About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

What's the point of having an ombudsman at the WashPost?

June 28, 2009 2:09 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

Especially when Post editors stonewall the ombudsman when he asks uncomfortable questions? Isn't that the whole point of having an ombudsman--to get answers on behalf of readers?

Yet there's the Post's ombudsman this weekend, reporting that when he tried to find out more about the firing of Dan Froomkin, the ombudsman was basically told to buzz off by Post editors who refused to address his questions:

Institutionally, The Post is now responding by circling the wagons -- ironic for a news organization that insists on transparency from those it covers. Its initial statement on June 18 from spokeswoman Kris Coratti lacked substance... Raju Narisetti, the managing editor who oversees the Web site, declined to go beyond last week’s PR statement. Online Opinions Editor Marisa Katz, after talking Thursday with the Washington CityPaper, said she had been instructed not to respond to additional queries. And Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, who had previously responded to questions from me and other journalists (including the CityPaper on Thursday), today said he was unable to comment.

As one online Post reader asked:

What good is an ombudsman if he gets a "wall of silence" built around him every time he asks a tough question? Are you just window-dressing, Mr. Alexander, or what? What's the point of your job?

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 28, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
      4  
      The Washington Post has never had an ombudsman who was able to do his or her job. Most of the time they didn't even try, so at least I give the current one, Andy Alexander, credit for at least asking the questions.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (June 28, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
      3  
      Funny that those that demand answers from others can't answer a simple question.
      Report Abuse