The 'Inquirer' and John Yoo

Inquirer readers and staff members are up in arms because Philadelphia's most respected daily newspaper, in the midst of its gala 180th birthday celebration (a celebration triggered, apparently, by a realization that the paper is unlikely to celebrate its 200th), has acknowledged granting a regular monthly editorial-page column to a columnist who lacks any journalistic credentials.

That's not the primary objection, of course. The columnist, John C. Yoo, was one of the Bush administration lawyers who wrote the now-infamous memos that discerned legal grounds for the CIA's use of torture in interrogations.

Nor is this the first time a reviled public figure has been cloaked in the mantle of a media authority figure. Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted cop-killer, wrote a series of commentaries about life on Death Row that were broadcast on National Public Radio. Ira Einhorn, who chopped up his girlfriend and stuffed her in a trunk, raised extra cash for his defense by writing a column for the Philadelphia alternative weekly Electricity (causing his editor, Harry Katz, to observe, "Ira writes in a truncated style"). But whatever their flaws, Abu-Jamal and Einhorn did possess some previous credentials as journalists.

The Santorum precedent

Nor is this the first time the Inquirer has hired someone who lacks journalistic credentials. Rick Santorum, a conservative two-term U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania until he managed the remarkable feat of losing the 2006 election by 18 percentage points while outspending his opponent by $10 million, was also anointed with an Inquirer op-ed column after his defeat. For that matter, the Inquirer's current publisher, the former PR man Brian Tierney, also lacks previous journalistic credentials; his only qualification is the role he played as point man for the syndicate that bought the Inquirer in 2006.

Harold Jackson, the Inquirer's editorial page editor, says Santorum and Yoo were given columns as part of a conscious effort "to counter criticism that our editorials and columns always lean left." As it happens, Benito Mussolini— a high-profile conservative with genuine journalistic credentials, to boot— was unavailable. And no one in the very wide universe of conservative commentators— which includes the Inquirer columnists Kevin Ferris, Jonathan Last, Charles Krauthammer and Michael Smerconish— has done anything so spectacular as defiling the U.S. Constitution and disgracing the country. So whom else to hire but John Yoo?

I wish the Inquirer well with this apparent policy of oiling the wheel that squeaks the loudest. All readers with political leanings, left and right alike, believe the media are biased against their camp. By attempting to placate its most vocal readers on the right, the Inquirer in effect invites its equally bitter readers on the left to exert pressure of their own. Amid this tug of war, God help those Inquirer subscribers— both of us— who read a newspaper to learn what's going on, instead of to reinforce our biases.

The Episcopal Academy connection

As it turns out, the hiring of Yoo was not Harold Jackson's idea, but Brian Tierney's. As Tierney explained to the New York Times, "What I liked about John Yoo is he's a Philadelphian. He went to Episcopal Academy, where I went to school. He's a very very bright guy. He's on the faculty at Berkeley, one of the most liberal universities in the country."

Now we're getting somewhere! Reflect upon the Episcopal school tie and then ask yourself: Can any Philadelphian imagine a graduate of a Quaker school condoning torture, or hiring someone who did?

Advice from Dr. Joyce Brothers

The contortions involved in Tierney's explanation— contortions exceeded only by Yoo's own tortured justification for torture— reminded me of the time years ago when my friend Karen Kalish, then a consumer affairs reporter at WLS-TV in Chicago, stormed out of an especially idiotic staff meeting and sought refuge in what she thought was an empty room, there to vent her fury.

"Assholes!" Karen shouted at the ceiling. "Why are there so many assholes at this station?"

To Karen's surprise, she heard a voice behind her— that of Dr. Joyce Brothers, who had been sitting quietly through Karen's rant. "There's a reason for that, you know," the famous psychologist and advice columnist quietly replied. "They hire each other."

The best is still to come

The Inquirer says it received "numerous letters" from outraged readers objecting to Yoo's hiring. A dozen were published Sunday (May 17), including one that wondered, "What next? An investment advice column by Bernie Madoff?"

I'm sorry to inform these people that the best is still to come. To further expunge its liberal reputation, the Inquirer will shortly replace its popular advice columns, "Tell Me About It" and "Ask Amy," with a new column on personal relationships called "Ask Cheney." I've had a glimpse at the author's trial column, in which the writer was asked to field questions that recently appeared in the Inky's current advice columns. Whatever you may think of the Inquirer's next Miss Lonelyhearts, there's no denying the superior efficacy of his advice:

A few excerpts

Dear Dick: I have a friend from the past with whom I was intimate many years ago. I recently heard from this friend after 18 years of no contact. Now we talk frequently by phone, and neither spouse is aware of our relationship. It is really comforting to me, and I find myself looking forward to the next call. I am afraid to tell my spouse for fear of losing this relationship. Is it wrong to keep this harmless relationship private? —Confused

Dear Confused: In this poker came, you may hold stronger cards than you realize. Married couples are privy to many deep dark secrets about each other. If you threaten to divulge your spouse's dirty secrets to a friendly columnist, your spouse will effectively be immobilized, leaving you free to pursue whatever relationships you like. Even if your spouse leaves you, thus forcing you to carry out your threat, doing so will deter your future spouses from attempting to hold you accountable to them.

Dear Dick: I have felt for a long time that my 20-year marriage is effectively over. There's no animosity— just no connection, no love, no intimacy. If it was just us, I would have had the courage to end things. But we have two daughters, six and eight. I cannot bear the thought of bringing them such pain. The whole situation just depresses me. So, what's the calculus for deciding how to proceed? Is there some threshold of miserable that I have to hit before I can contemplate such upheaval for my family? —Trapped

Dear Trapped: You want a threshold of miserable? Have you come to the right place! My office has conducted extensive research into this very subject. I'm happy to inform you that the human mind and body can withstand far more misery than you can imagine in your wildest nightmares. And legal scholars assure me that the pain that your daughters would suffer if your marriage broke up wouldn't come close to the definition of torture under the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Remember, you're not getting any younger. You could be hit by a truck or blown up by a terrorist tomorrow. To liberate yourself from your quagmire, stop mulling the pros and cons. Take decisive action— now— and everything else will fall into place. Trust me. â—†


To read responses, click here.