WashPost Reporter Quickly Sidesteps Hardball Online Question on Arkin Outrage

Never let it be said that politicians are the only ones who side-step the hardball questions in Washington. In today's Post Politics Hour chat at washingtonpost.com, reporter Peter Baker had a no-comment answer on WashPost blogger William Arkin's anti-troops fulminating:

Greenville, S.C.: Yo Peter -- you got any problems with your colleague William Arkin writing an entire column based on the American troops in Iraq being mercenaries and then, after taking a lot of heat, saying words to the effect of "I probably should not have used the word 'mercenary'"? Is this the kind of diversity The Washington Post is looking for?

Peter Baker: Sorry, this is beyond my field. William Arkin writes for the web site and this is a question better directed to the editors there.

Many readers (like ones here at MRC) wondered: "Hey, Peter, you're presently writing for the website," even if their bosses aren't his bosses. He should have answered yes, or no, or something better than "this is beyond my field." He's not an expert on the Iraq war? He doesn't have any judgment on featuring troop opinions in war dispatches? He should have at least said "I'm not going to trash another division at the office in public."  This answer sounds like:

Q: "Are American troops young, naive, confused mercenaries with obscene amenities who are not really qualified to speak out in news stories?" 

A: "I don't think I can venture an opinion on that complicated subject." (Translation: maybe.)