On January 21, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank boldly declared he was going to take a "Palin-free month" in February, 2011's shortest month. On February 1, Milbank posted an item on Sarah Palin, breaking this promised moratorium. Or so I, along with anyone else who happened to be reading the Washington Post, thought!
At about 3:45pm yesterday, a post went up over at the Washington Post's PostPartisan blog, under Milbank's byline that read:
I survived Day One of my February Sarah Palin moratorium, defeating the evil plans of ABC News's Rick Klein. Only 27 days to go...
And right away, I'm thinking: Really? Is that how this is going to go? If you're on a "Sarah Palin Moratorium," isn't it cheating to post an item about how you're still on your Sarah Palin Moratorium? With Sarah Palin's name in the headline, being all click-seeky? It sure seemed like a cheat to me. And evidently, the people at the Post came around to seeing it the same way, because this afternoon, the text of the original post was crossed out and the following "update" was appended:
The sentence as written above was posted by an editor, not Dana. So Dana's moratorium remains intact.
Before this momentary breach in the pledge, the pledge itself raised a bunch of questions. Questions such as: "Is there really any instrinsic value in having one of your columnists declare a 'Palin-free month' when the slack of writing about Palin can just be taken up by every other contributor?" And also: "Wouldn't it actually be smarter to continue covering Palin, as normal, but declare a moratorium on, say, treating every Twitter outburst as if it was actually news and/or the authentic statements of Sarah Palin?"
But now that the Post has revealed that editors are just straight up posting whatever they like under Milbank's name, my big question is: When did David "The byline doesn't take credit for the work, but serves as an overarching tag" Zinczenko start editing the Washington Post?