Is WaPo’s Media Critic Criticizing WaPo’s Social Media Guidelines?

Kurtz does remain diplomatic and supportive of the paper, careful to call them “guidelines,” instead of the harsher “rules” or “policies.” The way he sees it — no big deal, remember — “You can spout off about the Redskins (if you’re not a sportswriter) but need to tread more carefully on Afghanistan and health care (unless you’re a commentator).” But by so carefully adhering to old school standards of objectivity in the middle of an opinion journalism boom, the paper’s moves are counterintuitive — at least to anyone paying attention.

After a particularly damning criticism from Time‘s Poniewozik — who writes that the Post is “working hard to make itself as irrelevant as possible” — and argues that it’s a good thing for reporters to voice their opinions, Kurtz responds with, “I predict this will sort itself out.” He hardly addresses the argument for neutrality — which seems to be an increasingly unreachable goal in today’s technological age — and instead ends ambivalently with, “A year from now, this flap will seem quaint.”

In fact, Kurtz gives so much time and space to his critics — and spends so little time rebutting with any passion — that a reader almost gets the feeling Kurtz agrees that the guidelines are misguided, but is reluctant to come right out and say so.