Media Matters Calls on Wash. Post Ombudsman to Address Reporter's "Highly Misleading" Health Care Assertion

Washington, D.C. -- Today, Media Matters for America founder and CEO David Brock sent an open letter calling on Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander to address reporter Ceci Connolly's June 28 front-page article on the efforts of progressive activist groups to influence health care reform legislation. Connolly wrote that in an interview, Change Congress interim chief executive Adam Green "was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan but said that it 'has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents.' "

As Media Matters noted, Green responded to Connolly's assertion on the popular progressive blog OpenLeft, writing that in his interview with Connolly, he was not responding to a question about the substantive argument for a public plan. Rather, Green wrote: "Connolly asked me a question on the politics, and when I gave her an answer on that, she said I didn't answer on the substance."

Moreover, by failing to otherwise articulate that "substantive argument," Connolly suggested that there is no real case to be made for a public plan, despite the numerous prominent scholars and activists who advocate for inclusion of a public plan in any health care reform legislation.

In the letter to Alexander, Brock wrote:

Given the highly misleading passage in Ms. Connolly's article, and Mr. Green's statements about her additional misrepresentation, we ask that you assess the article and Mr. Green's statements in the context of that article and let readers know whether you think Ms. Connolly's reporting was fair and accurate and whether her conduct was appropriate.

The letter in its entirety:

Andy Alexander
Ombudsman
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Mr. Alexander:

I am writing regarding the June 28 front-page article by Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly on the efforts of progressive activist groups to influence health care reform legislation. As you may be aware, the article, as well as Ms. Connolly's reporting for the article, were the subject of a highly critical blog post by Change Congress interim executive director Adam Green, whom Ms. Connolly quoted in her article. We urge you to review the article, as well as Mr. Green's statements, and determine whether Ms. Connolly's conduct was appropriate and her reporting was fair and accurate.

Ms. Connolly wrote the following:

Green, in an interview, was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan but said that it "has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents."

Ms. Connolly's assertion is itself extraordinary: Not only does she assert that Mr. Green could not articulate a substantive reason, but by failing to otherwise articulate that argument, Ms. Connolly suggests that there is no real case to be made for a public plan. In this passage, by depriving readers of the substantive argument -- which she could have found, if not through Mr. Green, then through any number of other prominent scholars and activists -- Ms. Connolly is telling readers in essence that, on one of the most critical issues of our day, one side of the debate lacks a substantive basis for its position.

But, according to Mr. Green, Ms. Connolly's conduct was worse than even this passage suggests. He writes that she actually misrepresented what he was saying, claiming he was answering a question that he says he wasn't asked.

Describing the exchange, Mr. Green wrote:

Connolly then asked me why progressives were picking a political fight on the public option, as opposed to another issue. I guess the fact that it's the #1 domestic issue of the day -- one that affects millions of American families -- wasn't explanation enough.

I figured she was looking for a quote summarizing the political stakes, so I though for a moment and said, "The public option has become a proxy for the question of whether Democrats will stand on principle and represent their constituents."

I was quite proud of that answer. It summarizes what a lot of people are feeling -- the public option is the "line in the sand" issue for Democrats, something Chris has written about here on OpenLeft several times.

After relating Ms. Connolly's claim that he was "hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan," Mr. Green wrote:

WHAT? Connolly asked me a question on the politics, and when I gave her an answer on that, she said I didn't answer on the substance?

Given the highly misleading passage in Ms. Connolly's article, and Mr. Green's statements about her additional misrepresentation, we ask that you assess the article and Mr. Green's statements in the context of that article and let readers know whether you think Ms. Connolly's reporting was fair and accurate and whether her conduct was appropriate.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

David Brock
Founder & CEO
Media Matters for America