Washington Post re Conyers DSM unofficial hearing coverage.

[Eric J in MN]

Response of Wash. Post ombudsman Michael Getler to Dana Milbank asssignment:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/25/AR2005062500862.html

There was a torrent of critical e-mails and calls about a Washington Sketch column on June 17 by Post columnist Dana Milbank that appeared in the news section and was about the unofficial hearing on Iraq held by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other opponents of the war the day before. I thought it was a serious mistake for editors to assign a columnist to cover a news event. There are large numbers of people who oppose the war and care about what Conyers was trying to accomplish, and a reporter should have covered the event as news. If a columnist wants to write a separate piece with his take on it, that's fine. But it is not enough by itself.

[Oversea Visitor]

1. Whopee

They must have been whack bad. Whack more till they do it right.

[warrens]

2. That is exactly what I said in my email

Sorta reversed. A reporter should not be writing opinion columns on subjects he or she covers as a news reporter. If he wants to do a column on wine or local restaurants or baseball cards, fine. But politics, given that he is a political reporter, should be off-limits.

This guy is incredibly arrogant. He didn't even bother defending himself, as if there was no point in discussing journalistic ethics with anyone but his buddies in the newsroom.

[Eric J in MN]

3. Dana Milbank has written good columns, but when the topic is the DSM,

he becomes obnoxious.