I really have to question the judgment of Terrence McCoy and the Washington Post news editors. Why would they use the occasion of Charles C. Johnson’s decision to reveal the identity of an alleged rape victim to profile the man? For a publicity hound like Johnson, this is an enormous reward for some very bad behavior. And it’s hard for me to see this as not being complicity on the Washington Post‘s part.
I can envision certain circumstances in which the sheer size of the media event would warrant an article that basically answers the question: “Who is the guy who broke this story?” I’m thinking back to when Matt Drudge broke news of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
But this is a much smaller media event than l’affaire Lewinsky was, and Johnson didn’t break the story that there were problems with Rolling Stone‘s reporting. That Johnson revealed the identity of alleged victim isn’t even front-page news, and very few people care or will be edified to learn that Mr. Johnson lives in Fresno, once wrote a book about Calvin Coolidge and likes to “get scalps.”
When you weigh what is provided to the public by reporting on Mr. Johnson’s biography against the downside of giving this man free publicity and helping increase his notoriety (and fundraising), it shouldn’t be a hard call. The editors should have declined to run this piece.
