Intellectual Corruption and Susan Glasser

Susan Glasser is editor of Outlook, the Post's big Sunday roundup of Op-Eds. Last week she ran a column by Yvonne Ridley defending the use of the veil, deceptively identifying Ridley as an editor and author. As PostWatch and many others said at the time, Ridley is a radical terrorist sympathizer; that's not invective but a fair way to describe someone who thinks the Taliban got a "bad press," who defends the actions of suicide bombers and who has praised monsters including the man who engineered the Beslan School massacre. In her column today, ombudsman Deborah Howell provides Glasser's answer:

Outlook editor Susan Glasser disagreed: "We identified Yvonne Ridley in the same way we would any other author of a piece in Outlook. We steer clear of characterizing our writers' views. That's up to the readers, and clearly this one didn't have a problem deciding what to think about Ridley. She is a very controversial figure, but what these people want us to do is to put a label on her that marginalizes her and prejudges her opinions. I thought her opinion on this particular subject was worth airing, that she was well qualified to write the piece and to raise some interesting notions -- not often aired in this paper -- about Western men and their hypocrisy on Islamic women, regardless of whether you agree with her or not."

Well, I guess we know that Glasser agrees with some interesting notions about "Western men and their hypocrisy on Islamic women," so that's useful information. But with this response, Glasser has filed a petition for ignorance. The Post, we have now come to learn, is not supposed to inform the public. It's more of a brain-teaser; if you're willing to research the author of a column defending the veil and discover she defends suicide bombing as "martyrdom operations," more power to you.

Lesson, class: You cannot rely on the Post to provide the information you need to evaluate events. I've been saying that for years on this blog, and now Glasser announces that doing so is not even the paper's intention.  This is your destination when the road is mapped with left-speak. Glasser:

She is a very controversial figure, but what these people want us to do is to put a label on her that marginalizes her and prejudges her opinions.

Some people ought to be marginalized and have their opinions prejudged. Among them are figures who excuse and glorify terrorism. And the editors who promote them, conceal their true beliefs and defend that deception not as an oversight but as a positive virtue.

Nor does Howell cover herself in glory:

I wasn't familiar with Ridley and agree that identifying her more fully would have helped readers put her comments into context. But what struck me as even more important was that Glasser could decide to run such a controversial article. This wouldn't happen in many countries.

If the Fourth Estate doesn't wake up it won't be happening in this country forever either.