Slate media critic Jack Shafer takes issue with the Washington Post’s decision to can “Mouthpiece Theater,” a thoroughly unfunny online video series featuring Chris Cillizza’s made-for-print delivery style and Dana Milbank’s repugnant pomposity, after Milbank suggested that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should drink a ‘Mad Bitch’ ale.

Shafer first defended the “Mouthpiece” episode on August 4, and asked: “Has it really come to the point that you can’t call the secretary of state of the most powerful nation on earth a mad bitch in a comedy segment without people becoming unhinged and managing editors running for the exits?”

The answer to that question should most certainly be “yes.” I would hope this needs no explanation. What Milbank writes or says is a reflection on the Washington Post. If I were the editor of the newspaper, I would have fired him right then. I would not be at all surprised if the paper eventually does.

WaPo did not immediately kill “Mouthpiece Theater.” Milbank and Cillizza were first allowed to produce another lame video, in which Milbank mockingly wrapped himself in bandages because he was hurt (?) by the reaction of readers and the blogosphere, before management ended the series.

Shafer writes: “Brauchli’s surrender to the offended telegraphs this message to his reporters and editors: We support edgy journalism completely—until we don’t, and at that point we’ll ship you to the tailor and have you fitted with gags.”

The thing is, calling Hillary Clinton a “Mad Bitch” wasn’t edgy. It was rude, uncalled for, not funny, and unbecoming of a professional reporter. Was it edgy when Fox News called the First Lady “Obama’s baby mama” ? Would it have been edgy to call Condoleezza Rice a “Mad Bitch” too? This wasn’t one of those it’s funny ’cause it’s true moments. The comment about Clinton had no logical place in the ‘beer summit’ segment or as part of our discourse.

And it was downright stupid for Milbank to make another video and act hurt and blame liberal bloggers following the indignation expressed by readers and women’s activists. But it was very much in character for Milbank, who has a habit of lashing out at his critics and treating their concerns as jokes.

When WaPo readers joined Milbank’s online Q&A discussion last year to voice their displeasure over the writer’s clear distortion of a quote made by President Obama in order to make the then-candidate appear presumptuous, Milbank decided to rate their “Whines” and ignored the substance of their complaints.

Take this exchange for instance:

Maryville, Tenn.: Dear Mr. Milbank:

As a “reporter” for the Washington Post, you assume certain responsibilities to report truthfully and accurately, reflecting your own credibility and your responsibility to the reputation of your employer. You have FAILED in that responsibility!

In your article on Sen. Obama yesterday, you apparently chose to omit the full context of his quote in a purposeful and disgraceful mischaracterization of the MEANING of his words! Such “spin”, such misrepresentation of his words is inexcusable! You obviously have an agenda of your own to try to tear down Obama and impune him with attributes which more accurately describe Pres. Bush, Sen. McCain, and yourself!

Surely you are acutely aware that words have consequences, and YOU, Mr. Milbank, are responsible for feeding the frenzy of insults, derogatory comments, false character assassinations hurled unjustly at Sen. Obama by the mainstream media today as a result of your OWN false and irresponsible reporting! This is the type of reporting Americans are simply SICK of, — the kind of reporting that has caused needless and irreparable harm to so many in the past and is now causing harm to Sen. Obama! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!

Mr. Milbank, if you have one ounce of integrity and decency, you should APOLOGIZE privately to Sen. Obama and publicly RETRACT your incorrect and misleading statements and conclusions. Sen. Obama has run perhaps the most decent, intelligent, and HUMBLE campaign of any politician in many decades (I know, as I am much older than you!), and he does not deserve the low down, untruthful, and insulting inferences you made toward him!!!

Dana Milbank:

Now, THIS is a fine whine.

A sure sign of an accomplished whiner is the USE OF CAPITALIZATION in the whinemaking process.

The Whine Enthusiast gives this one a 94. Indeed, the only thing lacking in this whine is the charge that I am a racist, which I have noticed in some other whines.

Milbank might have thought that rating their “Whines” was funny, but I found it disrespectful to his readers. Use of CAPS aside, If WaPo readers were unhappy, Milbank should have had the common sense to at least entertain their concerns. Instead, he doubled down on being a dick, like usual.

Why any media critic would defend Milbank is beyond me. Maybe Shafer is just looking to fill a void, since there haven’t been too many journalists to rally behind Milbank. I’m no fan of censorship, but calling someone a “Mad Bitch” - for no apparent reason - isn’t journalism and isn’t funny. Would it have been smarter to end the “Mouthpiece Theater” or lose advertisers in defense of the right to call a politician a “Mad Bitch” without any provocation?

Canning the series isn’t an act of ‘groveling,’ as Shafer calls it. No, it’s cutting your losses.