Did Mitt Romney assault a prep school classmate?

Pro tip:


The ratio of real journalists here to journalists real* to journalists manqué is always in dispute.





* (pronounced ray-ALL)

 

Knowing a bit about both the Washington Post and its national staff, I'll go ahead and say I find the notion this could have been "coordinated cover" to be hilarious. That Romney story on Cranbrook would have almost certainly have been scheduled to run a week in advance, possibly more, and I'm quite confident the reporter and the direct editor involved with it would have been a little dismayed by the gay marriage announcement the day before, seeing as how it would have threatened to overshadow what probably felt like a decent scoop of standard political biographical journalism.

No one, even within the administration, knew that gay marriage was going to be a major campaign issue this week until Biden stepped in rainbow flags on Meet the Press, and the idea someone like Axelrod or Jarrett would have dialed up Marcus Brauchli and said "How can you help us change the conversation in the next 24 hours?" shows absolutely zero understanding of how a major metro newspaper works. For starters, you're claiming they were saving it "in case it went over like a lead balloon" which implies they would have been able to: 1. Predict the vote in North Carolina was going to go the way it did. 2. Predict the president was going to grant ABC an interview about the issue the day after the vote. 3. Have some kind of back-up plan in case the story needed to be held because the tepid endorsement of gay marriage was a resounding success. In this day and age, you don't just clear 4,000 words holes in the paper for stories on 12 hours notice.

There are also so many people within the building who would love to embarrass Brauchli over some sort of coordinated attack that "revealed" he was in cahoots with the administration, it would have been leaked before it even happened. And perhaps even more people who would have liked to embarrass Katharine Waymouth too. If you can tell me who either of those people are without looking it up, I'll at least listen to your next post with an open mind, but I'm confident you cannot.

If you want to come on here wagging your finger in the name of "real" journalism, it's probably wise to have some sort of real understanding of how a major newspaper schedules and puts together its campaign coverage. The argument that cries "TIMING!" is, as pointed out above by BTExpress, a stoopid one because the target is always on the move. Why run this story now???!!! Right after Romney became the nominee/after the convention/on the eve of the election/on a day when the Redskins aren't playing?

It's all a game of three card monte, meant to distract from the actual story. Which, by the way, probably would have gone away in two days if Romney's people hadn't handled it so oafishly.

 

The real reason newspaper journalists are losing their jobs is because newspapers have lost their monopoly on advertising.

 

Excellent post, Double Down.

 

More people are reading the Washington Post now than have ever read it at any point in its history, by the way. That's a fact.

They're just not subscribing to the paper. Because they don't have to. They can read it on line, and not have to take 50 pounds of newspaper out to the recycling bin every Sunday.

But yes, this kind of "gotcha!" assertion is why newspapers have to lay people off.

 

Please, Jonathan Capeheart's salary is probably paid for by by Obama campaign. I write this as someone who will be voting for Obama in November.

To completely dismiss the idea that the timing of this story might have been coordinated is silly.

 

Where does "child rapist" fit into the list?

 

I have never been involved in a budget meeting where the timing of a story was determined by anything other than. 1) Is it done? 2) Is it time sensitive (pegged to an even happening Friday for example)? 3) Do we run the risk of getting beat if we hold the story? 4) Do we need to run it past the lawyers? 5) Do we have art? 6) What's the competition on the front page? 7) Is it a "Sunday" story which would have a wider audience? 8) Do we need it even more another day when the budget is thin?

 

OK, Shark, I'm confused. You say THIS:

But yet you open with THIS:

Am I missing something here?

 

You know, if Mitt Romney would just release some sort of documentation that this never happened, it would be fine. I'm not saying it did or didn't happen. Just that if he released some kind of documentation that it didn't, it would answer all the questions.

 

People who come with chips on their shoulders shouldn't cry that others are knocking the chips off their shoulders.

 

He claims to have a long video of it not happening, but he refuses to release it.