Daily Kos: EXCLUSIVE: the 6 blog posts WaPo REALLY wants to hide from you

[samhsarah]

In a masterstroke of covert action, WaPo has quietly restored 948 blog posts that they had ripped down several days ago. Not just that: posting is enabled on this particular article. And not just that: they apparently did this roughly 24 hours ago, because a spambot noticed. And I just did my own little posting test here.

Now here's the fun part: what's missing? In my diary a couple of days ago (recommended by 332 people, I'm tickled to notice), I looked into that question, with regard to another batch of messages they restored. The results were interesting. So let's do it again.

In this latest batch, WaPo has reinstated 948 posts. Various archives (here, here and here) correspond to about 717 (75%) of those 948 messages. In other words, if WaPo was restoring everything, all of those 717 posts would appear among the 948 that have been reposted. Do they? No. Exactly 711 of these archived posts were deemed fit for WaPo to restore to public view. Exactly 6 posts (0.8% of the 717) were deemed so offensive, so profane, so pornographic, that they are still hidden from public view.

Well, they're not exactly hidden from public view. They're only hidden from readers of blogs.washingtonpost.com. Here are the lucky winners. Judge for yourself if WaPo is afraid of pornography, or if WaPo is afraid of intelligent readers who are more familiar with the facts than WaPo is:

Blog posts and more at: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/23/73716/6312

[stepnw1f]

1. WOW!!!! They Have Been Exposed!

They should fire people for purposely writting false crap like that!

[leveymg]

2. Think these are the 4 that really got under their skin:

You know that title "ombudsman?" The title invites confusion. It
dilutes our only asset -- our credibility.

Posted by: JHarris | Jan 16, 2006 3:06:46 AM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------

Willis wrote: "But contrary to what some commenters have said here, Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case, and I have asked that we post at least some of them so that readers can see for themselves."

That was two hours ago. Now, it takes me about ten minutes to scan a document, and upload it to my own website, and post a URL -- and that's because I'm not very good at all this "internets" stuff.

Willis claims that there are documents in which Jack Abramoff directs his clients to give to Democrats. One assumes that these include signed letters or memos from Abramoff to his clients, or emails directly from Abramoff to his clients --- and one assumes that if such documents actually existed, the Post would have written about them as part of what Deborah Howell described as Susan Schmidt's "explosive" investigative work on the Abramoff scandal.....

But to date, all the Post (and Willis) have ever come up with are these facts


Native Americans tribes give money to both parties


Some Native American tribes were represented by a firm that Abramoff worked for


Some of these tribes gave money to some Democrats -- but since Abramoff has been around, they aren't giving Democrats as much


So, Willis, where are your "documents"? Its been two hours plus -- ten times as long as it would take for you to scan and post the "Abramoff memo" you need to show us that you aren't lying through your teeth....

Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 10:31:19 AM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------

well, its now three hours and counting since Willis claimed that "Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case" and also claimed that he was going to get those documents posted...

but instead of posting these "explosive" documents, the Post deletes Willis's claim....

Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 11:29:24 AM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------

Howard Kurtz has a hilarious water carrying defense of Schmidt and Howell, with the pertinent excerpt posted after at Romenesko:

Fort Washington, Md.: Reporter Sue Schmidt and ombudsman Deborah Howell have both asserted repeatedly that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans. The FEC shows no record of any Democrat getting any money from Abramoff, period. Some Indian tribes who were among Abramoff's victims contributed funds to some Democrats, but suggesting that that somehow is a donation from Abramoff defies logic. How does the Post justify passing on what appears to be nothing but GOP spin as fact?

Howard Kurtz: Howell's column Sunday said that a number of Democrats "have gotten Abramoff campaign money." That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her, is that some Democrats have received campaign cash from Abramoff clients, and that this may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist. That's why you have a number of Democrats (as well as many Republicans, now including Denny Hastert) giving back the tainted dough or donating it to charity. Even National Review Editor Rich Lowry says this is basically a Republican scandal -- we are talking about a Bush fundraiser and Tom DeLay pal -- but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too.
Posted at 12:50:56 PM

[gratuitous]

8. Lukasiak zeroed in on the exact point

When Willis said that the Post had documented evidence that Abramoff's clients had been directed to give to Democrats, it certainly suggested that the Post had some documents. And that these documents would show that Abramoff had directed his clients to give money to Democrats. But asking to see these documents was ruled immediately out of bounds by the Post. But if you were to draw a negative conclusion about this, particularly one that suggested that the Post was either lying or "misspeaking" or "inartfully" wording something again, you were then out of bounds.

Apparently, folks are supposed to swallow down whatever the Post says without analysis or thinking of any kind -- sort of the way a kid wolfs down a Twinkie. And if you raise any questions, well, then you're just being uppity and you've forgotten your manners when dealing with your betters. Whatever happens after that is your own fault.

[grasswire]

9. paul lukasiak is an american hero

If not for him, a LOT of important evidence in treasonous matters would have disappeared down the memory hole. Kudos again, Paul!

[underpants]

3. So basically the WaPo erased 18 mintues of tape?

Anyone else see the irony here?

[McCamy Taylor]

11. ROFLMAO! Good one!

[fasttense]

4. Seems that instead of (or in addition to) lying directly in the Newspaper,

they get the ombudsman to do it. Wow the repukes sure know how to pull the strings on the media.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. check out Howell's latest. You can complain about it at the bottom.

here is my complaint:

I just read an incredible, self-serving statement from D. Howell, claiming that she has secret information, documents and materials from Abramof in which he directed the people who hired him to pay off Democrats.

Without disclosing the content, dates, or other information, it is intellectually offensive that as ombudsman, she first promotes a White House lie, then she gets all pissy because people caught her in the lie, THEN, her retraction was anything but, and instead, because of her "contract" she rubs the readers' collective nose in the fact that she is here to stay.

If such reactions are indicative of what sort of job she will do as ombudsman, all I can say is that the Post is in serious trouble. You already face a falling readership; her obvious lack of credibility will only make things worse. To make matters worse (if possible) she now claims to have secret information and records. Riiiiiiiiiight. The sites she cites say nothing of the sort.

Shame on WaPo. It is bad enough when your ombudsman is not adult enough (after 50 yrs in journalism, no less!) to admit a mistake. It is worse when WaPo continues to support its own when they are clearly out of their league.
Of course, one only needs to see how your organization deals with Mr. Woodward to realize that honesty, integrity and the truth used to be the watchwords of your organization. When did you change your standards?

[lostnfound]

6. Are comments accusing reporters outright of lying routinely deleted?

On some boards it is against the rules to accuse other members of lying, though stating something is false is okay.

The first is a personal attack; the latter is a discussion of the facts.

Were there other posts in the 711 that were restored that accused her of lying?

[LiberalAndProud]

7. How DARE you impugn my integrity? ala Condi

[McCamy Taylor]

10. WaPo is such a loser kiss ass paper. They make the NYT look good.

[Angry Girl]

12. How Rovian of them.

Asswipes.

[RazzleDazzle]

13. Does anyone have earlier links about this?

Could you post them here? This is getting absolutely outrageous.

[Cronus Protagonist]

14. I wish I had a paper with her comments in it

I need more toilet paper and it would be schweet to wipe my ass with that spinmeister's propaganda sheet. I bet it wouldn't sting as much as her feedback did.

:evilgrin: