"I find it difficult to see how [Huffington] has not crossed a line. I cannot imagine David Broder, for instance, one of the country's most respected columnists, pursuing a similar activity without being considered well out of journalistic character."
Oh brother. When a columnist drags out Broder to illustrate journalistic "ethics," you know the fix is in (and the rush to sleep is on, as anyone who attempts to read Broder can tell you).
"Huffington's involvement came up in part because Bates wanted to add David Ignatius, a Washington Post writer with international expertise, to the fold. Because he keeps the list of purchased syndicated writers to 20, Bates needed to drop someone. Huffington's actions provided her nomination."
Somebody had to go, and Huffington was the easiest and safest to cut. That's the story. But, as always, American journos, esp at this level, prefer to paint their actions in the noblest hues, rather than admit to the bottom-feeding nature of their biz.
There are plenty of columnists with sketchy ties to political parties and movements. I don't recall George Will being dumped from op-ed pages after it was revealed that he helped coach Reagan for a debate, then went on ABC to act as an "impartial" analyst of that debate. Indeed, his profile rose during the Reagan years. The claptrap that Hortsch is peddling is stock-in-trade corp media delusion.
DP