Open Letter to the Washington Post

Howell Wants to Hear From You

2006-05-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

Answering e-mail shouldn't trump doing good journalism. Reading thoughtful e-mail tells journalists what readers think about their work. The opinions can be accepted or not, but knowing them is important. And replying -- even quickly -- to local subscribers lets them know they're needed. We blow them off at our peril.

Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or email her.

Have You E-Mailed The Post Lately?

Sounds like an invitation to me. I hope you won't disappoint her.

- Taylor Marsh

Howell Trumpets "Corrections Overseer"

2006-05-07T18:32:00.000-07:00

Most corrections, except for those of the editorial pages and the Extras, run on Page A2, which also occasionally includes a notice telling readers that they can contact corrections@washpost.com or the ombudsman, or telephone The Post at 202-334-6000 and ask to be directed to a particular desk -- such as National, Metro or Sports -- to make a complaint.

This is good as far as it goes, but The Post needs to make it easier for readers to request and find corrections. That information box on Page A2 appears sometimes but not often. There sometimes doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency in making corrections. The standards for corrections differ from desk to desk -- not hugely but enough to be troublesome. There is no appeals process for readers if an editor turns down a request.

Watching the corrections process during a career in journalism has led me to one conclusion: Journalists are often thin-skinned and resist corrections. I've been guilty of that myself.

Policy vs. Reality in Correcting Errors (emphasis added)

Hmmm... A "corrections overseer." Does anyone have a correction you think the Washington Post should consider? Ms. Howell is evidently suggesting you contact the "corrections overseer." But it seems she's also admitting she makes mistakes, too. Unfortunately, she isn't specifying the mistakes that led to this open letter. Feel free to remind her, though it's doubtful they're going to look backwards at this point. That would be too much to ask.

Oh, and make sure you get a load of the quote from the "Post Stylebook" at the top of her column. Talk about chutzpah.

Taylor Marsh

Howell and Hiatt Don't Get It

2006-04-15T22:40:00.000-07:00

The lead editorial and a front-page story last Sunday on the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby leak case left many Post readers confused. ...

The Post editorially has supported the war, and the purpose of the editorial -- headlined "A Good Leak" -- was to support that leak as necessary to show that the president had reason to believe that Iraq was seeking uranium. The editorial said Bush "clumsily" handled the leak, leading to Democrats' "hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy." (Don't expect newspapers to editorialize against leaks.)

The passage in the Post editorial that sent war critics round the bend was this one: " . . . Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium." ... ...

- Deborah Howell

It's not the Post readers who are confused. It's Deborah Howell who doesn't have her story straight. Obviously, she needs some help. No doubt it's tough still propping up the Post's pro-preemption line.

The New York Times also weighs in. It's not good, Deb.

... ...Since Mr. Bush regularly denounces leakers, the White House has made much of the notion that he did not leak classified information, he declassified it. This explanation strains credulity. Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified.

To declassify an intelligence document, officials have to decide whether disclosing the information would jeopardize the sources that provided it or the methods used to gather it. To answer that question, they closely study the origins of the intelligence to be disclosed. Had Mr. Bush done that, he should have seen that the most credible information made it clear that the Niger story was wrong. (In any case, Iraq's supposed attempt to buy uranium from Niger happened four years before the invasion, and failed. The idea that this amounted to a current, aggressive and continuing campaign to build nuclear weapons in 2002 — as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney called it — is laughable.) ... ... A Bad Leak

We all know it takes time to read the paper, but I'd suggest to Ms. Howell and Mr. Hiatt they take the time. This all could have been avoided if they cared about the facts of this issue more than propping up their opinion page, which has lost credibility with each passing day. But to talk about what President Bush did as "a good leak" not only defies the facts, it unmasks the true motives of the Post's main editorial, which gets the facts their own reporters are offering wrong in order to prop up the Post's pro-preemption position. Or are they trying to help the president? Nah.

Most of the people reading the Post are not confused. The same cannot be said for their management.

- Taylor Marsh

Post Editorial Gets it Wrong

2006-04-09T12:46:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Does Fred Hiatt Even Read the Washington Post?
UPDATE II: Josh Marshall weighs in on Post editorial

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling. ... - A Good Leak

A good leak?

Perhaps The Washington Post should read their own reporting.

But since they won't, we'll give them some help.

Joe Wilson Responds to Washington Post Editorial
Washington Post Praises Bush Leak, Mangles Facts
What's Your Definition of Leak
Selective Leaks
Scooter Libber: Cheney Intentionally Peddles Lies
Leaker in Chief Gets Some Help from the Post

Feel free to add your favorite rebuttal. I'm sure there are more.

- Taylor Marsh

Deborah Howell Punts

2006-04-02T12:02:00.000-07:00

... ... Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com, has said without equivocation that hiring Domenech was a mistake. I'm not going to pile on. Anyone out there who's ever hired or fired has chosen at least a few clunkers. Brady wants to enlarge the reach of the Web site's opinion section with a conservative blogger; there's nothing wrong with that. He said he will pick someone with more of a journalism background next time. The Post covered the controversy as a news story. If Post radio had been up, the story probably would have been on the air. ...

(snip) ... Though the media and the management may be different, and though the Web site and radio may operate at a faster pace and a more informal tone than the newspaper, the Post brand is important and needs to be protected by all who work for it. - Deborah Howell

It seems remarkable to me that in today's column Deborah Howell has chosen to punt. She doesn't weigh in on the hiring of Ben Domenech. Someone who, on the day of Coretta Scott King's funeral, hurled the charge of "communist," behind a pseudonym no less, at the "first lady of civil rights." An apology followed the smear, but what kind of judgment does it reveal? Why would the Post hire someone with such poor taste, not to mention sense of timing? Couldn't Jim Brady do his homework and find out what the biggest progressive blogs across the web uncovered in less than a day?

Ms. Howell concludes with saying that "the Post brand is important and needs to be protected by all who work for it." She might have started by weighing in on the Domenech scandal instead of punting her duties. Speaking out for the readers who were insulted, instead of acting like nothing happened at all.

- Taylor Marsh

Red America Resigns

2006-03-24T10:44:00.000-08:00

Ben Domenech Resigns

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.

Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

In the time it took to put the Red America blog up, progressives across the spectrum had the facts online for all to see. The question remains, why didn't Jim Brady know who he was hiring? Why didn't Jim Brady know what Jane Hamsher and other progressive bloggers knew from the start? Why did it take the progressives to uncover the past misdeeds of Ben? Where was Jim Brady in all this? Why didn't the "executive editor" of the washingtonpost.com do his job? It makes you wonder if he even knows what his job actually is.

- Taylor Marsh

Post Adds Red America Blog

2006-03-21T17:31:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: The Ben Domenech Scandal: "...own up... step down."

The Post just added another blog and Mr. Brady gets another letter.

Dear Mr. Brady:

I noted with interest the Post's decision to add Republican operative Ben Domenech to its roster of bloggers.

Presumably, this decision grew out of reported complaints both inside and outside of the Post that online columnist Dan Froomkin is too liberal. It's worth noting that Froomkin himself has argued, "I do not advocate policy, liberal or otherwise. My agenda, such as it is, is accountability and transparency. I believe that the president of the United States, no matter what his party, should be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable."

(snip)

You recently wrote of reader comments deleted from the Post blog: "If I had let them, they would have obliterated any semblance of civil, genuine discussion." Domenech's inaugural post on his "Red America" blog for the Post referred to "the shrieking denizens of their [the Democrats'] increasingly extreme base" and "the unhinged elements of their base, motivated by partisan rage." Is that the sort of "civil, genuine discussion" you had in mind? Or do you have one set of rules for your staff and another for your readers, one set for liberals and another for conservatives?

When can we expect the Post to hire a partisan Democratic activist as a blogger to balance Domenech?

David Brock for Media Matters

The question is a good one. Atrios and Josh Marshall have weighed in on the matter too. Chris Bowers takes the issue one step further.

Mr. Brady has added a Red America blog, so will he answer it with Blue America? I'd like to see what would happen if Brady threatened to rename Froomkin's blog "Blue."

We're still waiting for a correction on Deborah Howell's column, so I wouldn't bet on hearing anything from him soon. Oh, and by the way, the Posts's new Red America blog doesn't allow comments. I wonder why.

- Taylor Marsh

Howell Touts Connection to Readership

2006-03-19T12:52:00.000-08:00

... ... There's one big intangible in all this: a paper's connection with its readers. Readers who feel respected and who love their newspaper don't depart easily. If Post journalists write every story, take every photo, compose every headline and design every page with readers in mind, and the newspaper is printed well and delivered on time, The Post will be fine.
Newspapers in an Economic Storm

I came close to spitting my freshly squeezed o.j. on to my screen. Someone needs to explain to Ms. Howell and Mr. Brady that a connection to readership is also what keeps a webblog alive. It's close to inconceivable how Deborah Howell can write the last line in today's column without seeing the irony dripping from her latest dose of Me, Clueless.

Reader philip offers more in comments...

- Taylor Marsh

Ombudsman back on "Countdown"

2006-03-10T17:23:00.000-08:00

OLBERMANN: It turns out that the administration is not just getting criticism from the Democrats and from certain Republicans, but it’s now been slammed by, of all people, Faith Hill and her husband, Timothy McGraw. Both of them, the country singers, bashing the president for not doing enough to help the victims of the hurricane in the South. Now, is that it? Is that the final nail? Do you know you’re in trouble when country music stars go after you? Are they going to write a song about him now?

MILBANK: They’re already singing a new tune up on Capitol Hill.

It’s, How Can I Miss You If You Won’t Go Away?

But it’s a grim sign for our president, as if he needs any more.

OLBERMANN: A chastened Dana Milbank, national political reporter of “The Washington Post,” not singing that song for us, as he might have previously before the ombudsman came after him. Thanks for joining us, Dana.

MILBANK: Thank you, Keith.

I got quite a chuckle when I saw this on "Countdown."

We haven't forgotten about you either, Ms. Howell. But it's always good when the likes of Keith Olbermann keeps you in the public eye.

- Taylor Marsh

Washington Post makes "Countdown"

2006-03-01T08:46:00.000-08:00

Well, if Ms. Howell is going to critique cable as part of her job as ombudsman, she's got to expect to eventually become the story. Unfortunately, she and the Post became the punchline last night. Crooks and Liars has the video. Here's the text:

Dana: I still can't keep my eyes off of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Keith: Washington Post national political reporter Dana Milbank-dodging the Ombudsman as we speak...

As for me, I think it's just plain sad when a paper I love gets reduced to a punchline, but that's what Ms. Howell and Mr. Brady have wrought. You've got to wonder why they just won't admit they were wrong, post a correction on Ms. Howell's offending column, then move on. Or are they really so shallow they can't admit a mistake? It would seem like a better road than going down punchline lane.

Forty+ Days and Counting

2006-02-24T11:30:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: From redking... Post Restores A Comment
UPDATE II: More of Howell's "local focus" found here and here.

"HELLO... Hello... hello..." says cujo359, wanting to know if anyone is reading, watching and learning from the comments still being posted over at the Post. But it seems no one is home.

As Taniwha put it, "Shouldn't there be a correction posted inline or at the bottom of Howell's original Abramoff column, noting that the claimed facts weren't facts after all? So that someone who reads that column -- what is it now, five weeks later -- would see that the Post corrected the error?"

But in response, there is only silence from Howell and Jim Brady. Is this any way to run a blog?

It's been over forty days since Howell concocted her Abramoff "directed" money to Democrats fantasy. We're still waiting for a correction, or at the very least, something besides deleting comments in lieu of a response. - Taylor Marsh

Deborah Does Cable

2006-02-19T00:13:00.000-08:00

MODERATOR'S NOTE: Thanks to all the people commenting here. I just learned that the Post even nuked my own comments, which only invited people over to this Open Letter, where free speech reigns. See for yourself in the comment section below. It's outrageous.

"Please post some evidence for the assertion that Jack Abramoff directed donations to Democrats." - K. Ron Silkwood

Well isn't this interesting. At least for this Sunday, Ms. Howell has moved on to cable TV, taking issue with Dana Milbank wearing an orange hunting jacket on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown." But is this Ms. Howell's province as the Washington Post ombudsman?

The re-opened comment section is bristling with spectacular efforts from stellar readers trying to elicit some sort, any sort, of response to the plea at the top of this post. Oh, and by the way, "S.t.e.n.o. S.u.e." has a filter on it. So the crafty minds holding the Post to account have developed ways around the free speech police: "S>T>E>N>O S>U>E s/t/e/n/o s/u/e S*T*E*N*O S*U*E," TeddySanFran, wrote.

Meanwhile, all of us are still waiting a response from Howell and Brady, who remain mute, on just what the evidence is that Jack Abramoff "directed" money to Democrats. Did they think they could just reopen the comment section after weeks and life would just move on?

In the meantime, Howell will evidently be doing cable reviews. I can't wait until she weighs in on Jim VanderHei's next appearance.

UPDATE I: Dana's Woodshed Assignment
UPDATE II: Dana Explains

Post Comments Back On

2006-02-17T11:16:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Washington Post Comments Back On!

There was an interview in the San Antonio Express News this past Sunday between Ms. Howell and a Melissa Fletcher Steoltje. Howell is a native of San Antonio. The following came in to me via my blog from a reader.

... titled "'Thick skin' buffers column back lash". "When we reached Howell, she was "detoxing" at Canyon Ranch in Tucson, AZ." "Q. Are you taking time out in Tucson because of the Abramoff dust-up?" "A. I was going to come out here anyway. This is a planned trip, but it was certainly nice timing." (snip) "I made a simple mistake, and instead of taking it as a simple mistake people excoriated me. It wasn't a huge error........." (snip) "Q. Why did you decide to take on this job and why is it important? "A.....I think one of the roles of ombudsmen fulfill is to give the angry reader somw place to vent. Sometimes newspapers screw up, and when they do the ombudsmam can help get it right....." Hmmmm? - kate

The emphasis in Kate's reader email are mine, put in for good reasons. That the Post still doesn't understand that Ms. Howell's column included huge errors, because it misreported the facts, makes at least one thing clear. Our job is not done.

POST RAGE

2006-02-12T00:13:00.000-08:00

I am a twit without a functioning brain.

I also do not have any [censored].

Despite 10 years spent in online media, I really don't understand the Internet.

I am a dangerous ideologue , an enemy of democracy.

At least, that's what I've been told -- in much stronger language -- by dozens of people who have never met me. ...
- BLOG RAGE, by Jim Brady

Needing to meet Mr. Brady is hardly the issue.

It's incomprehensible it took over two weeks to respond to the moderated chat, to then cast online readers and bloggers as some Hurculean villain who cannot be engaged. Nothing is further from the truth.

Jane Hamsher went out of her way to take part in the Post event and even though Deborah Howell was the impetus for it, she chose not to participate. That was questioned by one of the participants.

Jim Brady: Deborah has chosen for the time being not to any live discussions, but we've talked about it, and you'll see her on here at some point.

Jeff Jarvis: I'll push the transparency button: Why not? I worked with Deborah (at my last job). She is, indeed, tough. So I don't believe she fears this; I wouldn't make that simplistic assumption. So I have to believe she has a reason she believes is good for avoiding live interaction. What is it?

The question remains unanswered.

In "Blog Rage," Mr. Brady shares his "favorite story," which revolves around Ms. Hamsher. The kicker is he doesn't even name her, but instead and for the second time dubs her Columbo, like we were having some intramural high school club spat. His attempt to replicate an anonymous attack by zeroing in on Ms. Hamsher was noticed, logged, but ineffectual.

Frankly, Mr. Brady's venting is not befitting the Post, its readers, Ms. Hamsher, or any of us who feel deeply about the factual errors that brought on this discussion. How Mr. Brady thought "Blog Rage" would move this debate forward is a puzzlement. Now, can we all get back to the subject at hand?

"But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties."
The Firestorm Over My Column, by Deborah Howell

There is no proof I've uncovered, read about or been handed to prove Jack Abramoff "directed" money to both political parties. Silencing online readers and taking an anonymous swipe at truth seeking bloggers won't change the facts.

Post Gets it Wrong on Harry Reid

2006-02-10T10:15:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Wait 'til you read this!

A reader has a beef with the Washington Post... "OK I give, how do we get WaPo to listen. ... Notice they bring up the Marianas without a mention that Reid was a co-sponsor of the bill to raise the minimum wage. Many thanks to Josh (more here) for picking up on the BS. But IMO this deserves to be slammed but good. ..." - kewala

We're all over it. The Cato Institute reprints an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal entitled, "Harry Reid is Right." There's a big difference between taking lobbying money from your constituents, which is legal, and taking lobbying money in a pay to play pay off scheme, in which Jack Abramoff and the Republicans were engaged. Remember, the Republicans control Congress, and Harry Reid didn't take a dime from Abramoff because Jack didn't give a dime to Democrats.

As for how to contact the Post, kewala, they've devised a feedback form that is attached to the reporters name in the byline. I can't wait to hear what you have to say about that one.

What is Ms. Howell's Job?

2006-02-08T12:02:00.000-08:00

UPDATE:: Brad DeLong's Issue with the Post

From the comment section: "I actually thought the real news here was that, once again, Howell is suddenly introducing a new subject that, as near as I can tell, did not come from reader response, which is her job. ... An ombudsman's job is to hold the organization or industry s/he works in to account, not the customers. - Avedon

It was two weeks ago today that the "moderated" discussion over Deborah Howell's coverage of the Jack Abramoff scandal occurred. Ms. Howell still isn't taking public comments on her columns, though she will accept our emails. This question remains unanswered after two full weeks: Why isn't Deborah Howell responding to readers, instead of inserting a new "local focus" issue? Instead of doing the job of an ombudsman, which is to hold the Post accountable, she's backing away from the very readers who can help her do her job effectively. Changing the subject won't distract us from the central issue of our complaint. Your thoughts...

Deborah Howell to Focus Locally

2006-02-05T13:05:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Hmmm... Could my opinion below be wrong? Well, quite a few people I respect think so. It's clear I made a mistake being so emphatic, so I retract it. Because as people have said today, where's the beef, the proof of what I offered? So, let me just say this, I think Ms. Howell's new "local focus" is an attempt at "changing the subject," as one person put it, away from hot topics like Abramoff. Respectfully retracted, including the title. - TM

A Global Reach, but a Local Focus
by Deborah Howell

Alert the media! The New York Times will now be a category on “Jeopardy.” John Roberts quit CBS to join CNN. David Marash was fired from “Nightline” when ABC went MTV on news, to be an anchor of the new English-speaking Al-Jazeera Intl., which will have a large Washington bureau. And another Sunday goes by with the blogger panel missing, all because we busted an ombudsman. It's as if bloggers have disappeared from the conversation, wiped from the media memory, at least as far as the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz is concerned. Oh, and did I mention that Ms. Howell lost her national beat?

So, another Sunday, more silence, as Kurtz's “Reliable Sources,” the microscope on all things media, retreats from new media and the web, replacing the blog panel with sports, not to mention that Kurtz is no longer reporting on anything Post, not even when a major move occurs.

The glaring omission of the story responsible for this sudden shift in Kurtz's show is one thing, but when that glaring omission also gives way to the person it revolved around getting her beat slashed, well, let's just say "Reliable Sources" needs a new name. So since Howie is into reporting on the Times, maybe he could just add a slogan: "all the news I feel like reporting."

Seriously, The New York Times starting a cross promotion campaign with "Jeopardy" gets a mention, while the issue of the Post's ombudsman being taken off national news doesn't?

Deborah Howell, in a stealth move without a mention, has been quietly demoted to the local beat, because bloggers nailed her on inaccuracies through a comment section that was eventually nuked, but Kurtz doesn't think it's worth a mention.

Hey Howie, who's your mommy?

Tell Debbie what you think.

Reader Comments Cut Deep

2006-02-02T10:47:00.000-08:00

Dear Deborah - I can call you Deborah, can't I? You see, it's just that I feel we've all come to know you so well since you decided to editorialize, then ignore your readers when they insulted your sensibilities. I've showed you some of my hate mail, but you seem unwilling to continue to show us yours.

Today, I thought I'd show you what a real comment section looks like. You see, others get comments even worse than yours. But the man who is being called "treasonous" and every other name in the book, mostly by Republicans, is a hero who served our country for 37 years in the Marines. His name if Rep. John Murtha, who wrote a letter to President Bush that some people didn't like. What did he get for his efforts? Insults, attacks and profanity, but HuffingtonPost offers Murtha's letter, in full, continuing to welcome comments, to the tune of over 1,200+, some of which are beyond the pale. Now that's democracy and free speech in action. Take a lesson, it's one you need to learn.

Abramoff Hits Keep on Coming

2006-01-31T09:30:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: ROASTING THE POST

Today, I thought I'd direct you to one of the most important sources on all things Abramoff. It's Josh Marshall's The Daily Muck which would have come in hand when Deborah Howell and the Washington Post were trying to compile their facts on just which political party was being "delivered" Jack Abramoff cash. If you see any other stories about who got what from Jack, let us know and we'll make sure Ms. Howell is aware.

Details Matter - Facts Matter

2006-01-30T09:59:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Another Republican in Abramoff's Web

"The Post stands by its reporting that Jack Abramoff directed campaign money to some Democrats." post.blog

As you know, last week, just above the “new horoscope announcement” on post.blog, we got the above non-denial denial on Deborah Howell’s bungling on the Abramoff Republican money train.

Again, we’re not saying that Democrats didn’t received lobbying money, which is legally protected by the Constitution.

What Deborah Howell asserted, and has been parroted by other parties, which we actively dispute, is that Jack Abramoff "directed” that money and the inference that Democratic senators secretly aided Mr. Abramoff by using his or her office to benefit contributors through actions.

What Ms. Howell did by saying Democrats took money too, without offering specific facts on the money received, was link Democratic senators into the Republican K-Street political juggernaut and the pay to play pay off scheme put together by the Republican-led Congress.

Perhaps Ms. Howell and "the editors" should read her paper’s own reporting before standing by Ms. Howell's comments.

"Scanlon is cooperating with investigators, but so far there is no indication that he has implicated any Democrats."
Washington Post

Flogging the Blogs

2006-01-29T11:14:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Is the Post's Howard Kurtz Still a "Reliable Source"?

"Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience. ... ...

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."
Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center

This article by the Washington Post's Jim VandeHei has set off fire breathing posts around the blogosphere, with good reason. Kevin asked for a new thread to discuss it. You have to wonder if Mr. VandeHei is flogging the blogs because we busted one of the bosses, Deborah Howell, on shoddy reporting, which wasn't her job anyway. Or is it something deeper? Some think so, which you can find here, here, here and here. Let's hear what you think about the stink. An open thread awaits...

Democrats Didn't Know Jack

2006-01-27T22:42:00.000-08:00

Well, so we now hear via Jane Hamsher that Deborah Howell has awakened, only to reach out to the ones who approve of her idea of an ombudsman. In the email Howell sent out to her peeps, she now says she stands by her rendition of Jack Abramoff delivering money to both political parties. Well, maybe she should trot on over to read Jane's post or if she needs more evidence of her errors, walk on over here (or here) to get the facts.

You guys know what to do now. Tell Ms. Howell how it really is. Your open thread awaits...

Girls, Got Spine?

2006-01-27T10:26:00.000-08:00

UPDATE I: BLOGS vs. MSM: Howell's Moving Castle
UPDATE II: A Dissenting Opinion

It’s a generalization, of course, to say that the Web or the blogosphere is dominated by men and their voices, and there are certainly examples of women weighing in on the most contentious issues of the day, on both the left and the right. But in light of the remarks aimed at Howell which caused the Washingtonpost.com to close down its comments section, we can at least ask these questions. Is there a gender gap on the Web? Are women subjected to different kinds of personal attacks and criticism than men? Would the Post’s Web site have felt the need to close its comments if a male were under attack? Or is this entire premise just a false attempt at describing some kind of non-existent glass ceiling on the Web? Just asking. A Web Without Women?

Deborah Howell is giving the rest of us a bad name. It's so infuriating that she went into hiding. Those meanies "personally attacked" her, so she hid behind the mighty masthead.

Ms. Howell vented quite a bit about how she'd been in the business for a long time and was tough, but that the comments on her blog were just too much to take. This is emblematic of what's happened to journalism. It's what happens when a big institution decides to back their people even when they are wrong.

Oprah got into real trouble when the masses reared up. Even the major media went after her. But at least Oprah finally came clean. Her personal epiphany came about because she actually read the irate emails, read the comment section on her site, seeing that her loyal readers were furious at what she'd done. Then she reevaluated her position and did the right thing.

Even when Jane participated in the WashPost live chat, Deborah Howell was nowhere to be seen and we still don't know why.

Women on the web need to be thick skinned.

I've been attacked for years, with hate mail that would set your hair on fire, some of which I can't post. Yes, some things aren't for public consumption. But the answer isn't to shut down comments and slink away. Message to Ms. Howell, girl, get a spine.

Now it's your turn. Open thread, you know what to do...

We Say We Want a Revolution

2006-01-26T09:44:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Post Panel Review (via)

MEDIA CULTURE
The Left's Revolution Against the Media
"I think this post, written by Salon's Peter Daou, captures the essence of a movement that is sweeping the liberal side of the blogosphere. In the past few weeks, liberal blogs have organized campaigns against Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and the the Washington Post (two former staffers for Democratic politicians and a left-of-center newspaper). These left-wingers are trying to do to the mainstream media what they have been trying to do to the Democratic Party: Push it left. ..."

Wha? But wait a minute, I thought the “mainstream media” was the left wing media. Danger - Danger, the National Review is off message, red alert -- red alert. And somebody needs to get a memo to O’Reilly quick. He’s going to be off his talking points, too.

The "left" isn't trying to push the mainstream media anywhere.

It’s about truth and transparency, for the Washington Post, just like it’s about lying and the law for all things Abramoff. In Deborah Howell's telling of this tale, both things converged to a bad end, in columns that made the simple confusing.

But at least we have their attention, my friends. Too bad they just don’t get it.

So, Paul Reveres of the 21st century, explain it to them. An open thread awaits…

Washington Post Chat Reaction

2006-01-25T11:17:00.000-08:00

UPDATE I: Jane Hamsher on Post Event

UPDATE II: INCIVILITY

UPDATE III: "Ethics and Interactivity" at the Post

The transcript is up, so if you didn't see it live, read it. There is one question in particular that still rings out in the ether...

Jim Brady: Deborah has chosen for the time being not to any live discussions, but we've talked about it, and you'll see her on here at some point.

Jeff Jarvis: I'll push the transparency button: Why not? I worked with Deborah (at my last job). She is, indeed, tough. So I don't believe she fears this; I wouldn't make that simplistic assumption. So I have to believe she has a reason she believes is good for avoiding live interaction. What is it?

We still don't know the answer to that one. The silence says so much.

Now, it's your turn... a wide open thread awaits. update... Here’s where anyone can write to Jim Brady.

WashingtonPost "Moderated" Live Event

2006-01-25T07:47:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Via jukeboxgrad @ DailyKos, there is a comment section back up at the WashPost. However, they seem to be deleting large numbers of them as they sift through what is posted. Check it out.

It was just one week ago that the WashingtonPost.com turned off comments on post.blog. No doubt, it’s been a week that paper will never forget.

It all started with Deborah Howell’s “Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff.” As the Post has been describing what happened next, Ms. Howell received “comments containing personal attacks, profanity and hate speech.” The step they took in response is what inspired this blog. They turned their comment sections off.

Today, the WashingtonPost.com will have a live event to talk about how comments should have been handled and could be handled in the future, if and when the Post decides to bring that function back online. They've entitled the event: "Panel: Ethics and Interactivity."

The event will be "moderated," with readers asked to send in questions before it begins, which started yesterday.

JANE HAMSHER will be participating in the Post event, which begins at 10:00 a.m./Pacific, but she'll be at a different location. Comments received on firedoglake will be not be subject to a moderator. It will be free speech in action.

The VAPORS

2006-01-24T10:20:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON POST live event with JANE HAMSHER

... for more see The Washington Post

UPDATE I: O'Reilly compares our criticism of Post to a fatwa. You can't make this stuff up.

UPDATE II: Bill O'Reilly, the video.

UPDATE III: Live blogging event tomorrow with The Washington Post and Jane Hamsher. Don't forget it.

Atrios picked up on what I just posted this morning. It used to be all conservative all the time striking out and getting uppity, but "Now that our side is engaging in some of the same tactics everyone is suddenly getting the vapors."

There are a lot of delicate flowers who inhabit this world.

It's open thread time, baby. Let 'em hear you.

We're Watching

2006-01-24T09:55:00.000-08:00

The New York Times had a story yesterday that is getting a lot play for a good reason. It illustrates that there is an Internet history, albeit short, of reader reaction when the press fails to do its job. But one particular point is worth drawing out further.

“The blowback is hardly without precedent, but it is worth noting that much of it came from the left. Flaming and invective know no ideology, but there is a tendency toward seeing a growing conspiracy behind every ill-chosen word - something once thought to be the province mainly of conservatives.”
Soothe the Blog, Reap the Whirlwind" - by David Carr

Conservatives no longer stand alone and we're now asking everyone, regardless of your politics, to join in. Perhaps the complaints we raise even apply closer to home. What is your local newspaper doing with the news of the day?

Of course, some disagree with reader reactions, but that's what this is all about. So be it.

"Redshift" made a comment, stating that the Internet is not a free speech zone because of regulation, but then went on to agree that “ideally” this was the intent. Within a comment section, this most certainly should be the standard. Of course, we don't expect anyone to condone violent speech, that isn't what we are saying.

You can shut someone up by shuttering the functions that allow us to speak. But that doesn't make it right, nor guarantee we won't rise up.

We're watching, reading, and this is the place where we will let you know how we feel. After all, we were given no choice, because we had nowhere else to go.

It is not partisan - It is AMERICAN

2006-01-23T20:37:00.000-08:00

There is nothing more American than free speech.

James Madison introduced his version of what free speech was to be, including what it was to mean to the press, to the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789.

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

Inviolable.

We have no grudge against Ms. Howell personally, despite her inability to see our righteous outrage for her own ego.

When the citizenry have been assaulted time and again, when it becomes too much, we lash out. Ms. Howell felt "drawn and quartered at high noon in the public square," but what she failed to see was this wasn't even about her. That she didn't understand is why we fight.

This is about America. The type of country we intend to fight for it to be.

We welcome all people, of whatever political persuasion and none.

But we will not abide untruths, no matter how unintended. We will not stand silent when the powerful won't claim error. We will speak out and be heard, because that is our right as Americans, it is our duty as citizens.

With Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin whispering in our ears, we take on this charge. In the 21st century, we are the Paul Reveres who will see it preserved.

God bless this great nation and the citizenry who fights to make it so.

Ombudsman Central

2006-01-23T16:54:00.000-08:00

"Simple obscenity is not the same as invective and invective is not the same as sexist personal attacks. But, of course, since we haven't really seen the offending emails/comments/whatever we still don't know exactly what got their knickers in a twist."
- Atrios

An Open Letter to the Washington Post

2006-01-23T13:56:00.000-08:00

Since the Washington Post won't reliably keep their blog comments open, we have created this web site for individuals to comment on the work of the Post.