This story is amazing, but for none of the reasons intended by @politico, I suspect. politi.co/3dQwGrF
This paragraph is either an Escher drawing or a Rorschach test. I can’t decide which. 
Back in 2009, I was a blogger in Columbus, Ohio, mere days before I covered the signing of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill-signing (it was actually the NDAA) at the White House. They welcomed me with open arms!
They invited me to cover it when, as for as I knew, I’d be covering it at my Law Dork blog. (Thanks to @marcambinder, I ended up writing up a piece about the day for The Atlantic online, which was very kind and cool.)
Sure, this story involves some manipulation and lies, but, from the looks of the lengthy story — wow — the person, anonymous as they were, pretty much appeared to be ... doing journalism. Even if it started out as a gag or whatever.
What journalists do is important — but it’s not, and absolutely shouldn’t be, some elite club, which is pretty much what the story repeatedly says.
Sure, reporters shouldn’t hide who they are — but the FOIAs, Twitter schedule work, & questions pretty much all seem legit to me.
Sure, reporters shouldn’t hide who they are — but the FOIAs, Twitter schedule work, & questions pretty much all seem legit to me.
(And even the “shouldn’t hide who they are” can be a grey line at times.)
Had the person actually tried to come on the WH campus, and lied, and still gotten in, yeah, that’s news.
But this isn’t that. An anonymous person did WH reporting and asked questions of WH officials.
Had the person actually tried to come on the WH campus, and lied, and still gotten in, yeah, that’s news.
But this isn’t that. An anonymous person did WH reporting and asked questions of WH officials.
OK. Rant over.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
