|
|
|
Following some weeks of high-level negotiation, Robin Wright, the long-time L.A. Times reporter on international terrorism, has jumped to the Washington Post. Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus announced her departure in a memo to the staff.
After 15 years of brilliant journalism at the Los Angeles Times, Robin Wright has opted for the calmer and less-dramatic life of a beat reporter at The Washington Post.We are sorry to see her go -- and I say that as one who has had the special privilege of working closely with Robin as a colleague, coauthor, editor and semi-boss during her entire tenure here.
She's had a pretty sweet, mostly hands-off deal at the Times, but apparently wanted more. Even possibly an op-ed column, like Thomas Friedman at the New York Times.
It was McManus who, earlier in the week, also reported to the staff on the memorial service at the National Press Club for Iraq War correspondent Mark Fineman. He said the poignant service was well attended, including by a surprise interloper: "...former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, who wandered by mistake into what by then had become a quite convivial party and didn't realize for some time that it was a wake..."
Fineman died of a heart attack Sept. 23 while on assignment in Iraq. Sources at the paper, meanwhile, say that Ken Ellingwood, the Atlanta bureau chief, is heading to the Jerusalem bureau and that Megan Stack is crossing from Israel to the Cairo bureau.
Yes.
Posted by: joseph at October 13, 2003 09:28 AMcan you give three examples? And I think it would be a huge stretch to place jill stewart in that category. She's good, but not talented.
Posted by: Philippe at October 13, 2003 01:23 PMIn the days following Sept. 11, Robin Wright quoted an intelligence source saying that the Mr. bin Laden had not been a major player in the days (1980-88) of the U.S. (and European) support of the mujahaddin in Afghanistan. That turned out to be untrue. Now, I can understand the intelligence source wanting to spin the past to minimize the following notion: that the U.S. created bin Laden by supporting him when he was fighting the Russians. What I can't understand is that Wright didn't know her source was no good; that Wright didn't know that she was allowing him to get misinformation/disinformation into the Times, and that Wright, given that this is her area of expertise, didn't have a better handle on Mr. bin Laden's history. Given Wright's history of foreign policy and national security coverage, I believed what she wrote -- I thought she was quoting a reliable source. She wasn't; she got burned, but she should've known better. We all make mistakes. That was a big one.
Posted by: The Raven at October 13, 2003 09:45 PMNothing could be farther from the truth. The LA Times has a long history of negotiating sweetheart deals with star writers to keep them from defecting to the NYT, etc. But some leave anyway, especially from the Washington bureau. The LA Times, published 3,000 miles away, is not considered a must read by the NY/DC power elites, so writers who want to be "players" know they can have more influence at the NYT or WP.
Posted by: LANewsman at October 15, 2003 10:33 AM
of LA Observed
Interesting how the LAT seems to let talent slip away rather than recognizing it. This is just my semi-informed perception, but it seems they have a culture where they're very uncomfortable if anybody becomes too much of a star -- or just stands out as a personality. I don't know Wright, so maybe this had nothing to do with her departure. But, speaking in general, am I wrong about this?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 12, 2003 06:41 PM