The split personality of the Wall Street Journal has rarely been so startlingly on display as in Monday morning’s edition. The editorial page reviews documents released by the World Bank over the weekend and concludes that Bank president Paul Wolfowitz has been the victim of “a political hit based on highly selective leaks to a willfully gullible press corps”. On the editors’ reading of the record, which looks quite convincing, Mr. Wolfowitz signed off on what amounted to a severance package for his paramour only after being instructed to do so by the Bank’s ethics committee. His preference was to play no role whatsoever in personnel decisions concerning her.
Needless to say, none of this context has appeared in the media smears suggesting that Mr. Wolfowitz pulled a fast one to pad the pay of Ms. Riza. Yet the record clearly shows he acted only after he had tried to recuse himself but then wasn’t allowed to do so by the ethics committee. And he acted only after that same committee advised him to compensate Ms. Riza for the damage to her career from a “conflict of interest” that was no fault of her own.
Based on this paper trail, Mr. Wolfowitz’s only real mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith. Yet when some of these details leaked to the media, nearly everyone else at the bank dodged responsibility and let Mr. Wolfowitz twist in thewind. . . .
All of this is so unfair that Mr. Wolfowitz could be forgiven for concluding that bank officials insisted he play a role in raising Ms. Riza’s pay precisely so they could use it against him later. Even if that isn’t true, it’s clear that his enemies – especially Europeans who want the bank presidency to go to one of their own – are now using this to force him out of the bank.
Equally cynical has been the press corps, which slurred Mr. Wolfowitz with selective reporting and now says, in straight-faced solemnity, that the president must leave the bank because his “credibility” has been damaged. Paul Wolfowitz, meet the Duke lacrosse team.
And where does one find an example of this press corps cynicism? Turn to page A3 of the Journal, where reporter Greg Hitt [what an appropriate surname!] writes, “Wolfowitz Digs In as Criticism Intensifies Within World Bank” [link probably for subscribers only]. Mr. Hitt makes no reference to the facts described in the editorial until his very last paragraph, where they become no more than Mr. Wolfowitz’s desperation ploy:
Late last week, Mr. Wolfowitz apologized for his role in Ms. Riza’s transfer, and he said he would accept any remedy offered by the World Bank’s board of directors. Late Saturday night, though, he displayed a more combative tone, complaining in an all-staff email that “misleading information” was circulating during the board’s review of the case. He urged World Bank staffers to read public documents about the transfer for themselves, and he directed them to portions that showed his actions in a more favorable light, including his early offers to recuse himself from dealing with Ms. Riza.
The preceding 15 paragraphs tell the story of a beleaguered executive resisting overwhelming sentiment for his departure, with nary a hint that the charges against him look, in light of the information currently available, very much like a crude smear. “Selective reporting” seems like an apt term.
Needless to say, the various EU and NGO bigwigs quoted by Mr. Hitt as outraged at Mr. Wolfowitz’s purported ethical lapse have never expressed smidgeon of interest in Saddam Hussein’s widespread bribery or, for that matter, in waste and corruption among World Bank borrowers.
Comments