A while back I questioned the wisdom of Medill drafting Katharine Weymouth, the heiress and lawyer overseeing the decline of the Washington Post, to speak at commencement. This was just shortly before the pay-for-play salon scandal broke.

Now WaPo media critic Howard Kurtz is subtly eviscerating Weymouth in her own paper after a long, moving story about a quadruple amputee by freelance journalist Matt Mendelsohn was spiked because it was either too depressing for advertisers or “overly long, overly narrow” or both. Money quote:

“Weymouth said Monday night that any impact she had was ‘completely inadvertent, because I would never interfere in an editorial decision and I had no intention of interfering.’ She said that she had not even read Mendelsohn’s story, but that she had ‘used it as an example’ with editors ‘of the kind of fare we should be moving away from.'”

Or it may be that I just have a different idea of what depressing journalism is.