WaPo Ombudsperson still doesn't "get it"

[spooky3]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100816.html

snip

"I get the most mail by far -- voice, snail and electronic -- from readers who are furiously partisan. I'm amazed that The Post is viewed by many as either the unthinking stenographers of the Bush administration (that would be the liberals) or constantly chipping away at everything the president is trying to do (that would be the conservatives).

The conservatives don't seem to remember how tough this newspaper was in reporting on the Clinton administration. Remember the newspaper that first reported the Monica Lewinsky story? It is in the nature of journalists to report skeptically on those in power.

The liberals seem to expect The Post to be the house organ of Moveon.org. An old newsroom adage says that if both parties are angry with you, you must be doing something right."

snip

She does not challenge that adage, so apparently she likes it. Maybe all the rest of us should apply it:

Veterinarian: If both cat owners and dog owners think I'm incompetent, I must be doing something right.
Customer service personnel: If the customers think I should provide better service and management thinks I provide too much, I must be doing something right.
Professor: If my students think I spend too much time on research and my department chair thinks I spend too much time on teaching, I must be doing something right.

and so on, and so on...

[depakid]

1. What do you expect from the Post

Honesty? Integrity?

It's long past being a credible paper. They even slant their copy on science stories.

[spooky3]

2. Well, actually, yes, I do expect them to behave honestly and with

integrity. And some reporters, in some of their articles, do.

[northzax]

3. does anyone have a real, reasoned, liberal critique of the Post's

actual reporting, not the op-eds? seriously, I want something annotated with articles from the Post, not op-eds, from a liberal perspective, showing why the Post is a paper that is systematically unfair to the liberal perspective. I read it, in paper, every day, and don't see that, in the reporting. Sure, I don't agree with every editorial, but as a general rule, the paper, over the past two years, has been pretty good.

unless, of course, you can show me actual examples of bias in reporting?

[tishaLA]

4. Go here:

Daily Howler and just put in the search term "Post." You'll find hundereds of examples dating back to 1999.

[spooky3]

6. MediaMatters.org has also documented numerous examples

of problems with WaPo, but MM also frequently cites WaPo articles with factual information that is better reported or more complete than OTHER stories in other publications.

[northzax]

9. just out of curiosity

how many times has Bob Sommerby said anything nice about the Post, or any other media outlet? I didn't go through all 12,300 hits on "washington post" but nothing on the first three pages is anything remotely complimentary except for one bit on Tina Brown.

[tishaLA]

10. You asked for critique, not love letters

If you want love letters singing the praises of the Post, I'm sure the Wash Post ombuds can offer those. After all, they all thought the Woodward thing was a great brouhaha over nothing....until the letters came in and they decided to change their tune.

Sorry I responded to your question. I thought it was an actual request for information, not something designed for you to move the goal posts after it had been answered.

[spooky3]

12. F.A.I.R. also has identified problems...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=13&as_field_all=1&as_keywords=washington+post&x=0&y=0&as_order_by=order_date&as_order_by_direction=DESC

[northzax]

13. critiques go both ways

Sommerby, who I used to read religiously, never refers to anything in the Post that is negative towards Bush. For instance, while complaining about the slant of the paper, he has never mentioned Dan Froomkin's daily online column, which is unabashadly anti-Bush.

If the Post published a special edition proclaiming Bush the second coming of Adolf Hitler, Sommerby would complain about a tidbit on page 47 about Bush's tie. I asked for a serious critique, Bob Sommerby stopped being serious a long time ago.

[PSPS]

5. I think he means there's a slant because of omission

The Post is not alone in this, of course. But when there's a dearth or even a complete absence of stories written about one of bush's many crimes du jour, that can accurately be seen as a conservative "slant." The slant isn't in the story, since it doesn't exist in the paper. So the "slant" comes from an editorial decision not to print or pursue the story.

Another example would be the stenographic nature of stories. A simple rewrite of one of Scotty's handouts without fact checking or commentary on the handout's accuracy that can be viewed as "slant." Also, a he-said she-said piece without fact checking, very common in today's moribund press, is a "slant." (frist says hillary has sex with dogs. spokesperson for senator clinton didn't return calls. ==30==) Again, both of these are a result of editorial decisions.

[wtmusic]

7. Slant is sometimes difficult to prove

but you've hit the nail on the head for how it can be accomplished in extremely subtle ways.

I'd like to see a comparison of the initial coverage of the Monica affair vs. NSA wiretaps, in quantity and depth. Anyone have a lot of time on their hands? ;-)

[spooky3]

8. in addition to the above..

Two other comments:

--The editorial pages frequently are problematic, and this is important. Further, WaPo columnists are grossly disproportionately conservative (e.g., G. Will, Novak, Samuelson) or conservative-leaning centrists (e.g., Broder), and white and male, despite many wonderful female, minority, and/or liberal (e.g., Molly Ivins) columnists who could be added.

--My post had to do with the logical fallacy in the Ombudsperson's remarks. It is not true that if one is equally criticized from both sides, that this must mean you are unbiased, accurate, etc., and it's a big problem if the Ombudsperson doesn't see that.

[northzax]

11. Actually, the Post's editorial page isn't all that relevant

since there is a strong fire wall between opinion and news (basically, they don't even talk to each other, I know people who work there) but yes, better replacements should be found for people like Mary McGory and Ellen Goodman, and now Colby King and some others who are leaving. But Molly Ivins, for instance, wouldn't be avaliable, since the post doesn't run regular columns from people not signed to the Washington Post Writer's group (why pay someone else for content?)

Of course, on the flip side, the Post.com (which is a seperate corporation, technically) runs a daily online column "White House Briefing" which is nothing but hostile to Bush. but I guess that doesn't count? Funny, I looked on Bob Sommerby's site, and found nothing about that at all.

[spooky3]

14. how is it not relevant if opinions are being printed? The basis for

judging relevance is not only whether the editorial page influences the news reporters. If something is shared with readers, it can inform, misinform, influence appropriately or inappropriately the paper's READERS.

Why pay someone else for content? Because readers may want to read that content, and you might want to bring the best to your readers, and you might have a value such as wanting to have columnist pages that better reflect the range of opinions and demographics in society. Surely the Post pays for comics and other features. And why should there be only "replacements" for people of the same race or gender? A job isn't a "man's (white's) job" or a "woman's (minority's) job."

Are you forgetting about rather conservative Howard Kurtz, whose voice is the loudest of all the political writers for the Post, and who is likely influenced by or shares the views of his spouse, who is a Republican activist? How about Dana Milbank, perhaps best remembered for his ridiculing the attempts of Rep. Conyers to bring light to bear on the Downing Street Memos?

Please go to the other cites I suggested and read the research that others have done before drawing conclusions.

[northzax]

15. there are not 'women's jobs' or 'black's jobs'

but five years ago, the Post's editorial pages were fairly dominated by liberals. due to some untimely deaths and retirements, those positions happened to be avaliable.

[spooky3]

16. People are hired and fired all the time in the media

on TV, on the radio, in dropping and adding columns in newspapers, etc. Contracts end (or have easy termination clauses) and aren't renewed. Columnists may work as part of a syndicate. Lifetime employment is rare in most organizations, even more rare in the media.

If the Post wants a more representative group of writers, it can create openings by not publishing Novak's columns, for example. I am sure it has taken steps to improve the demographics of its columnists, but could do much more.

[Kagemusha]

17. The Washington Post's political reporters attacked that site hard.

Not long ago at all even. They felt that "White House Briefing" sounded like it came from the political reporters and editor and was undercutting their credibility for impartiality.

Why?

Because Bush admin people told them so.

[radio4progressives]

18. This so called adage is their reinging excuse they actually believe

to be true. It must be etched into some placque or their purpose of statement framed somewhere above their desks.

i hear in npr radio land too.. it's pretty fucked up.