« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
WaPo Editor on Solomon: What, Me Worry?
This afternoon I spoke to the Washington Post's Susan Glasser, the paper's assistant managing editor for national news, about John Solomon's hiring.
Glasser was unwaveringly positive about Solomon, citing his "great mind, enthusiasm, zeal for an important subject" -- money in politics -- and calling him "one of the most distinctive assets that the Post has gained in the past few years."
She declined to discuss criticism of his reporting on incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). She "wasn't involved in those stories," she said, and didn't "have anything to say about them." She confirmed that concerns over his work on those stories was "not at all" an issue in his hiring, and emphasized that Solomon is an "extremely well-regarded, practiced, thoughtful, responsible, agressive reporter."
"You guys should be out there reading him closely and carefully, but this is a good thing, an exciting thing for us," Glasser added.
Glasser said that Solomon will be "a reporter covering money in politics" at the Post and will not be getting his own investigative unit, as stated in an AP internal memo about the hiring. "He’s going to be a reporter here at the Post, although I imagine a leader of our coverage," she said.
So there you have it. Don't worry, Susan, we will be reading him closely.
Comments (8)
Crust wrote on December 14, 2006 1:17 PM:Here's what Edsall at the Post had to say before Solomon was a prospective Post employee:
(
Tom Edsall: This article has become very controversial, especially on the web. AP, CNN and others should provide a detailed follow up to explain the confusing play, and perhaps later changes, of the information of Reid's actual vote. I have not researched this myself and do not know the details as fact, but it appears that Reid voted against the interests of those who gave him free tickets, and this significant fact appeared in various locations in the story in different printings and publications, and may have been left out altogether in some cases. The burden falls on AP to straighten this out.
Crust wrote on December 14, 2006 1:18 PM:Link for above comment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052402159.html?nav=topnav
gonzone wrote on December 14, 2006 1:26 PM:What Glasser failed to mention is Solomon's penchant for laziness that leads him to do stenographic work handed to him from leading GOP operatives. But then, this is the home of Steno Sue Schmidtt, is it not?
Mark wrote on January 19, 2007 12:21 PM:If WP wanted a serious reporter on the money and politics issue, they'd hire one from BNA, a few blocks away.
Shawn Harmon wrote on January 19, 2007 1:31 PM:This reminds me of Solomon :
I saw this on the web:
"In a classic campaign speech in rural northern Florida, Smathers told his audience that Pepper was "a shameless extrovert" who was known to have engaged in "nepotism" with his sister-in-law, "whose sister was once a thespian" in wicked New York City, and who was acknowledged to have "practiced celibacy" before his marriage.
The Smathers smear worked. He defeated Pepper by almost 67,000 votes.
But is this story true, or is it another urban legend? Until the end of his Senate career in 1971, Smathers denied the story. Nevertheless, he acknowledged in Reconsiderations by Florida House Clerk Allen Morris, published in 1982, that the story has "gone into the history books."
By Bill Garvin
My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.
When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead—to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.
At first I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I will do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!
It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you can possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even in his childhood!
Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister when they were both teenagers!
I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth?
Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background—no, not when you consider the other members of his family:
His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.
The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.
My opponent's uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.
His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church.
His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.
His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homo sapien.
His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.
His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.
His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers.
And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.
Now what shall we say about the man himself?
I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.
He perambulated his infant on the street.
He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.
He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.
He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense.
He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.
He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company - and has taken part in such gatherings himself.
He has been deliberately averse to crime in our city streets.
He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.
Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the U.S. flag.
Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign isms, he has cooly announced his belief in altruism - and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!
I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.
The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself. Do your duty.
Too ridiculous to be true? Perhaps, but not by much.
It was the 1950 Florida primary campaign for the U.S. Senate when George Smathers challenged incumbent Claude Pepper. In his campaign, Smathers targeted Pepper's unrestrained liberalism—before liberalism became a dirty word—and the fears of uneducated voters.
rose@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 8:55 AM:hello
jennifire@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 7:24 PM:hello
epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:27 AM:Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye