WHO IS MARK MEDISH?

He recently penned an op-ed for the NY Times, in which he argues against forgiving pre-war Iraqi debt.

He's also a partner in the Akin, Gump law firm, and has held several goverment positions over the years. Oh, and by the way, he's a lobbyist representing several of Iraq's international creditors.

D'ya think that last bit is relevant in evaluating Mr. Medish's opinions on the matter? Does it matter that he's paid to have and express those opinions?

I think so. The Washington Post thinks so, too, and disclosed this fact at the end of a column of his that it published. But not the Times--either the Times doesn't look into the background of its op-ed writers, or its editorial position is that said background isn't relevant.

The Times uses one sentence to identify him:

Mark Medish, a lawyer, was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury from 1997 to 2000.

Which is more relevant--that he was a high Treasury official once upon a time, or that he represents Iraq's creditors today? It also seems relevant that, when opining on matters that do not reflect the direct interests of his clients, he holds a contrary opinion on debt forgiveness.

Simply put, the Times has one more reason to be ashamed of itself and its practices. It is unethical to run Medish's editorial without disclosing his personal interest in the outcome of the debate on which he is opining. Jayson Blair may be gone, but the Times' bad judgment remains firmly in place.

(kudos to Hippercritical for digging this up)