Follow LA Observed on Twitter here
His bosses at the Sacramento Bee have ordered Dan Weintraub to submit his California Insider blog items to a high-level editor before posting. Tony Marcano, a former LAT editor who is the Bee's ombudsman, says low in a piece today that it grew out of complaints by the Legislature's Latino Caucus. The members objected to Weintraub posting that Cruz Bustamante would never have been Speaker of the Assembly, or elected Light Governor, if his name was Charles Bustmont.
Matt Welch and Mickey Kaus both have good posts on how the Bee's directive could chill Weintraub's freshness and independence, and how journalistically wrong it would be to cave to the caucus. We don't know if anyone has caved, based on Marcano's piece. Weintraub has retracted nothing, and so far as we know, his content has not been touched. But if the Bee has toned down Weintraub, the paper should be embarrassed.
He's their opinion columnist, and his blog -- by design -- is more analysis and personality than it is factual reporting. Some readers may accept his insights as truth, but many don't. It's informative anyway. The point of a blog is personal insights, and as Kaus points out, if the Bee wants to broaden the spectrum of takes, it can add more bloggers. The paper chose to make the brand "Dan Weintraub" as opposed to a selection of Bee staffers (which might have been more informative).
Whether the Bee actually has "edited" Weintraub in the sense of revising his take or altering his words is an unknown. Weintraub posts as a Bee staffer, as part of his day job, so the editors may just want the same control (or cover-their-ass protection) they have over everything else the Bee publishes. Nothing runs in a major newspaper without some editor reading it, and thus tacitly okaying it, including Weintraub's print columns. Opinion articles can spew lies but they are edited (occasionally butchered) for length and always read for style, spelling and potential libel. That sort of editing doesn't imply editorial censorship to me, even if an editor challenges fuzzy thinking and says, "Danny, do you really mean to say this?" It depends on whether Weintraub gets to say what he wants to say.
I'm pro editor and have yet to meet the journalist, myself included, who wouldn't benefit from a good collaborative editor. Even so, I think the Bee erred. Spontaneity may be overrated in some bloggers hands -- I prefer thought-out posts -- but quickness to break or react to news is part of why Weintraub and the Bee have drawn so much positive attention. [Plus he represents the Bee almost daily on TV and radio, with no editor. How is a blog, with far fewer consumers, any different?] If the paper wants a blog, it should sign on for the whole deal. Let him post what he wants when he wants, and make sure the readers all know that's the arrangement. Dan's a pro and in the unlikely event he libels somebody or embarrasses the Bee, it can be fixed in the next post.
Update: The Bee's editorial board, which includes Weintraub, has begun a group blog to discuss the questions to be asked at this week's recall candidates debate. Interesting disclaimer: "The views expressed here are those of individual writers, not of the editorial board as a whole."
(Note: When I first posted this the time stamp said 5:25 p.m., which was when I recorded a draft. Then I went off to eat, play with the new kitten etc. It was not posted until about 8 p.m., so I've edited the time below. Edited 11 p.m.)