Hey, I want some credit re: WaPo Ombudsperson!

Maybe a lot of others sent similar emails, but here's the one I sent to MediaMatters last Sunday, when Howell's latest column of misinformation appeared. From her subsequent actions, I see Howell is still either learning- or fairness-challenged, or both. I also loved Skinner's catch of the comments to the WaPo, which they have deleted, so that their ombudsperson can take her football and go home rather than make the apology and change policies and begin to actually behave like an OMBUDSPERSON. In case someone at WaPo is reading this, here is some help in understanding what that means:

http://www.ombuds-toa.org/standards.html

Here's my original email:

Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 07:09:00 -0800 (PST)
From: (spooky3)
Subject: She's at it again!
To: mm-tips@mediamatters.org

I believe Deborah Howell's column in today's WaPo
contains some falsehoods or misleading statements.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400859.html

Here are two examples:

1. "Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting
10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had
paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial
campaign contributions to both major parties."

Didn't Dr. Dean correctly state on CNN recently that a
search of FEC or other records indicated that Abramoff
gave nothing to Democrats?

2. "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.

But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over."

I believe both Reid and Dorgan have pointed out that
they have taken money from the tribes themselves or
using a luxury box as a guest of tribes. Unless there
is some kind of quid pro quo, I believe that this is
currently legal under lobbying rules and may not even
be ethically questionable, since constituents and
groups are permitted to donate to Congresspeople whose
views they share and wish to support.

The second paragraph could be misleading as well--do
the reporters have evidence that the investigators are
simply choosing to ignore corrupt Democrats due to
bias or other factors? Or is it that they have
investigated fairly and have to date found no evidence
of corruption involving Democrats?

I doubted that we would.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x185787

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601180006

There's a response, all right.

Howell with a raft of petulance, and the Post responded by shutting down the public comments section of their website. Instead of engaging in discussion, the Post has chosen to go with truthiness over journalism. They don't need any of those cranio-centric facts (stupid things, they are) when they know in their gut what the story is.

:hi:

Praising activists, workers, kids - it's free, it makes you feel good, and it is effective.

Too many people in today's USA feel that giving others compliments somehow diminishes the person giving the compliment.

...O...