Loose Lips

Morning Links

Phil Mendelson really doesn't want the primary to be on April Fool's Day. [Post]

Chinatown restauranteur Tony Cheng and his son plead not guilty to bribery charges. [Times, Post]

Between six and eight candidates remain in the search to replace CFO Natwar Gandhi. [Post]

The Donald Trump-ified Old Post Office isn't Trump enough yet. [WBJ]

Whoever gets the CFO job is in line for a raise. [WBJ]

The shotgun I loaded in Freedom Plaza was real, insists sad man. [DCist]

DC Water water: safe enough to drink, safe enough for pipes. [WBJ]

  • Asuka

    What's sad about him?

    No, no bias in this column, right Mike? If you'd just be honest about it, it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

  • Mike Madden

    @ Asuka:

    I specifically didn't say our staffers had no political viewpoints; I said the fact that our former employees went to work at a) a non-partisan investigative reporting nonprofit or b) the DCFPI after a stop at the Washington Post didn't indicate anything about our coverage.

  • truth hurts

    Yeah. Sick, pathetic, loser, fanatic, hater .... all would've been more accurate descriptors. I say grant this dude's wish. See how well he likes DC jail.

  • RealDC

    Yes, we are finally going to get a trial in DC. Get your popcorn, could be a good one.

  • Asuka


    I wish I could say I'm taken aback by your intellectual dishonesty, but I'm not. You admit that your staffers have "political viewpoints," and it's clear they express them freely in their "reporting," so why wouldn't that, " indicate anything about (your) coverage?" When you so desperately (and illogically) defend such overt bias, why should your readers trust you, your staffers, or what you publish? How do we know that these "viewpoints" are only leveled against acceptable targets (read: any idea or person your readership wouldn't mind seeing attacked)? When you report about local politics, how do I know I'm getting the truth, not a "viewpoint?" Editorial integrity matters.

  • Mike Madden

    @ Asuka:

    You're missing my point entirely, which was only that our writing speaks for itself. If you want to critique the politics of our stories, feel free to do that based on what we publish, not based on where our former employees work.

    If you want to read news that pretends it has no political viewpoint, I'm sure you can find plenty of other outlets around town.

  • Asuka


    You keep referencing a former dialogue and ignoring this one. In that past dialogue, I pointed out that your reporters have a history of moving on to progressive, activist organizations, and that the trend raises some questions about your paper's reporting and whether it has ever been influenced by it's reporters' "politic viewpoints." In this dialogue, I'm pointing out that your current reporter's writing IS being influenced by his "political viewpoints."

    I'm not criticizing your bias, I'm criticizing your insistence that there is no bias - a point you've already conceded (albeit reluctantly) by employing nebulous euphemisms. If you think your writing "speaks for itself," that's all well and good, but in the interest of full disclosure to your readership, you should make clear that your reporting is mixed with "political viewpoints" lest it be confused for objective journalism.

    As to objectivity, I'm sorry you think that's an impossible standard, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't make efforts towards it. What I think you're really saying, however, is that you have no interest in trying, because you assume your readers share the paper's "political viewpoints." If that's the case, then maybe you should change the word "Paper" in your title to something that is more representative of what your your organization actually is.

  • Mike Madden

    @ Asuka:

    I never insisted there was no bias. We're an alt-weekly, and our stories contain plenty of what's obviously opinion and analysis by writers. If people can't figure out that there's a point of view in our writing, then chances are something's wrong with the writing. We always strive to be fair, even to subjects with whom our writers blatantly disagree. But again, if you want writing that pretends to have no viewpoint, you can find it elsewhere. And if you're so dissatisfied with our work, I guess I'm not sure why you keep reading it.