Liz Cheney attacked Nancy Pelosi today, aided by the Wash Post

[CatWoman]

Fred Hiatt Responds, Explains Why WaPo Published Liz Cheney Piece Bashing Pelosi Without Identifying Her As Veep's Daughter

April 12, 2007

Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor of The Washington Post, has just responded to my email to him about Liz Cheney's Post Op-ed today slamming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He explained why he thinks it's okay that the paper didn't identify her as the Veep's daughter in the description of her at the bottom of the piece.

Liz Cheney's Op ed is here. Though the piece is called "The Truth About Syria," the main hook for the article is an attack on Pelosi for traveling to Damascus. Ms. Cheney hammers Pelosi as "especially naive" for making the trip, and concludes: "Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful."

Ms. Cheney is identified at the end of the piece as follows:

No mention that her pop's the Veep. Here's why this is highly questionable, in my view. Ms. Cheney's attack on Pelosi is eerily similar to the one launched on Pelosi recently by her father. So this Op ed looks like a clear effort to help him politically, by reiterating the attack, in however limited a way it does this in actual practice. What's more, this line of attack has a larger context: It is arguably designed to weaken Pelosi at a time when the House Dems she leads are locked in a critical political battle over Iraq with her dad's administration. And the WaPo editorial page has been one of the leading backers of the Bush-Cheney Iraq war.

Finally, this is not the first, but the second, piece by Ms. Cheney in the WaPo attacking one of her dad's leading political opponents in terms similar to those used by Veep Cheney himself (she wasn't fully identified at the end of the first one, either). This is on its way to becoming a pattern. And while many D.C. types know who Liz Cheney is, there's no way of knowing whether many of the Post's readers know this. So why not err on the side of full disclosure?

So I emailed Hiatt the following question:

Given that Vice President Dick Cheney has been one of the leading critics of Pelosi on a variety of fronts, and given that Mr. Cheney's administration is in the midst of an extremely high-stakes political battle with Pelosi over the future of Iraq, what is the justification for not identifying Ms. Cheney as the Veep's daughter?

Hiatt has now answered, which I sincerely appreciate. Hiatt emailed:

We published Liz Cheney's piece based on her qualifications as a former high-ranking State Dept. official with oversight of Near Eastern Affairs. I don't believe qualified professional women need to be identified by their husbands or fathers, even when well-known.

Whaddaya think, all?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/04/fred_hiatt_resp.php

[donco6]

1. If she's brought up a significantly different point, maybe . . .

. . . but when she's just regurgitating the same points as her father? I call that bullshit.

[Straight Shooter]

2. "I don't believe qualified professional women need to be identified by their husbands or fathers"

Oh, no, of course not. Especially not when their fathers got them the "high-ranking State Dept." post in the first place. :eyes:

edit to add: And Hiatt will never, ever bring up Bill Clinton in reference to Hillary Clinton, either. :sarcasm:

[blogslut]

3. Nice way to spin it, Fred

I bet you ten to one that if Lynne had written that piece, the WP would have identified her as Cheney's wife.

[Fresh_Start]

4. ok, I buy that they don't need to say who her daddy is

can they list her accomplishments during her career?

Fostered illegal invasion
aided and abetted incompetent war plan
destroyed US reputation world wide

I mean if she's believed to be accomplished should they be able to mention her accomplishments?

[Snotcicles]

5. Daddy, make them let me be Important. nt

[left is right]

6. But clear biases should always be identified

so at the very least she should have been identified as someone who had close ties to the VP

[Elidor]

7. For him to pretend that her political attack on behalf of her father doesn't require full disclosure

Is extremely disingenuous. But then, this is Hiatt, fuckwit extraordinaire, and a cheerleader for the Bush administration and their war of aggression. The man is dishonest, and a scumbag. Did I mention I detest the motherfucker? Because I do.