Howell Responds:The Firestorm Over My Column (Warning-NOT Pretty)

[kpete]

The Firestorm Over My Column

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, January 22, 2006; B06



Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down.

That column praised The Post for breaking the story on lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings, for which he has pleaded guilty to several felony counts. The column clearly pointed out that Abramoff is a Republican and dealt mainly with Republicans, most prominently former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012100907_pf.html

[Proud2BAmurkin]

1. Isn't the question whether those Democrats KNEW the money was Abramoff?

Is she really that THICKHEADED???

[SpiralHawk]

2. Excuses, excuses, excuses ...you threw the match, Deb

into the parched timber.

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

Own your own shit.

[NanceGreggs]

3. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal.

If you'd had the guts to say that before you were 'flamed' instead of after the fact, you might get a little sympathy here.

But being as you DIDN'T ... :nopity:

[Fridays Child]

4. Did Dem recipients of Abramoff-directed contributions KNOW...

...that those funds had anything to do with Abramoff? That's A. And, B, is there a demonstrable quid pro quo associated with those contributions?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. There was a post here a few days ago that said Dems have rec. LESS $

from the Tribes than they used too, before they hired Abromoff. That says a little something about where he was telling them to send their money.

[mrdmk]

64. Yep, here ya go

<link>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x189196

[johnfunk]

65. WRONG QUESTION! Correct: Did Abramoff direct money AWAY from Democrats?

It's time for Dems and the press to take a look at political contributions by Abramoff's clients -- especially the ones that were giving to the parties and pols BEFORE they signed on with Abramoff.

PREDICTION: A pattern showing that Abramoff -- and similar lobbyists -- steered more of their clients' money away from Dems and toward the GOCOCP.

Abramoff was a hardcore Bush-Neocon-wing Republican. Even given the argument that Abramoff would want to buy off members of both parties, I believe it highly unlikely that he would want to steer ANY money toward Democrats.

[rodeodance]

5. "For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind" Well, I think

I will email her.

...To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.

Keep smiling. I will.

Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or [e-mail].

[senseandsensibility]

6. She's had a fifty year career?

She's in her mid seventies? You'd think she'd have developed some common sense by now. I do appreciate her calling it a republican scandal, but this definitely comes under the better late than never category.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

7. I could be wrong, but this one sentence is very telling for me.

"The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts."

Okay Ms. Howell why won't the WaPo share these lists with the rest of us?

What doesn't she understand here, it's still the same old thing to me. The tribes made the donations, not Abramoff. Indian tribes have always donated to the Democrats, why would any Dem Congresscritter or Senator think there was anything unusual about a donation from an Indian tribe?

Bottom line, Abramoff used the Indians to do his dirty work. He knew that not a single Democrat, well maybe a few, would take his money directly. Unfortunately for the Pukes, they had no such compunction. They just took and took and took.

Pretty weak defense, Debbie. Close but no cigar!

[sandnsea]

13. Exactly what I emailed her

Either post the name of the Democrat who had never advocated for tribes before Abramoff, or admit she's been duped or is a conduit for right wing lies.

[marions ghost]

57. exactly

where is the PROOF for this assertion? Where are these copies of lists "sent to tribes by Abramoff?"

It is lousy journalism to base your primary argument on sources you won't substantiate. Looks like she studied at the Judy Miller School of Journalism.

50 years in Journalism? Ms. Howell knew EXACTLY what she was doing.

[Lorien]

72. Tribes were already giving to Democrats before Abramoff arrived

I have Native relatives on reservations, and so far I've only ever met ONE Indian who voted for Bush in 2000-and Kerry in 2004. Native Americans overwhelmingly favor democrats because traditionally their greatest concerns are social and environmental issues. If the Post has copies of those lists, they owe America-at the very least-a breakdown of what percentage was directed toward Dems and what went to repugs. My bet is that all the Dem contributions were earmarked by the tribes themselves, without ANY direction from Abramoff.

[Richard Steele]

8. Abramoff BRIBED Repubs; His VICTIMS made LEGAL donations to both...

...parties.

That's not what I call 'foolish semantics', Debby.

Sounds like getting caught in your BLATANT ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD YOUR READERS
has you a bit more WORRIED than I would have expected.

Wassamatter, Deb...the handwriting on the wall getting clearer for you?

[drm604]

36. See this other thread for a good visual explanation of the whole affair.

Anyone should be able to understand this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x202413

[SoCalDem]

10. The Indian Tribes (Abramoff's clients) had ALWAYS contributed

to democrats BEFORE they got hornswaggled by Abramoff. No doubt he told them to continue to donate as always before, but with so much of their money being stolen by HIM, they started donating LESS than before..

the story she could have/should have written would have made that important distinction.. I do not agree with people being abusive to her, but I DO think she deserved to hear from "the other side", since she did not do her homework.

A story she COULD have written would have been about how damned HARD the republcans caught in the spider web, were TRYING to tell everyone that DEMOCRATS took money too.. They are trying desperately to get any and all media to "back them up", and she could have resisted... if she had done some research..

She was lazy..and glib.. andf she set off the firestorm..

If she's been writing a column for 50 years, maybe she should consider retirement and write for a knitting magazine or a recipe magazine

[savemefromdumbya]

11. Probably paid a bonus to publish what she did?

[Pithy Cherub]

12. Howell: "Woe is me"!

What a martyr for rancid journalism! Howell should pay the Washington Post ad fees for announcing the Pity Party she is throwing for herself in this diatribe. She clearly doesn't understand her job or journalism if she is blaming the overall smart readers for her lack of factual reporting. At the end of her fifty years wandering the journalism desert, she is still a rube that needs to get a map to Accountability City.

Should such a delicate flower of propriety be an ombudsmen or should she be on the wedding beat where flowers and hearts abound?

The Washington Post has failed as paper of record and needs to be fully cognizant and transparent when they screw it up (again...). It seems that they are feeling the wrath of an informed citizenry, or more importantly the scope and reach of the blogosphere. That in actuality is the issue, blogging is reporting the errors in real time. The online community is asking serious questions that if the stenographers had been real reporters there would not be a need to constantly correct the public utterances from the puppets who pretend they are reporters.

The lack of The Left coming to aid and comfort Woodward, Miller and others on the reporters ship of fools is another sore point with the media community. Of course, why would they expect the support is a testament to how out of touch the reporting community has become with their much more discerning and savvy readership.

[Straight Shooter]

14. If you can't do the minimum homework necessary, don't come crying to me.

"Mistake." Yeah, right.

:nopity:

[tishaLA]

15. My Letter.

It starts out nicely, at least. Catching flies with honey and all that....


Ms. Howell,

I am thankful for the internet--or, as Pres. Bush might say, "internets"--because it allows me to read your column on Saturday nights instead of waiting for Sunday mornings. I feel as if I have to respond to your Sunday column tonight instead of waiting for tomorrow.

It was good to hear you admit you had made a mistake in your column from last week. When you made your brief statement earlier this week, you neglected to say that and, frankly, admitting that would have done a good deal to quell the storm. A further statement--like "I regret the error" would have been even better, but I suppose those looking for truth will settle for any port in a storm.

A small problem remains with your correction, though: in your column you say that "Abramoff's Indian clients"--in the law, these are known as his victims and he has to reimburse them--contributed money to Democrats. This begs the question: did these Native American ("Indian") clients also give to Democrats, and in greater numbers, before Abramoff came around? had they given money to those members before they associated themselves with Mr. Abramoff, an admitted felon? Is Abramoff accused of the same wrong-doing (bribery) with Democrats as he is with Republicans? Do you believe all the money these Native American tribes contributed is suspect, or just the money that led to lawbreaking? In other words, are you suggesting that Native American tribes should be shut out of the lobbying system wholesale?

It seems to me, Ms. Howell, that your column still manages to sully Democrats because it is unable to separate the wheat from the chaff in lobbying money. Lobbying money in and of itself, as you well know, is perfectly legal and is protected by the first amendment. What is illegal is what we know happened with Republicans congresspersons, their staffers, and their spouses: bribery and illegal contributions.

Best,
XXXXXXXXX

[UTUSN]

16. Oh, only Dems are foul-mouthed, not the wingnuts outside GORE's house

[WHAT]

17. Honeeee...

You're not trustworthy...

anymore.

[Raster]

18. pfffft! Enough righteous indignation. You got caught and called on it.

People are tired of the main stream media shilling, yes shilling, for this corrupt, failed administration and it's criminal policies. It wasn't a mistake. Someone with a "50-year career" in American journalism doesn't make a mistake like that.

[glitch]

25. Indeed. Really sick of the "innocent ignorance" excuse.

Which is no excuse at all. A lie is a lie, whether you lie to get to go to parties or you lie because it'll keep you employed for 50 years or whether you lie to further your political agenda or you lie because all your friends are doing it or you lie because you are too damn lazy or simply lack the motivation to do the research to find out the truth.
Ptooey.

[Catherine Vincent]

19. Damn, makes me wish I had been one of those that "flamed" her.

She should have told the truth from the beginning of she wouldn't gave gotten her feelings hurt. Were these DUers that emailed her?

[tavalon]

43. You still can - at her email address

I sent her a letter the other day that included all 42 pages of the replies cut and pasted. Yes, I know it only took her one key stroke to delete it but I'm sending it daily. Just a handy little service provided by those of us who want her and her boss to know that we know she lied.

[EFerrari]

48. The presstitutes are starting to figure out that BushCo

is not really their best friend and that they have alienated their liberal readers. I did get a response from the NYT public editor. And, now this woman is raving about keeping her job.

If we keep speaking up, this could get very interesting. :)

[KoKo]

20. Oh Come Off it Howell! Cry me a river! You work for one of the top three

or four newspapers in the country and you didn't get there by hiding under your desk because someone in newsrooms called you to task.

You protest too much....one does have to wonder. :grr:

[Synnical]

21. Kick - haven't read the entire column yet

But does anyone else think this is appropriate for LBN?

[Synnical]

22. There she goes again

"I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties." But, where's the evidence? Did his clients actually make those contributions? Should be pretty easy to check, as it's all public record - has she bothered?

And the title to her column should have been, as she writes, "It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal,"

And the smug sign-off is really annoying. As the Ombudsman, her readers deserve more respect.

[EFerrari]

30. As the Ombudsman, she's a miserable failure. n/t

[kevinbgoode]

33. Who would write to her now anyway? Except Republicans

I can't imagine anyone is going to bother with her after that smug display. She's been working in this business for 50 years - she damn well knows the difference in how those sentences were constructed. She has nothing to be smug about after that error.

[tavalon]

44. At least she is showing consistency

She hasn't shown respect for the readers since this started.

[alittlelark]

23. Resign - retire- re-WHATEVER... just GO

She has exposed her ROOTS. She will never be trusted again.

[Synnical]

32. She needs to be relieved of her duties as ombudsmen

Her job is to address reader complaints and mediate. Not to "speak her mind" as she posits. I'm really disappointed with the Wa Po now. We know we cannot trust the NYT, all that is left is the LA Times.

Watch as Free Speech crashes and burns.

[alittlelark]

34. I believe that ppl have the ability to rise above their pre-concieved

Notions.....


Lets hope those around her aspire to 'rise above' as well.

[EFerrari]

35. And the L.A. Times goes righter and righter.

I never thought I'd live to see this day.

[Synnical]

39. I stumbled upon this article - The decline of the liberal media monopoly

When I did a google search for "right wing hate speech"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007835By

PEGGY NOONAN

Not a Bad Time to Take Stock
Thoughts on the decline of the liberal media monopoly and the future of the GOP.

Friday, January 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

I don't think Democrats understand that the Alito hearings were, for them, not a defeat but an actual disaster. The snarly tone the senators took with a man most Americans could look at and think, "He's like me," and the charges they made--You oppose women and minorities, you only like corporations and not the little guy--went nowhere. Once those charges would have taken flight, would have launched, found their target and knocked down any incoming Republican. Not any more. It's over.

Eleven years ago the Democrats lost control of Congress. Then they lost the presidency. But just as important, maybe more enduringly important, they lost their monopoly on the means of information in America. They lost control of the pipeline. Or rather there are now many pipelines, and many ways to use the information they carry. The other day, Dana Milbank, an important reporter for the Washington Post, the most important newspaper in the capital, wrote a piece deriding Judge Alito. Once such a piece would have been important. Men in the White House would have fretted over its implications. But within hours of filing, Mr. Milbank found his thinking analyzed and dismissed on the Internet; National Review Online called him a "policy bimbo."

Could Democratic senators today torture Clarence Thomas with tales of Coke cans and porn films? Not likely. Could Ted Kennedy have gotten away with his "Robert Bork's America" speech unanswered? No.

And the end of the monopoly of course isn't only in the news, it's in all media. The other night George Clooney, that beautiful airhead, made a Golden Globe speech in which he made an off-color reference to Jack Abramoff. The audience seemed confused, as people apparently often are when George Clooney speaks. Once, his remark would have been news. Once, Marlon Brando stopped the country in its tracks when he sent Sacheen Littlefeather to make his speech at the Academy Awards. Once, Vanessa Redgrave did the same when she gave a speech about Palestinians, receiving in turn a rebuke from Frank Sinatra, who didn't want some British broad telling us how to do our thing. Now, actors make their comments and it's just another airhead involved in an oral helium release. "You don't like it, change the channel," network executives used to say. But that, as they knew, meant nothing: There were only three channels. Now there are 500. And more coming.

The Cons and Neo-Cons have been very, very hardworking - and they've won. Except, the abuse of power in the WH will be their undoing. I hope. And if one more Repuke says that the media is liberal - I suggest we throw this policy wonk word's back in their face!

The decline of the liberal media

[EFerrari]

47. They worked for forty years only to fail miserably within five.

That's not much of a victory, is it? :)

[fishnfla]

60. She should be removed from her post pronto

She clearly has no understanding of her duties. If she thinks this all about her she is wrong again. She is so far out of it she cant see clearly.
She has a 2 year contract? We'll see how long she lasts

[skids]

24. Maybe she should have read dkos before penning this:

(EDIT: or more to the point, recycling old material rather than penning new.)

When Howell tried to defend herself a couple of days ago, she claimed that "the Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts." In connection with that assertion, she made reference to this graphic.

Trouble is, there are problems with that graphic. Some of those problems are described by Paul Lukasiak (see above, "2:59").

And Brad DeLong has made this point: "the document to which she links appears to 'direct' $220,000 of contributions to Republicans, and $4,000 of contributions to Democrats."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/21/11010/7038

Doh! You got SERVED!

Lamestream media, behind the curve again.

[TheGunslinger]

26. "I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes"

PROOF???

[kevinbgoode]

27. Ok, Ms. Howell. . ..don't write a bunch of trash about

how obscene and unseemly people are because they had to correct your stupid mistake. . .which you STILL don't have right, by the way. . .

One would think that someone who apparently must regularly hear from Republicans....after all, you work for a newspaper which USED to be one of their favorite verbal abuse targets. . .then nastiness and meanspirited diatribes is something you should be used to in the business.

So...is THIS what passes as a retraction for the Washington Post?

Christ. . .now the Post has turned into the Washington Times Lite.

[tavalon]

45. I actually spent a large amount of time

reading the responses she received. Forty two pages of responses she received and yes, about four or five of them were what could be construed as rude or perhaps pithily snide, but most were very detailed explanations of why her characterization of the scandal was disingenious at best and lying at worst. I remember one that was supportive, perhaps there were two. There were over one hundred well thought out explanations of her mistake.

[EFerrari]

28. Please stop digging. It's embarassing already. n/t

[stickdog]

29. The only reason she's crying is that she got caught lying. (nt)

[kevinbgoode]

31. Apparently Ms. Howell doesn't view the way she has framed

this story.....AND her mistake. . ..as any form of abuse. Especially when it capped off a solid week of Republican broadcast and press pundits repeating GOP talking points that. . .well, just so happened to pretty much match up to hers.

Why is it that she doesn't bother to point out that the clients, who were "directed" by Abramoff to make contributions, were under no obligation to make those contributions. In fact, they didn't do everything that was "directed." They aren't servants of Mr. A. . .they are CLIENTS. He can advise them, he can suggest to them, he can offer them the damned list, but he can't order one damned thing.

[Catrina]

41. It took how many days, to get the truth that his is a Republican scandal!

And that's just from one of the dozens of news outlets that are reading off the Republican memo, which contains the two lies that Ms Howell repeated in her two columns.

I will take her word that she made a mistake, but the mistake is suspiciously similar to the two Republican talking points, leading me assume that she did no research on her own, but repeated what she heard her counterparts in other media, read from the RNC memo.

Ms. Howell, however is still focusing on a matter that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this scandal and that is the issue of what the Indian Tribes did legally with their own money.

Why is this even mentioned? It was THEIR MONEY! It is NOT part of this scandal in any way, shape or form!! Yet, Ms Howell, and all other media outlets, continue to use it as though it had some significance.

If it has any at all, it is that yes, ABRAMOFF DID advise his clients where to donate their money. HE ADVISED THEM TO DONATE IT TO REPUBLICANS!

As a result, Democrats who normally had received donations from the tribes for years, received FAR LESS donations after Abramoff began advising them.

Ms. Howell needs to research the 'K STREET PROJECT' it will make it easier for her to see how ludicrous it is to suggest that Abramoff and Tom Delay would ever give a dime to any Democrat, even ZELL MILLER.

Abramoff HATED Demcorats with a passion. The whole goal of the K STREET PROJECT was to STOP all money from going to Democrats. So, even IF they had wanted it, they couldn't get it. He and Delay were that successful. And that's the irony of this whole thing .....

....it was their own success that now makes it impossible to blame the Democrats. I really, really wish the press would understand this. Because aside from anyting else, it is an incredible story. And they all have an opportunity to tell it. Whoever does, should their sales hit the roof! It is an unbelievable real life saga of power, greed and corruption the likes of which has probably never been seen before.

I do appreciate that Ms. Howell finally acknowledged that this scandal is all Republican. I hope all the other mediums, CNN, MSNBC and dare I hope for a miracle, Fox News, will have the integrity to do the same.

They will feel the rath of a viewership, that has been far too patient with the passing along of Republican lies for five long years and if they continue to lie about this scandal, they will feel it where it hurts, financially. The public has had it. I hope the media feels that.

Both Ms Howell and Mr. Brady have said that posts directed to them were obscene etc. I was on the board that day, and I saw a few mildly (considering the frustration of the readers) rude posts.

In the interest of fairness, They need to post the entire dialogue so that we may see for ourselves, what the % of the thousands of posts you say they received, was, as they claim, obscene etc.

Also, I wish she and all the media would stop the use of the words 'Abramoff's Clients' in reference to the Indian tribes. It is a Republican talking point meant to smear, erroneously, the VICTIMS of this criminal, and to imply that they and Democrats were somehow involved in his criminal schemes.

They have suffered enough at his hands, his back and forth emails to and from his partner, exhibited racism, disdain, and arrogance in relation to them. I'm sure Ms. Howell knows that he called them 'monkeys' amongst other things. The Post should not participate in the Republicans', and Abramoff's abuse of these tribes.

I hope that the Post will begin a series on the Abramoff scandals. From China, to the sweatshops in the Mariana Islands, to the sniper school in Israel, to the Suncruz Casino, and the murder of Kidan's and Abramoff's business associate, Gus Boulis.

Also, the allegation that Mohammad Atta was on one of Abramoff's floating casino's before 9/11. And the Russian connection, the Scotland and England (Margaret Thatcher) trips and on and on.

The interesting thing is, that the Republicans and the press, only talk about the Indian Casino scandal. Because they do not want to talk about the far more egregious crimes that Abramoff and his band of Republican operatives, (and legislators) were involved in.

This 'correction' is a beginning. But the rest of the media needs to stop the lies. It may take this same effort to get them to do so, along with a few serious boycotts and cancellations.

[Hamlette]

37. This is nothing but good news. . .

she admits she made a mistake and the left is finally doing what the right has done for 20 years...attempt to control the media by contacting them with concerns. Insiders have said they have been inundated for years with calls and letters from right wingers accusing them of being liberal. Those insiders said it pushed them further right...at least in their reporting.

Maybe next time Howell will fact check, knowing if she makes mistakes she will hear about it...from us.

edited for typo

[caligirl]

38. 50 year veteran and she claims 'a mistake' like that? hogwash

[buddysmellgood]

40. I suggest she back pedal faster. This isn't cutting it.

[tavalon]

42. My short response to Ms. Howell

We have copies of the posts that were made. Therefore, stating that the comments were shut down for posts that were abusive and obscene is disingenuous on your part and lying on the part of ?. Perhaps your boss is lying, perhaps you are but the fact of the matter is, these things don't go down the memory hole any more, much as you and your boss might wish. I'll be happy to send you another copy of the posts that were made in response to your incorrect, even scurrilous treatment of the Abramoff Republican lobbying scandal, if you wish.

[Surya Gayatri]

46. Do these people ever

do anything but snivel, whine, and cast the blame elsewhere. Craven cowards, all of them. SG

[Senator]

49. Now, now folks - keep in mind - it's ALL ABOUT HER

It's ABOUT HER "50-year career" being sullied by this "public stoning."

It's ABOUT HER being the innocent victim of "the increasing political polarization of our country."

It's ABOUT HER "tough hide" that allows her to barely notice this "firestorm" of "unbounded, unreasoning rage" manifested by "thousands of flaming," "abusive," "obscene," comments using the "crudest of sexual language." Which while being "profoundly distressing" caused her no "hurt feelings." (Uh, ok whatever.)

It's ABOUT HER deciding what is or "is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy." (Since those things have identical interests and importance.)

It's ABOUT HER freedom from responsibilty for censoring reader comments. Since she "didn't ask" that it happen, and therefore has no reason to consider (let alone comment on) whether or not the "great disdain" was justified.

It's ABOUT HER having a 2-year contract. (That makes any call for accountability from the peasant-readers irrelevant anyway.)

It's ABOUT HER determination to "Keep smiling."

Not yours.

--
www.january6th.org

[marions ghost]

61. yep -- excellent summary

of the underlying narcissism and arrogance of these arguments.

It's the classic Republican defense when confronted by criticism...ie. How DARE you DO this to MOI?!? (think Miss Piggy)

[tsuki]

50. Isn't this what we objected to?

"I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't."

Is there any proof for the following?

"I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties."

I stand by what I said. In my day (I am old,) the reporter would have researched the article, and facts would have been included. Names would have been named. The list of Abramoff recipients would have been published. The Indian tribes would have been named.

What she did was take the RNC talking points and publish without further research. The bar for journalistic integrity is too low in this nation. I don't care how many "journalists" applaud her. They are all part of the problem.

[katinmn]

51. She should have stopped here:

I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't.

[rman]

52. back peddling and still lying

"I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties."

As though the tribes contribute only to who Abramoff says they should.

[qanda]

53. I cannot say what was in her inbox, but on that blog

I didn't see any obscene or abusive posts.

[Toots]

54. I suppose this is buried on the eighteenth page under dog nappings.

This should be front page news. Washington Post finally gets it right.

[robbedvoter]

55. "that's why Republicans...enact lobbying reforms"?

How about "that's why republicans should be booted from the offices and frog marched to jail?
Even her admissions are obscene!
and "keep smiling, I will?" What kinda signature is that? Is it like "You have to look good to feel good"? from Fernando?

[wildeyed]

56. Whaaaaaaa.........

She gave incorrect information, then makes a misleading response to the fact that she was incorrect, now she want sympathy that she is being flamed and is pointing out what a "professional" she is. If she had made a reasonable response to the first mistake and been a little contrite, I might have some sympathy for her. But as it stands, she deserves what she is getting.

What is also amazing is that these corporate journalist really don't seem to understand the rage from the left at being shut out of the discourse. I don't condone the personal attacks made on the woman, but she needs to understand the profound upset and disillusionment that motivates that behavior.

[zanne]

58. When the rightwing writes letters, reporters are fired....

When we write letters, we're "mean" and uninformed. Give me a break. We have to stop excusing whining reporters like this. Alot of us did it with Judith Miller, and look how that turned out.

[deutsey]

59. Aw, poor widdle baby

:eyes:

[spooky3]

62. More bad behavior for an ombudsperson--she "won't reply" to

MediaMatters.org when they very professionally and civilly pointed out the problems in her handling of these stories and others.

www.mediamatters.org

[Blue Diadem]

63. With a 50 yr career, she should know the importance of her words

and that bias based "mistakes" (lies) are not acceptable.

Whether she realizes it or not, her 50 year career is meaningless. She will always be remembered for this very obvious bias. She is no longer believable, but obviously she doesn't care..after all she has a contract.

[IndyOp]

66. HEY PEOPLE!! How about taking just half-a-minute for a

HAPPY DANCE!!

You just got the WaPo ombudsman to say:

It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.

Sounds to me like she is eating a BIG-OLD her-own-words PIE!!

Good job, team! Take a minute to dance - you deserve it!

[wryter2000]

67. Rewriting what you said, Howell?

Sure, you never said it was a bipartisan scandal. Suuuuuure. :eyes:

[Festivito]

68. So many err in favor of Republicans with dirty money. Hmmm. /nt

[ljm2002]

69. My letter to Ms. Howell:

Ms. Howell,

In today's column, you admit you were mistaken when you said about Abramoff that "...he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress." You then proceed to make a "correction" that is wildly misleading: "I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties." You attempt to back up this assertion by citing FEC and CPI records, as well as some as-yet-unpublished lists held by the Washington Post.

The FEC and CPI sites show records of contributions by Indian tribes, not who (if anyone) "directed" them; nor were any of these contributions illegal -- a rather important point in the context of this scandal. Records also indicate that contributions by these tribes to Republicans increased after they began associating with Abramoff, while their contributions to Democrats decreased (see citation * below) -- hardly evidence of Democratic complicity in the Abramoff scandal.

As to the Post's "copies of lists", if you have supporting information to show your readers, please do so. Otherwise, how does citing unpublished lists in any way reinforce your assertion? Surely as a journalist you understand this point.

In your original article, you provided this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/01/18/GR2006011801026.html

to show that both parties took Abramoff-directed money. In fact, the graphic in that link adds up as follows: $220,000 to Republicans, $4,000 to Democrats. So over 98% was "directed" to Republicans, less than 2% to Democrats. An honest recounting of this data would have employed words like "overwhelming", as in: By an overwhelming margin, this money was directed towards Republicans.

Since you led today's column by noting your 50-year career in journalism, I must assume you know the difference between solid and sloppy journalism, between factual and false statements, and between clarifying and misleading reporting. Ergo, you should understand that the so-called "firestorm" ensuing from your original column rests squarely at your own feet.

On the whole, the evidence would seem to indicate less than strictly honest journalism on your part. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities, but there it is.

Sincerely,

XXX XXX

XXX XXX


* Here is a citation showing that tribal contributions to Democrats decreased after their association with Abramoff:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arVHles5cKJc&refer=us#

<...>

" Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats."

<...>

" Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past."

[Hissyspit]

71. VERY effective letter.

She won't read it of course.

[Hissyspit]

70. Caught in MULTIPLE lies.

THAT is where the firestorm came from. You were caught in MULTIPLE lies.

[LiberalAndProud]

73. This unbounded, unreasoning rage ...

Note to self:

-snip-
This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy.
___

True, acting from rage is rarely constructive of anything except more rage. I am enraged by so much, and it is difficult to constantly check the RAGE.

So, my belated New Year's Resolution shall be:
Check the rage before engaging the mouth or pressing the Send button.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

74. Which "journalists" were "directed" to say that this was a bipartisan

scandal, I wonder. And by whom.