The Jennifer Rubin Problem

Conor Friedersdorf has a new takedown of Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin. Conor sifts through Rubin's coverage of the Hagel confirmation, demonstrating how consistently and unapologetically wrong she was throughout the entire affair. This is great stuff, but I think his conclusion isn't quite right:

I also think lots of journalists make occasional bad predictions; that the predictions I've documented in this piece go beyond that in frequency, implausibility, and effect on a semi-closed media ecosystem; and that if movement conservatives or neocons respond to critiques of bad journalism with the observation that they aren't the only offenders, they're correct, but missing the point. 

Conor's point seems to be that the conservative media is suffering from epistemic closure, and this is distorting their understanding of the facts on the groud. This is certainly happening, but in Rubin's case I think the problem is more fundamental.

Rubin is an avid supporter of Israel. It is pretty transparently the political issue that is most important to her. Because of this, she strongly opposed Chuck Hagel's nomination to SecDef. This is all fine, bloggers have opinions and issues they care about. Rubin should feel free to express her anti-Hagel views on her blog.

But Rubin isn't just an opinion writer, she also uses her blog to report on political events. She clearly has access to some insider sources in the Republican party that the rest of us don't have. There is nothing implicitly wrong with this either. There are lots of good reporters--Dave Weigel, Robert Costa--who utilize the blog format.

The problem with Rubin is the way she combines those two roles. Instead of giving her opinion about what should happen, and then reporting on what will happen, she uses her dual role to conflate the two and present what she wants to happen, as if it is going to happen. The problem isn't as simple as Rubin just having the wrong sources and making bad predictions, she actively tries to distort the truth in favor of her preferred outcome. Conor notes this at one point, but doesn't dwell on it:

During the election, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post was the the quintessential example of a conservative writer letting what she wanted to happen affect her take on what was happening.

I think a useful comparison is the Washinton Post's "left-wing" blogger Greg Sargent. Here is a sample of Sargent's coverage of the Scott Walker recall election:

Many Washington pundits have declared the battle to recall Scott Walker all but over, and at least one public poll has shown Walker with a five point lead. This has created a problem for labor and Dems, who worry that impressions that the race can't be won could depress enthusiasm among Dems in a battle that will likely be decided by who turns out to vote. 

But make no mistake: Dems and labor still think the race is a dead heat. They are supplying their own polling data to make the case, and to energize the base in the home stretch. 

A new poll taken by pollster Celinda Lake — who is a Democrat but is well respected by polling professionals — has found that the battle between Scott Walker and challenger Tom Barrett is now deadlocked, at 49 percent each.

Sargent is using his position at the Washington Post to give coverage to a poll that is favorable to his preferred outcome. But he makes sure to point out that Dems are worried that polling data will depress turnout, and that is why they released their own poll. He goes on to note:

Today’s poll — like polling released by the other side — should be evaluated as part of the ongoing spin war over the course of the recall campaign, which is designed to help influence the outcome, or at least to prevent public polling from creating premature impressions that the race is over.

Sargent isn't just giving us the Democratic polling numbers--he is using his knowledge of political races to explain the spin game going on. Now Sargent was covering the recall--in part--because he cares about the outcome and wanted Walker to be recalled. But he doesn't let this get in the way of his primary responsibility which is to inform liberals about what is going on. He even updated the post later  on with polls showing Walker was ahead. 

The Washington Post should have a conservative blogger. That blogger should have opinions but also do reporting. But not conflating the two is difficult, and its become apparent that it is beyond the capabilities of Rubin. She should be replaced.

UPDATE: Check out Greg Sargent's post on the Illinois special election. He is clearly enthusiastic about the potential for liberal groups to primary pro-gun right dems, but he makes sure to clarify that it is a work in progress and we will have to wait and see.