WaPo ombudsman will no longer reply to critics

[WilliamPitt]

Can we get a Waaahmbulance for this nice lady?

===

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/washington-post-ombudsman-says-she.html

Washington Post ombudsman says she will no longer reply to critics
1/18/2006 07:21:00 PM

The Washington Post's ombudsman has announced she's no longer going to reply to critics. So what exactly is the Washington Post paying this woman for?

The Washington Post's new ombudsman has come under some criticism of late for writing a series of rather poor columns. Her first claim to fame was commenting on Bob Woodward's ethical lapse of failing to tell his editor, or the public, for two years that he was intimately involved in the Valerie Plame affair, while he went on TV and criticized the special prosecutor. The ombudsman's recommendation for fixing the problem of Woodward refusing to come clean to his editor? Bob needs an editor.

Then, just last week, the ombudsman wrote last week that Jack Abramoff gave lots of money to Democrats. In fact, Jack Abramoff never gave a dime to Democrats, his personal donations were only to Republicans. The ombudsman went on to suggest that conservative critics were correct in being angry at the Post for not mentioning all the Democrats who Jack Abramoff personally gave money to (again, there were none).

And the latest controversy is over another Post reporter writing that Bush "repeatedly consulted" with members of Congress about his illegal domestic spying program. In fact, the administration informed a few select members of Congress about parts of the program but gave them no option to agree or disagree with what was taking place, and in fact, several members of Congress expressed concern about what the administration was proposing to do. Therefore, to suggest that the administration repeatedly consulted with members of Congress - i.e., those members of Congress had input on the spy program and thus endorsed it - is not true.

Well, Media Matters, a lead media watchdog group, complained to the ombudsman about this last issue, the ombudsman responded, and when Media Matters responded to the ombudsman's response, the Washington Post ombudsman apparently told the Washington Post's staff internally that she was no longer going to reply to critics.

...more...

===

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601180006

Wash. Post ombudsman's new policy: "From now on, I don't reply"

Summary: Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has reportedly posted on the Post's internal message board -- specifically mentioning a reply she made to a Media Matters item, which she claimed "just brought another attack" -- "From now on, I don't reply."

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has reportedly posted a comment on the Post's internal message board announcing that she has learned the following "lesson" from exchanges with Media Matters for America: "From now on, I don't reply." Howell's language did not make clear whether she meant that she would no longer reply to any criticism, or only to that registered by Media Matters.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. A newspaper ombudsman who doesn't respond to public query?

:crazy:

[ooglymoogly]

58. heck of a job debbi

bush appointee to the washington post will brook no criticism of recent lying and misrepresenting facts and will swift-boat any such criticism by deleting it.
seriously, i sent them an email suggesting they send further editions of wapo to the wh for distribution as talking points, saving themselves untold bucko's in dwindling distribution costs.
her connection to the radical right to say nothing of sucking up to this administration and persimmons (uc berkley scandal targeting left professors) is enough to make me puke. kick and rec.

[Radio_Lady]

60. Use this email list created for my message: (HEADER AND MESSAGE)

To: Deborah Howell <[e-mail]>, Ombudsman <[e-mail]>
Cc: Caroline Little <[e-mail]>, Jim Brady <[e-mail]>, Tom Kennedy <[e-mail]>, Tim Ruder <[e-mail]>, Jen Moyer <[e-mail]>, Steve Stup <[e-mail]>, Keith Tomatore <[e-mail]>, Eric Schvimmer <[e-mail]>, Clifford Sloan <[e-mail]>

(Editor's note: You may want to remove the <> brackets. My email system uses them.)

Hello Deborah (and others at the Washington Post),

Why would a paper bother to create the post of ombudsman (and in your case ombudswoman) and then allow the employee in that position to say she would not respond to her critics? Isn't it your job to investigate and respond to readers' complaints?

If you refuse to do your job, why should the Washington Post continue to employ you? With respect to Democrats, your comments on Jack Abramoff and his bribes were initially incorrect. Now you refuse to comment or respond on that issue. Perhaps we should begin to question whether you, too, happen to be on the GOP payroll, as so many journalists and reporters elsewhere have been. If so, perhaps you need to disclose any conflicts of interest.

It is a sad day for journalism and a free press in America, when a formerly great paper like the Washington Post acts as your organization seems to act.

Maybe it's time to resign your position and let someone else have the job.

(CLOSING and NAME and ADDRESS)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

2. Start sending email addressed to her AND copied to the ALL of the....

...top Washington Post staff. Specifically state in the opening line of every email that you expect to get an answer from her since replying to ALL correspondence is part of her job description.

If you suspect that your email to the ombudsman is being blocked, start sending it to the top Washington Post staff AND copied to her.

[Radio_Lady]

54. Here's the link to the Wash Post email addresses.

This method has been working well for me since the early 1960s.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interact/longterm/stfbio/wpemail.htm

[ixion]

3. uh, responding to critics is the defintion of ombudsman

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ombudsman



om·buds·man Audio pronunciation of "ombudsman" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mbdzmn, -bdz-, -bdz-)
n.

1. A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization.


So I guess she should look for another job, since she's just stated that she will no longer do her job.

[emald]

26. shouldn't that read "a PERSON who investigates"...

[northzax]

36. no, that would be an 'ombundsperson'

[ixion]

51. tell it to dictionary.com

that's where I got the def... :hi:

[EFerrari]

4. She probably needs a waaahmbulance. What a horrible job that

must be.

[rodeodance]

5. Here is the email addresse for WPost from Media matters site

Take Action!

Contact information:

The Washington Post
Washington Post ombudsman: [e-mail]
202-334-7582

Post e-mail directory
The Washington Post
1150 15th St. NW
Washington, DC 20071

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

[rodeodance]

6. KICKYPOO

[PinkyisBlue]

22. I sent an e-mail.

Wow! This stuff just never ends, does it? Some of the media bias is so blatant, like this. At least it's easy to spot.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. to make it easier

[e-mail]

202 334 7582

The WaPoo
1150 15th St NW
WQashington DC 20071

call her, write her, e-mail her.

I just did, asking if the paper bothers to create the post of ombudsman, isn't her job to investigate and respond to readers' complaints? If she will refuse to do her job, why does WaPoo continue to employ her. I also asked "Since your comments on Jack Abramof and his bribes were initially incorrect, with respect to democrats, and since you now refuse to comment or respond on that issue, should we question whether you, too, happen to be on the GOP payroll, as so many journalists and reporters elsewhere have been? Should you not also disclose such conflicts of interest? Oh, Wait. You guys are still protecting Mr. Woodward despite his obvious conflicts on important administration issues. that explains your position as ombudsman perfectly. It is a sad day for journalism and a free press in America, when a formerly great paper like the WaPoo acts as your organization seems to act."

[EFerrari]

9. Now we have to send kleenex in the waaahmbulance. n/t

[Radio_Lady]

52. She'll just delete your email. You should send it to her and copy all of

her superiors. Can we get THEIR email addresses?

If you are old enough, you might remember Durward Kirby, a CBS newsman now deceased. He used to send complaint letters to people (usually underlings) and COPY EVERYONE UP THE LADDER from him/her, right up to the top.

I got amazing results using that method with GM once. My immigrant father-in-law ordered a stretch limousine from them. It arrived WITH MORE OPTIONS than he wanted, and they tried to get the money for the vehicle with the extras.

I was furious, wrote a letter to the manager of the dealership, his boss (regional manager) and everybody else right up to the CEO of GM (whoever that was). He got his limousine, as ordered, in just a few weeks.

I still use that method via computer or registered letters, if copies are required.

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[Radio_Lady]

61. See my post #60. I used much of antifaschits verbiage in my message.

Thanks for posting it.

[Devlzown]

8. I want a job at the Post!

I could be a reporter who doesn't write stories.

[slor]

10. LOL! n/t

[acmejack]

11. Better yet send your CV & apply for her job!

State you heard it was available.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. Great Idea. Let's all send in resumes and CVs for her job, based on her

statement that she won't do her job anymore.

[tavalon]

18. You certainly wouldn't be the first

;)

[SammyBlue]

43. I could apply for a fact-checker position there.

Apparently, those jobs are given to the deaf, dumb and blind!

[ThoughtCriminal]

64. It's actually hard to be wrong all the time

Unless your job is to echo GOP talking points. Then it's the easiest job on Earth.

[fishwax]

71. you'd get paid more as an editor who doesn't edit

with those kind of skills and experience, one definitely belongs in management :rofl:

[chat_noir]

12. She's been on the job less than a year

Friday, February 25, 2005; Page A02

Deborah Howell, the Washington bureau chief and editor of Newhouse News Service, was named ombudsman of The Washington Post yesterday, a job in which she will serve as independent critic of the newspaper on behalf of its readers.

Howell, 64, is a veteran of the news business who is active in national journalism organizations and has described herself as "feisty and aggressive." She will have an office in the paper's fifth-floor newsroom, a weekly column on the paper's editorial page and a two-year contract with a possible one-year extension by mutual agreement. Getler also writes a weekly internal memo to the paper's reporters and editors.

The newspaper's ombudsman is the readers' representative and receives, investigates and reports on complaints on a wide range of topics, sometimes suggesting how to do better. Only about three dozen newspapers have such posts. The Post has had ombudsmen since 1970. Most have been news veterans.

Howell's appointment comes as The Post's editors struggle to reverse recent circulation declines driven in part by competition from cable television, the Internet and other media outlets. The rise of bloggers and media-focused Web sites also produces more frequent, pointed scrutiny for all newspapers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51519-2005Feb24.html


Howell, if ya can't take the heat....

[Radio_Lady]

50. I'd apply, but I don't have the right background. However, if YOU do,

I'd send my resume pronto.

That's basically saying, "I don't plan to do my job." What's next? Donald Trump said it best, "You're fired!"

[Catrina]

75. So, she was a GOP plant (they're everywhere) whose job it was to push

GOP talking points. Obviously she was not told that the job might be a little difficult, since the public is NOT stupid, unless it's a reichwing audience, ie, Fox viewers. She must have been used to freep audiences, and was probably in shock when she encountered intelligent beings who could tear her rightwing talking points to shreds.

Since she's decided not to do her job, I imagine she'll be headed over to the Moonie Times, or Fox which is the dumping ground for indictment survivers, journalistic rejects, pardoned criminals, not and, of course, bawling reformed sinners.

CNN, The NYT, The Washington Post, have all been taken over by the State Propaganda Dept. It's pretty complete now, the takeover. We must act now, the way the people of the Soviet Union did.

I remember listening to a former oppressed citizen of the USSR who said that 'the problem with America is Americans think they are being told the truth'! 'We in the USSR, however, KNEW we were being lied to, and paid little attention to the 'media'. I have taken her advice and believe nothing from the media, unless I research it now. They are no longer to be trusted, all bought and paid for, or under threat of some kind, or they are part of it all. Anyway, at least I'm no longer frustrated, thinking they got stuff wrong. I know it is deliberate now, and sadly, so many I talk to feel the same way.

[Stockholm]

13. I think WAPO needs to revisit the definition

om·buds·man
Pronunciation: 'äm-"budz-m&n, 'om-, -b&dz-, -"man; äm-'budz-, om-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural om·buds·men /-m&n/
Etymology: Swedish, literally, representative, from Old Norse umbothsmathr, from umboth commission + mathr man
1 : a government official (as in Sweden or New Zealand) appointed to receive and investigate complaints made by individuals against abuses or capricious acts of public officials
2 : one that investigates reported complaints (as from students or consumers), reports findings, and helps to achieve equitable settlements
- om·buds·man·ship /-"ship/ noun

[Captain Hilts]

14. Isn't that what an 'ombudsman' is for???? nt

[mikeytherat]

15. Well, since we have pharmacists who don't have to dispense prescriptions,

why not an ombudsman who doesn't respond to critics?

mikey_the_rat

[NuttyFluffers]

74. hahaha! that's exactly it, we're in bush world!

it's a batshit crazy land where every day is opposite day. up is down, black is white, failure is success, and apparently job descriptions are designations of what a person *will not* do.

fema director? nah, i don't deal in national emergencies. i'm a fashion god.
fed chair on mine safety oversight? nah, we don't do mine safety.
security secretary? we don't pay attention to memos warning about OBL, planes, and terrorism...

all of us migh as well apply this to our lives.
i'm a firefighter, i refuse to fight fires, especially at that senator's house.
i'm a grocer, i refuse to sell produce, especially to people i don't like.
i'm a musician, i refuse to play music at my concert, 'cause i hate that guy's hair.

:crazy: we are through the looking glass, ladies and gents. except alice seems to have had a much better time.

[Roland99]

17. Aww...da poor wittle apowogists.

Pieces of shit cowards.

Every single one of them.

[saberjet22]

19. WaPo ombudsman will no longer reply to critics

If she's not going to reply, I'm not going to read her comments. So there!

[pberq]

20. thanks for posting this Will - K&R

[baldguy]

21. Do we need an ombudsman for the ombudsman?

ad infinitum

[ClintonTyree]

23. Bush's Imperial Presidency seems to be spreading to his........

"Imperial Propaganda Catapulters". I can see how this would be the natural progression of things in Washington at this particular moment in history. She answers to no one and takes it upon herself to change long standing traditions at her discretion.
I think we have GWB's "soul-mate" here! ;)

[Jade Fox]

72. That's what I was thinking.....

"We don't need no stinkin' badges...."

That's a movie quote.

[DirtyDawg]

24. Debbie, Debbie, Debbie...

...So you think the answer to the issue of 'critics' commenting about the stupidity of your editorials is not to respond to those criticisms?...or, indeed, probably not even to read them. Try covering your ears and hollering 'ya,ya,ya,ya,ya,ya,...I'm not listening to you...ya,ya,ya,ya' - you get the picture. I've got an even better idea, quit making stupid-ass comments and observations. In fact, the fact that you're even in this job says a helluvalot about what the Post has come to. You clearly are an inept excuse for a journalist...my guess is that even if you went to some journalism school you never demonstrated an ounce of critical thinking and certainly not the ability to cleverly articulate an original thought. So you must either be screwing your way into the job or otherwise positioned for favored treatment - who's your daddy anyway?

You're not responding? You're not thinking either, so why not just quit and save the paper the ink and the newsprint?

By the way, whether or not you're thinking or listening or responding, one day there will be a reckoning, and your name will be high on the list.

[DirtyDawg]

34. Opps...

...I just got a look at this lady on MM. I apologize for the bit about her screwing her way into the job...good God where do they find such tight-ass, pursed-lipped, old maids? In fact, she looks just like the picture on my granddaughter's pack of 'Old Maid' cards.

[Tinksrival]

48. This one?

[Radio_Lady]

53. Here's the image -- we post, you decide. She probably needs more

than a full day at the spa. She looks like (I imagine) the woman who ran the orphanage in the play "Annie" -- maybe it's the red dress and the high collar. Was that Carol Burnett in the movie?!

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I51823-2005Feb24

[savemefromdumbya]

25. Just trot down to DC and knock on her office door - she'll have to hide

:evilgrin:

[MountainLaurel]

27. Whaaaa?!

What, exactly, is the point of an ombudsperson who doesn't actually ombud?

[Snivi Yllom]

28. it's not just the WAPO, the NY Times is sealing it's bubble

http://www.slate.com/id/2134381/&#emailbubble

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001847386

Want to e-Mail a 'NY Times' Columnist? Better Subscribe to TimesSelect

If you haven't signed up for TimesSelect, The New York Times' online subscription product, don't bother e-mailing the paper's star columnists.

Since the Times put the words of its eight Op-Ed columnists behind a paid wall last September, it has also decided that only TimesSelect subscribers should be allowed to e-mail Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, et al.

Back in September the Times asked the hundreds of papers who publish the Op-Ed contributors through The New York Times News Service (NYTNS) to stop printing the writers' e-mail addresses with the columns (and to take the columns off their Web sites, too). Apparently not everyone got the message, because last week the Times' syndication service sent out an advisory reminding its client papers to remove the e-mail addresses.

"If you are not a TimesSelect subscriber you won't have access to that e-mail functionality," Times spokesman Toby Usnik confirmed Tuesday. "It centralizes around the TimesSelect site."

[ClintonTyree]

32. Ah, capitalism.........

if you can't afford to pay for "Times Select" you're not entitled to the news! The greed in this country is going to be it's downfall. Can class warfare be too far away? Jesus on a stick, when will this shit STOP! :grr:

[northzax]

37. oh please. it's not 'news' it's 'opinion'

and Cable TV costs a hell of a lot more than Times Select does. The Times charges for its intellectual property, the writing of its hired columnists, not 'news'

[Snivi Yllom]

55. don't worry

The NY Times moves step by step towards irrelevancy each day.

[madrchsod]

29. ahhhh.... the old "talk to the hand" maneuver

are there any grown-ups left ?

[McCamy Taylor]

30. How Orwellian. The "ombudsman" is an Editorial writer and apologist.

[jdadd]

31. Being Ombudsman is harrrd work!!

:cry:

[jasmeel]

33. Does Deborah have to get approval from her boss for this?

Shouldn't we be bombarding her boss with these complaints? Is this "no reply" policy just for media matters? Has anyone gotten a response from their emails yet?

[NNN0LHI]

35. WaPo has just joined the likes of Newsmax and the NYT n/t

[Maestro]

38. Lalalalalalalalalala

If a conservative doesn't acknowledge it, it doesn't exist. :crazy: :silly: :freak:

[CottonBear]

46. Lalalalalalalalalala picture:

[Bob3]

39. So will the post hire an ombudsman for their ombudsman?

just wondering.

[Radio_Lady]

62. See upthread my post #60. I told her she might consider resigning.

As someone else said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Off topic: Hey, THAT's why I hate cooking!

[fishnfla]

40. Media Matters getting it done!

Whatever their approach is, it works. Major props to them :thumbsup:

[Hissyspit]

41. What a joke. O.K. I get to do whatever I want to do on my job from now on.

And define it however I want, since apparently those are the new rules.
I guess she is thinking that if Rethugs and Bush can get away with it, she can do.

What a joke.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. And pathetic, too. She should be embarassed. Media Matters does a great, fair job at what they do.

[marylanddem]

42. She's inaccurate & thin-skinned

According to mediamatters, she mischaracterized the reporting of the Post's own reporters about the Abramoff donations. This suggests journalistic sloppiness/laziness to me. Put thin-skinned/defensive on top of that and you've got the picture of someone put in a vaunted position without the requisite talents. So what else is new? The Washington Post is a business like any other. Who you know, skillful brown-nosing and "impressive" credentials (anyone remember Janet Cooke of "Jimmy" fame) may take precedence over skill in hiring at the Post.

[onenote]

44. she isn't very good, but I think her column is being misrepresented

The column I read, from January 15, talked about the coverage of the Abramoff scandals. At the end, she said that the Post's coverage was being criticized from both sides -- those who thought the coverage downplayed the relationship between Abramoff and Rove (a valid criticisim in my view) and those who thought that the Post is avoiding "nailing" Democrats involved with Abramoff. Here is exactly what she wrote:

"The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.

So far, Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the investigations hasn't put Democrats in the first tier of people being investigated."

Compare what she wrote with the Ameriblog characterization of it:
"Then, just last week, the ombudsman wrote last week that Jack Abramoff gave lots of money to Democrats.... The ombudsman went on to suggest that conservative critics were correct in being angry at the Post for not mentioning all the Democrats who Jack Abramoff personally gave money to (again, there were none)."

She never said "personally" and she didn't say "lots of money to Democrats". Again, I think she has been doing a poor job as ombudsman and if she's going to refuse to reply to critics, she should get another job. If it turns out she wrote another column that can be fairly characterized as saying what Ameriblog says she wrote, then I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, I think critics of Howell would be more effective in their criticism if they were more accurate in describing what she has written.

onenote

[CottonBear]

45. The Waaahmbulance is on the way!

[kevinbgoode]

47. Well, well...sounds like she is mad

because Rev. Moon got crowned "monarch of America" and she was left behind. Perhaps the Post is trying desperately to become the Washington Times Lite.

[confludemocrat]

49. WaPo: purveyors of paper-thin BULLSHIT

a la the Bush junta. Those of you who have access to the higher reaches of public, intellectual discourse should be screaming continuously.
Are you?

[Radio_Lady]

56. Here are the top names. I can't confirm email addresses.

But the sequence seems to be as follows:

(LASTNAME)(FIRST INITIAL)(at)washpost.com

So:

Caroline Little <littlec(at)washpost.com> et cetera. I'll try this out later to see if that works or not.
Chief Executive Officer and Publisher

Jim Brady
Executive Editor

Tom Kennedy
Managing Editor for Multimedia

Tim Ruder
Vice President, Marketing

Liddy Manson
Vice President, Jobs, Cars & Real Estate

Jen Moyer
Vice President, Finance

Steve Stup
Vice President, Advertising Sales

Keith Tomatore
Vice President, Operations and Human Resources

Eric Schvimmer
Vice President, Technology

Clifford M. Sloan
Vice President, Business Development and General Counsel

[depakid]

57. Must be a lousy job!

Working for a once respected paper that's now become a paragon of dishonsty.

It's to the point where, if people aren't dusgusted with the Post- they're laughing at them. No wonder she won't reply. It's not like management is going to do anything about the situation anyway.

Good thing Catherine Graham didn't live to see this.

[Up2Late]

59. Sound's like someone who, "Needs to spend most time with her family..."

Sounds like a WH shill to me.

[Radio_Lady]

63. I posted all the top executive's email addresses at my post #60.

Yeah, go spend more time with your family.

[Marie26]

65. That's what they're supposed to do!

The ombusdman is supposed to be there as a sort of voice for the readers. How can she possibly do that if she won't even listen to readers' concerns? It's about as ridiculous as having a non-reporting reporter (Miller, Woodward). Or the non-editing editors that apparantly never supervise what reporters are doing. No wonder people have lost all faith in the media.

[greiner3]

66. So WaPo will change the name of the witch then, right? n/t

[Up2Late]

67. Hey Will! Did you see what Skinner just posted? It's on the front page!

Replies to WaPo Ombudsman disappear down memory hole (but we got 'em!)

:rofl:

[WilliamPitt]

69. I saw

She's going to have a whole series of bad days.

Thank Media Matters.

[noamnety]

68. I should try this in my classroom

"I no longer respond to questions from students."

I could do my job much more efficiently if I instituted that policy.

[fishwax]

70. replying to critics is hard work

poor lady :puke:

[hfojvt]

73. I disagree with media matters

Here is the paragraph in dispute

"The NSA program operated in secret until it was made public in news accounts last month. Since then, President Bush and his advisers have defended it as legal and necessary to protect the country against future attacks and have said Congress was repeatedly consulted. But Democrats, some Republicans and constitutional law experts have raised concerns about whether Bush overstepped his constitutional authority and violated privacy laws meant to guard against the government spying on its own citizens without a warrant."

Given that 2nd sentence, does it really sound like either the reporter or the WaPo is shilling for Bush? Okay, MediaMatters is technically correct that the article did not refute the "Congress was repeatedly consulted" part. But mofoing tanj, talk about straining at gnats. I would say that the part they refuted and the way they described it was a pretty good shot to the BFEE. "Democrats, some Republicans and constitutional law experts". Preach it, baby, that smells like I-M-P-E-A-C-H to me, and not a partisan criticism. Why should we give half a flying fu#$ about the "Congress was repeatedly consulted" part?

Cripes, if MediaMatters cannot find ten thousand more egregious examples of reporters, papers, and television shilling for the BFEE, then they need to find real jobs. Unless their job is to make enemies for the left.

Disclaimer: I recently applied for a research job at Mediamatters and never heard back.

[Rageneau]

76. The story should have said that BushCo CLAIMED that Congress was consulted

And that Democratic members of Congress strongly disagreed with that statement. Without pointing out that there are two points of view, the WaHoPo left the (subtle) impression that there is only one. This may have been inadvertent, but at minimum it's sloppy reporting.

[hfojvt]

77. mediamatters seems worse than sloppy on this point

but maybe it is just the sequencing. As I followed the story unfolding backwards. The first link led me to this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601100008

"Media Matters agrees that Linzer gave the administration's point of view. The problem is that, contrary to Howell's assertion, Linzer presented only the administration's point of view -- and that point of view is highly misleading, at best. ...

The following facts are not in dispute:

1) Linzer reported that "President Bush and his advisers ... have said Congress was repeatedly consulted."

2) There is ample evidence that Congress was not repeatedly consulted.

3) Linzer did not include any reference to this evidence or quote or paraphrase anyone who disputed Bush's claim; nor did she indicate, in any way, that the claim may not be true or unanimously agreed-upon. She simply reported the misleading claim by Bush and his advisers without including any contradictory information."

Except that is mostly untrue. That "Linzer presented only the administration's point of view" is simply not true if you read the three lines I included from the article. It is true about the Bush claim that Congress was repeatedly consulted, but that is a very minor point of the article. On balance, it is simply not true that Linzer's piece "presented only the administration's point of view".

Point 3 is not true either that "She simply reported the misleading claim by Bush ... without including any contradictory information." Bush's claim is that 1. what he did was legal and 2. Congress was repeatedly consulted. The contradictory information that many disagree with claim #1 was included and that is a very substantial rebuttal that mediamatters gives Linzer no credit for, while straining at the gnat which was left out.

The next link might make it clearer.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601100004

"The NSA program operated in secret until it was made public in news accounts last month. Since then, President Bush and his advisers have defended it as legal and necessary to protect the country against future attacks and have said Congress was repeatedly consulted." (Linzer's article)

Linzer's article did not include a single word, in either her voice or anyone else's, pointing out that the administration's claim that "Congress was repeatedly consulted" is misleading at best."

"Did not include a single word" makes it sound like the words that followed in the article either are not substantial, or as in the quote they used, simply were not there. Mediamatters narrows the focus to that gnat while ignoring that in the big picture Linzer's article included a line which said that not only Democrats, but some Republicans and constitutional scholars say that what Bush did is illegal - a pretty solid rebuttal to Bush's POV.

I also think that the ombudsman has a point in that WaPo has discussed the question as to whether "Congress was repeatedly consulted" in a few other articles, so it is not like they shill that point for Bush.

The article is not perfect, but I think there are more serious errors in mediamatters' presentation. The article is not perfectly evil either. It hardly seems worthy of a major attack, much less the knee-jerk vitriol evidenced in this thread.