen what was alleged and it was not investigated. He should have had the chance to present his case. The problem is, liberals only believe that people should get the benefit of the doubt or their day in court when they are accused liberals. Conservatives are guilty from the outset.

    The left defended Dan Rather for damn near two weeks. They defended Clinton much longer. Jason Blair got a fair shake as did Oleskar. Not a conservative though, it does not work that way in the liberal world.

  4. Non-Aligned says:

    Er, why don’t you just *read the evidence*, instead of blathering on about how he didn’t receive a fair trial? The evidence, I’m afraid, is not ambiguous. No wiggling room. He plagiarized — the proof is there, and damning; all you have to do is five minutes of not very taxing research. I highly suggest it.

    Instead of this supposedly fair-minded “let’s give the poor boy a chance.”

    Yes, he’s on your side, and yes he’s thoroughly unprofessional and corrupt. Get over it.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Why don’t I read the evidence and just say he did it? Because in America even the guy who is caught red handed on the video tape shooting the clerk in the face and robbing the store is given a chance to present his case.

    I stated in my post I did not know if he did it. I also stated that it should have been looked into. But liberals only want a fair trial when one of their own is involved. Kennedy killed a woman and he was a victim who had a chance to tell his side of the story, lie that it was.

    This guy should have had the chance to say yes I did it or what ever.

    As far as blathering, call it what you want but fair is fair and for your information, I give the liberals the same benefit of the doubt. But I would not expect you to understand, liberalism is a disease.

    Amazing though, you want me to read the evidence and draw the conclusion that he is guilty. But when court decision after court decision shows that electronic surveillance is legal, you tell us it is different somehow. Same double standard.

    We gave Dan Rather a chance to say maybe these are phony. Jason Blair got a chance to explain what he did. This conservative deserved that much.

  6. Non-Aligned says:

    Er, how do you know that I’m a liberal?

    Also, this kid did “explain.” He blamed his editor at the school newspaper for inserting stolen quotations. He did not have an explanation, apparently, for faking the AP story.

    If this were a court of law, then yes: due process and all that, even for someone who’s flagrantly guilty. But this is not a court — hence, it’s more than permissible to note that a man who has clearly committed an offense has, well, clearly committed an offense. I mean, “the guy who is caught red handed on the video tape shooting the clerk in the face and robbing the store is given a chance to present his case,” yes… but he’s also undeniably guilty.

    This “liberalism is a disease” statement is, in fact, a kind of diseased rhetoric. You find it on both sides of the fence. No, it’s not a disease. It can be wrongheaded — I happen to favor limited government, fiscal conservatism, etc. (unlike that big government, borrow-and-spend guy in the White House) — but I understand arguments on the other side. (Actually, that’s not true: fiscal irresponsibility makes no sense to me whatsoever. Perhaps — since you support this supposedly conservative president, you might wish to explain the merits of that one to me.)

    Jason Blair was given no protracted chance, once the facts were public: he was rightly pilloried and booted. Dan Rather is not analogous to either of these cases — he made a serious error in judgment, but only someone so biased as to be, um, diseased, would suggest that he deliberately lied.

    I happen to value conservatism highly. I’ve studied with some of the great conservative thinkers of our time. Most of whom would find this administration, by any rigorous measure, egregiously liberal: Wilsonian foreign policy, feckless spending, mushrooming government, etc.

  7. Non-Aligned says:

    Also, what’s this silliness about the Post being a “liberal news outlet.” Krauthammer is a liberal? George Will? Was Robert Novak? Michael Kelly?

    Do you even *read* the Washington Post?

  8. Big Dog says:

    My original post asked the question if it is a fair playing field. It is not. He never stood a chance working for the Post in the first place.

    Hell yes the Post is liberal. Look at the reaction to the Post hiring a conservative to do the blog. And yes, I have read the Post. I do not read many newspapers any longer. They are not timely and they are generally biased.

    George Bush and every elected person in Congress spend too much money. Where I disagree with people is on where the money is spent. The bulk of our budget is spent on income redistribution in the form of social programs. Our Constitution does not give the government permission to take our money and establish welfare.

    If we cut the pork we could balance the budget in 5 years. If we cut social programs to only those necessary (though they are not Constitutionally mandated) we could save tons of money.

    All of them spend the money like it is someone else’s because it is.

    I did not read the articles about the writer. I know what he said about it at his blog, not in the Post’s blog. If he did it then he needed to go and that is fine. The firestorm is because he is conservative.

    As for Rather, he might not have known they were phony at the start but when it became painfully obvious that even Stevie Wonder could see and he defended it, then he was on the wrong side.

    I do appreciate your comments. Please keep checking in and giving your opinion.

  9. Non-Aligned says:

    The Washington Post is vilified by liberals as a conservative rag, and by conservatives as a liberal rag. Which is a good indication of what it is: neither. It has liberal columnists, and it has conservative columnists (including a couple of the most famous and respected conservatives in the country). The Post’s editorial policy is hard to pin down, but on certain issues it is verifiably right of center: at the beginning of the Iraq War, the op-ed pieces in favor of the invasion vastly outnumbered those against.

    All in all, not a bad paper, but this recent boneheaded hire was a disgrace. (Domenech has, by the way, finally pleaded guilty and apologized on redstate.org.)

  10. Big Dog says:

    And now that he has admitted the error and apologized it is over. He should have been given the opportunity to at least admit it and apologize on his way out of the Post…

    I think the Post is the more liberal paper in DC and the Times (Washington) is the more conservative. I only read their articles on line. I don’t see much need in spending money for a paper when the news is old, though I like the crossword puzzles…