When the Washington Examiner made the case last week that the impeachment whistleblower should be identified publicly, Twitter’s reliably outraged pundits denounced us for “concern-trolling” and as “vile,” “terrible,” “horrible,” etc. “Shame” was pronounced upon us.
Others accused us of intimidation and lamented the low state of journalism. Still others declared us criminals, claiming that whistleblower anonymity is protected by law. The accusations went on and on, but my sampling ends here by noting the objection that we made our case in an unsigned editorial which, being unsigned, should be ignored.
Let’s deal with these brickbats in order, starting with the last.
Unsigned editorials are standard when a publication states its official view. Signed commentary pieces express opinions of particular writers who may disagree with the publication in which they appear. The Washington Examiner publishes many opinions with which, as an institution, it disagrees. We offer a range of views. But when an editorial is bylined “Washington Examiner,” it means it’s the publication’s view, not that of a particular writer. If you want to put a name to it, use mine; it’s Hugo Gurdon. I am the editor-in-chief of the Washington Examiner‘s magazine and website, I’m responsible for all our content, and I assign or approve editorials, even though they’re usually written by one or another of our commentary writers.
I stand by the view that the whistleblower should be identified, for the reasons we made plain in the editorial itself. I invite you to read it again or, if you’re one of the many who criticized it without, apparently, reading it, I invite you skim it for the first time. You may be enlightened.
Next, no, the whistleblower’s anonymity is not guaranteed. The law bans the inspector general from revealing it, but there is nothing in letter or spirit suggesting news organizations keep it secret. What’s happened to journalism? You might well ask, but not of those who’d reveal the truth to readers. The question is appropriately directed at partisans (and reporters or editors who agree with them) who say it’s fine to impeach a president in secrecy and want the press dragooned into playing along with this nonsense.
Those of this view also probably think it’s dandy for impeacher-in-chief Rep. Adam Schiff to leak cherry-picked evidence to inflict maximum damage on Trump. Our cover story, “The Worst Man For The Job,” by David Harsanyi, lays out the impossibility of Schiff running a credible inquiry. He’s just too much of a political hack to, er, hack it. Karol Markowicz lambastes the modern tribal dogma that politeness must be reserved for people who share one’s opinions; Carrie Severino examines the case of Steven Menashi, whose persecution exemplifies the Left’s effort to make any conservative opinion disqualifying for high office; Philip Klein excerpts a chapter from his new book exposing the socialist trap being set for millennials. We also celebrate the new Nobel Peace Prize laureate and lament the death of Harold Bloom.
