Wash.Post condemns DU Activists in editorial

[deckerd]

Anyone have an excerpt/link from their website? It is currently hanging my browser.

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Two points here:

1. The editorial condemns Democrats only -- not Republicans -- who wrote in LTTEs full of "talking points" before the debate was over, basically saying it was not their place to say who won because they were not "thinking and writing for themselves".

2. The editorial says -- a week after David Broder and the Post ombudsman declared, based on falsified evidence provided by Post media critic Howie Kurtz, that the CBS documents were forgeries that gave the entire profession a black eye -- that they are fighting to keep the Post editorial pages "a refuge from the maelstrom of spin that has engulfed the politics of this campaign".

Anyone have a link? Suggestions for an LTTE?

[expatriot]

1. Write them citing all of the form-letter LTTE's that have been uncovered

by bloggers via Google that BushCo has pumped out.

[Robbien]

2. Just show them the official GWB website

It has a place where you can send out GWB talking points as LTTE to local papers.

[grasswire]

3. okay, it's time to take down WaPo

Leonard Downie, Howie Kurtz, all of them.

Downie has had this particular snoot full of BS ever since readers started complaining about Steno Sue by emailing her.

Kurtz himself has admitted that the press skews its reporting because of orchestrated blitzes from the right.

So when the left gets vocal it's wrong?

B.S. This is wo-ah!

[grasswire]

4. time to start complaining to ...

....Editor and Publisher magazine, the Columbia Journalism Review, the National Press Club, the Society for Professional Journalists, and other professional organizations. American Society for Newspaper Editors too.

This is nuts.

[deckerd]

19. Hear, hear

I send a couple long letters to the ombudsman asking for a correction on the falsified evidence offered by Kurtz in his unprecedented effort to discredit another journalist's source based on inaccurate info and having the gall to oppose the President. Compare to the overweeningly even-handed treatment given the SwiftVet story which concluded (despite the headline) that "neither Kerry's account nor the ads' account can ultimately be verified." Compare that, directly, to the use of CBS tactics -- falsified proof of forgery -- in an effort to prove that the Bush memos were not just unverified but a stain on Bush's honor.

There is a clear conflict of journalistic ethics here.

[JI7]

5. don't be surprised if the Post endorses Bush this year

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. There is much hooey here

including treats to the press

They know it...

We have seen it in foreign press where reporters have dared to speak up (Rather and Guardian)

And I mean REAL THREATS

So do not be too surprised if both the NYT and the WaPo endorse bush... something about keeping your family safe

[Gore1FL]

7. argument one

1. The editorial condemns Democrats only -- not Republicans -- who wrote in LTTEs full of "talking points" before the debate was over, basically saying it was not their place to say who won because they were not "thinking and writing for themselves".

I can only assume this means Bush cannot say who won for the same reasons?

[deckerd]

20. No, freepers can rely on paid talking heads to do that in the op-ed n/t

[autorank]

8. They are the worst! Bad beyond words.

I live in NoVA and have to endure the choice of either The Post or the Moonie Times. It's no choice since neither is acceptable.

The Post is corporate welfare for effete, over paid, supercilious dweebs who (a) cannot report; (b) cannot pay attention to one story for more than a few days; and (c) disgrace the memory of Ben Bradlee every single day The Post is published.

I send them stuff regularly just to remind them how far they've fallen.

I think they deserve all the emails they get!

[deckerd]

21. Hear hear!

Why do you think they're studiously quiet about the new (liberal) DC Council majority and which one of them (if any) might have mayoral aspirations.

The Post jumped the shark when they broke the back of their printers' union -- and fired or retired in subsequent years the reporters who were sympathetic.

[autorank]

25. "Hear hear!"

Thanks for pointing out the printers union and reminding me. That is when any astute 12 year old in this area said: Gee, if they're a liberal paper (as they were said to be), why would they crush the unions like that?" I hadn't realized they cleaned house, Soviet style, with reporters sympathetic to the strike. I didn't think my opinion of them could be lower but you've done it (reality is always preferable).

Just imagine when they're CNNed, i.e., their base audience, Democrats, vote with their purchasing and their readership drops precipitously.

[punpirate]

9. Hmmm...

... emails before the debates were over. Never mind that Bush nearly swallowed his tongue in the first twelve minutes and went downhill from there.

And, that argument sounds suspiciously like the "Buckhead" incident over at Freeperville where they somehow had expert opinion on typography and typewriters from 1972, before "60 Minutes II" was over. Which the Post largely swallowed whole, immediately.

Ah, hell, where's Ben Bradlee when you need him?

[Robbien]

10. I could not find such an editorial on WaPo

Are you sure it was an editorial? None of the opinion articles seemed to be related to this topic either.

[NJCher]

12. me too

I read four articles over there and still haven't found the one mentioned in the post.


Cher

[deckerd]

22. It's not an Op-Ed, its an OFFICIAL EDITORIAL

From the Editorial Board.

Denouncing Dem Activists for being overzealous in support of their candidate and proclaiming the Post in essence to be a "spin-free zone".

Search under Editorials -- Friday or Saturday (it's not in front of me)

It's one of only three.

I will type it out longhand if nobody found it on the washpost website.

[Robbien]

23. Someone did find it,

see down there (pointing down) in post #13 AIndependentTexan found the link.

[Barney Rocks]

11. How do they know the

letters were written before the debate was over? I admit that I worked on mine before and during the debate--but I waited to send it until I got the e-mail instructions from the campaign after the debate? I doubt any of us were stupid enough to send our letters in before the debate was over--how can they claim this?

[AnIndependentTexan]

13. I believe this is what the person is talking about

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1791-2004Oct1.html

WE RECEIVED THE following letter from a woman in Yonkers, N.Y.: "Dear editor: This debate made it clear: John Kerry is a leader we can trust to tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. George Bush has had his chance; I'm ready for a new direction."

Cogent, succinct, personal -- everything we look for in a letter. So why are we writing about it here, instead of publishing it in the columns to the right? Unfortunately, the letter, perfect in every other way, arrived in our electronic in-box Thursday afternoon, four hours and 14 minutes before debate moderator Jim Lehrer posed his first question.

[splat]

14. 700 emails on deadline

Hmmm... I think it was Dana Milbank who said in a WP chat Friday that some reporters got 700 emails while they were trying to write the debate story.

They were pissed.

[AnIndependentTexan]

15. I personally don't believe this

After reading it my logic tells me that they found DNC announcement. I agree with the person posting this thread it is a little fishy that only we are mentioned. Plus you can't tell if the letter was orginally from a democratic or sent in by republican posing as democratic to try to control what comes in. With just saying it was our side this proves it is a dirty trick and spin to try to stop everyone from counting on letters next debate.

[autorank]

16. Just sent my comments in a letter to the editor.

I hope Dana Milbank and all the other toadies at the post are "pissed" off all day, every day. They betrayed their readership by failing to 'stand tall' in Iraq, Plame, national security, * scandals, the environment, etc. They are the very worst Media Whores. Milbank's being upset is so typical. Who do they think buys their rag? They are anti-customer in so many ways.

When they arrive in journalistic Hell, they will be assigned to the 9th Circle!

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Like Blaming A Rape Victim for Fighting Back.

n/t

[Robbien]

18. Sent a LTTE to WaPo

Basically I said singling out one party to criticize for writing LTTE and not the other when both parties were doing the exact same thing was a very biased action for WaPo to do. I mentioned both parties urged their membership to make sure they let the media be aware of their opinion of the debates. Each party's members sent out their own individual letters, but WaPo only chose to chastise the Democratic party. Why? I asked.

[Hot Water]

24. It's just a ripple in the water.

They will never endorse Bush. Their reporters wrote devastating pieces against Bush. And for the most part, they usually are. This was a temporary heads up. If pre-debate praise did happen, it no doubt aggravated them because they don't want to be played.

Just as strange however, was a camera man who was in the spin room and saw the Bush campaign spinning their version of question #3, which hadn't even been asked yet. Now how did that happen?

[blondeatlast]

26. Considering current journalistic standards (nil), did they check AT ALL

to see if Ms. Yonkers might have been a Rep operative?

If this kind of stuff is pissing off the press, I couldn't be happier. The more they moan, the more I'll do it.

Way to go, Dem activists! :toast:

[doni_georgia]

27. What pissed the Post off is we DID think for ourseleves instead of

waiting for them and other media gurus to tell us what to think. How DARE we decide for ourselves who won that debate without waiting for the media to TELL us who won! It's just unAmerican that people actually made up their minds without the media telling us what to believe.