Hmmm. The John Solomon online chat turned out to be a pretty sorry affair. Here at TPM we spent the last few minutes trying to figure out what Solomon’s now saying Edwards even did wrong. Solomon now seems to be running away from the idea that there was anything wrong or untoward about the transaction itself — the identity of the buyer, the sale price, issues related to the buyer, etc. — and focusing on whether Edwards miffed a disclosure requirement. Now MediaMatters says that on this point Solomon’s actually misstating federal law.
Let me focus on a few points here. In his response to controversies about this and previous articles, Solomon refers to the blogged-based discussion or controversies surrounding his work. Often he implies that online controversy is simply the natural response to hard-hitting investigative journalism. And that may be true. But Solomon’s far too generous with himself. This isn’t just chatter from the blogs. Solomon’s work is, to put it generously, quite ‘controversial’ among many of his colleagues as well. It was that way at the AP. And since two of Solomon’s new Post colleagues have now publicly questioned the merits of his debut front page piece (the paper’s ombudsman being one of the two) I think it’s fair to his work is controversial at the new shop too.
Update from G.S.: More on the obvious absurdities of Solomon’s pushback here.
