Comments on: Brauchli: Washington Post Swamped with Media Calls

By: The Washington Post, Sally Quinn and the Mink Stole Ladies: How much VIP-watching is too much? | The Solomon Scandals

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:08:56 +0000

[...] spend too much time explaining themselves.” So said Marcus Brauchli, executive editor of the Washington Post; and a media watcher [...]

By: WaPo Happy, Two: Lalalalalala! I Can’t Hear You! | No Bull. news service.

WaPo Happy, Two: Lalalalalala! I Can’t Hear You! | No Bull. news service. — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:18:58 +0000

[...] on whether he should have to explain his paper’s journalism to–among [...]

By: Emptywheel » WaPo Happy, Two: Lalalalalala! I Can’t Hear You!

Emptywheel » WaPo Happy, Two: Lalalalalala! I Can’t Hear You! — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:04:01 +0000

[...] on whether he should have to explain his paper’s journalism to–among others–readers: I don’t think it’s necessary [...]

By: Napkin Roosevelt

Napkin Roosevelt — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 03:40:55 +0000

Hey, what happened to the story you teased at the end of this column? The New wapo mag manages to be full of fluff AND an eyesore. what the crap are they thinking over there? Whatever's going on, I hope you find out.

By: Brauchli Doctrine Strikes Again? - City Desk - Washington City Paper

Brauchli Doctrine Strikes Again? - City Desk - Washington City Paper — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:44:39 +0000

[...] That sounds a lot like the Brauchli Doctrine, which holds that newspapers spend too much time explaining [...]

By: edward

edward — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:05:58 +0000

From some of these comments, there is clearly a misunderstanding about the role of a publisher. Might I recall that during Watergate, Ben Bradlee took a Woodward-Burnstein story to Katharine Graham to see if she wanted to publish it. Famously, she said yes. But there was the lingering option that she could have said no, with all that might have meant.
Weymouth's role is similar. She is setting a tone for the newspaper, which she owns. She has positioned her office in the newsroom, which is unusual. I vehemently object to the changes she has engineered, and think they have led to a very pallid and wan paper filled with ridiculous pseudo-religion stories on faith written by people who have none, and feel-good pop pyschology garbage. But it is her property and her money. If she wants to spend it that way, that is her decision. If she doesn't want a story to appear in the newspaper, that is also her decision.

By: Why Did Washington Post Magazine Run Another Wanda Fleming Column? - City Desk - Washington City Paper

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:08:28 +0000

[...] unclear whether the silence is the first step in the Post’s implementation of the Brauchli Doctrine (i.e., newspapers spend too much time explaining themselves) or whether the Fleming issue is just [...]

By: Kelly

Kelly — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:33:31 +0000

"Now whether a publisher should be making it clear wht “advertisers” prefer is another story…"

No, that's exactly what THIS story is about.

Mendelson's piece was not a story on cheese for Car and Driver. It was assigned by Post editors. And then spiked by those same editors antsy about rocking the boat with their publisher, who decided she didn't like the story without ever having read it.

That's not good journalism.

By: Shout Hallejulah C’mon Get Happy, Get Ready For The Judgement Day « Around The Sphere

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:14:08 +0000

[...] Erik Wemple at Washington City Paper: As Kurtz laid out in his thoroughly reported, perfectly timed piece that blew all my efforts out of the water, Weymouth didn’t keep her thoughts to herself. Rather, she mentioned it to top editors, and the piece ended up on the spike. [...]

By: asc

asc — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:04:53 +0000

"So the magazine made a decision about a story that wasn’t based on the quality of the story? Now there’s an editorial principle for ya." Don't editors always reject quality stories? There are hundreds of talented journalists out there, writing thousands of quality stories. But a magazine can only publish so many, and reserves the right to define its own identity. I expect "quality" stories in New York and The New Yorker, but expect the stories each prints to be distinct to each magazine's voice and vision. "Car and Driver" isn't going to publish a report on cheese-making,whatever the quality (of the article, not the cheese), and Cheesemaker's Monthly isn't going to take a "quality" look back at the Delorean years. Now whether a publisher should be making it clear wht "advertisers" prefer is another story...

By: Toutatis

Toutatis — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:06:45 +0000

paul maryniak and edward, your posts might carry a little weight if you were literate. The WaPo is a paper on the edge of very rapid decline. It's between a rock and a hard place. It's subscribers are by and large older people with education and a sense of history and an understanding of the significance of a well-functioning news media. It's publisher and chief editors are largely uneducated or ideological averse to literate discourse and fact; who totally lack any such education, sense, or understanding of the significance. No paper of significance would retain a warmonger like Fred Hiatt. Over. Done. Shut it down. It has outlived its usefulness. If we could subscribe only to the Food, Home, Health and Real Estate sections, we would. It's main pages are dispensable and are of interest only for the humor. Come on back Catherine, you would be forgiven anything. Disown this monster child/publisher.

By: david

david — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:08:01 +0000

Heck, this is not surprising. The publisher of the Post's weekly papers outside D.C. has been pushing and killing stories for years. If you are a friend of his, expect your stories to run and editorials to follow. If you are on his bad side, watch out. The staff needs to keep their jobs so no one can speak up. Weymouth must be following that lead.

By: Valda

Valda — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:47:11 +0000

I disagree with commenter 14, Dr. BioBrain. Now that I know the Washington Post has a wedding column (and surely it must be more like "Celebrations", to include couples who aren't actually married according to the Federal government) I will be sure to check it out and provide the WashPo with valuable clickthroughs and eyeballs. Nothing gives me more pleasure than to scan the Sunday Times' (NY, not Washington, London, or Calcutta) Vows section and play the "How the hell did THEY get in there?" game. I am a master at it, especially when they publish the "Vows" of gay couples (gay marriage isn't legal in New York.) I remember whooping with glee when I read about the 50s-ish guy who was the Sulzbergers' gardener! Make no mistake: a good, solid wedding column (as I'm sure Katharine Weymouth is producing, perhaps personally? Her mother is certainly quite social) is the surest sign of a quality publication. I approve. Highly.

By: Doctor Biobrain

Doctor Biobrain — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:31:06 +0000

I think the real story here is that the Post has decided to focus its Sunday magazine on lightweight fluff in order to sell more ads. While this article getting cut makes that obvious, I think the bigger implication shouldn't be missed. The free-market just gave us another source of fluff journalism.

Yes, in these times of trouble, what we REALLY need is another wedding column. Brilliant.

By: JTFloore

JTFloore — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:18:43 +0000

a publisher or senior editor at the washington post probably does not have to actually "kill" a story he/she dislikes. in many cases all they've got to do is hint that they don't like it. then most editors below them will follow the hint and kill it and make up some excuse to explain their decision. isn't that how alot of people further their careers, by not making waves, by going with the flow, by always refusing, in effect, to talk truth to power?