REACTIONS TO WASH. POST PIECE ON MAGGIE: Various

Barry Deutsch: "Maggie is a leading writer (perhaps the leading writer) against same-sex marriage, so I'd be delighted to see her discredited. No one has less interest in her defense than me. Nonetheless, this is not a big deal. Why? Because, given Maggie's work before 2002, there is no question in my mind that she would have supported Bush’s marriage initiative--and supported it in column after column after column--even if they never paid her a cent.

"Nor is this like the other recent right-wing-Journalist-taking-federal-money scandal, because Maggie was not being paid to to put certain content in her newspaper columns or to try and talk up the initiative among other journalists. She was being paid to write pamphlets and speeches for the federal government, which she did. Presumably, they would have paid her even if she had quit writing her column; Armstrong Williams cannot say the same." (more)

"Captain Ed": "Gallagher should have revealed her working relationship with HHS, both to her readers and her publishers. NRO editor Rich Lowry told Kurtz that he would have preferred to know about the relationship in order to include it in her bio on the site, and that's understandable. Moreover, I think Gallagher's glib response to the question of an ethical violation -- 'I don't know, you tell me' -- shows a contempt for reality that damages her credibility more than her undisclosed consultancy for HHS.

"However, unlike Armstrong Williams, Gallagher did not sell her column space to HHS, nor did she push others to cover the proposals or solicit positive commentary as a contractual duty. Gallagher wrote some of the brochures for the program, most of which went unused, and ghost-wrote an essay for program chief Wade Horn. She also spoke to program officials about marriage, which amounts to nothing much more than a stop on a lecture tour. She exercised some poor judgment and should apologize (which she already has), but it's a much different situation than Williams." (more)

Kathryn Jean Lopez (at National Review): "We (Rich and I) did not know about the relationship until late yesterday, when Howard Kurtz called. Had we known about it, as Rich told Kurtz, we would have disclosed it, of course, so you knew where she was coming from. We wish we had known—I wish she had told us." (more)

Michelle Malkin: "Can't tell you how deeply disappointed I am to read this, especially given that Gallagher has been a fearless and independent (or so I had thought) voice in defense of traditional marriage.

"Also can't tell you how galling the stupidity of the Bush administration officials who doled out taxpayer funds to conservatives in the media is. Who else is out there? First, the Department of Education. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services. What other departments put the right's media figures on the dole? Better step forward and come clean. NOW." (more)

Elizabeth Marquardt: "I think the main confusion here lies with the multiple hats that Maggie wears – researcher, expert, frequent media guest, and journalist. Marriage is suddenly big and Maggie, who's been doing what she does for many years, is suddenly in the limelight. Like all of us, she's learning as she goes along. She apologizes to her readers in her column today. She's certainly learned her lesson for the future. She's the real deal, someone who knows the literature on marriage and divorce better than anyone I know and who writes with passion and rigor. I don't always agree with Maggie on her arguments but I am always amazed by the power with which she constructs them. If the Post wants to take down some hired hack, look elsewhere. Leave Maggie alone." (more)

Ryan Sager: "So, as much as gay-marriage proponents might like to see an ideological foe discredited, there's simply not much meat on these bones. If Maggie Gallagher was credible before this kerfuffle, she's credible now." (more)

Andrew Sullivan: "She argues, reasonably, that her case is not a direct equivalent to Williams'. She received a tenth of the money, and wasn't paid to be a mere flack for a piece of legislation. She just worked for the government, while seeming to be writing independently of any government position. ...I wonder who else is out there." (more)

Tom Sylvester: "It does bring up interesting issues of disclosure, though. I wonder if everyone in the marriage movement is more paranoid now. For example, this summer I worked for Wade Horn at the Administration for Children and Families. I continued to blog in support of HHS’s marriage initiative. Now, granted, blogging isn't journalism, but should bloggers disclose all potential "conflicts of interest"? To be honest, I don't know if I mentioned my job on the blog or not. (HHS did know, though, that I was a Kerry-supporting, pro-gay-marriage Democrat who disagreed with pretty much every Bush Administration proposal except the Healthy Marriage Initiative.)" (more) (and here)

Michael Triplett: Lots of stuff, scroll about.
posted by Eve at 2:35 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home