Letter to Washington Post ombudsman
September 6, 2005
Michael Getler
Ombudsman
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20071
ombudsman@washpost.com
Dear Mr. Getler:
I am writing to express my deep concern over the recent use of a dishonest anonymous source by The Washington Post. As you have surely become aware, on September 4, the Post printed an article titled "Many Evacuated, but Thousands Still Waiting; White House Shifts Blame to State and Local Officials." In the article, an anonymous "senior Bush official" sought to dismiss criticism of the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina by contending falsely that "[a]s of Saturday [September 3], [Louisiana Gov. Kathleen] Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency."
The Post was responsible enough to print a correction to the original article, pointing out that, in fact, Blanco declared a state of emergency on Friday, August 26 -- before the hurricane made landfall -- though the correction did not note that the error occurred because the Post relied on a "senior Bush official" who provided false information. Nonetheless, I believe this incident raises serious questions the Post needs to address.
The use of anonymous sources has come under attack from many quarters in recent weeks. We at Media Matters for America are not among those who contend that anonymous sources should never be used. To the contrary, we fully understand that anonymous sources are often vital to uncovering stories that those with power do not want told.
In this case, however, the Post reporter's reliance on an anonymous source defies reason. The statement made by the anonymous source was an assertion of fact that could have been easily refuted. Blanco's declaration was widely reported at the time it was made, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune reprinted an August 27 letter from Blanco to President Bush in which she noted that she had declared the state of emergency. That the Post allowed itself to be the conduit by which "a senior Bush official" delivered a political attack -- the accuracy of which could have been determined quickly and on the record -- is unconscionable.
It is bad enough that the paper quoted an anonymous "source" spinning, but, in this case, the source was, put simply, lying. The Post's correction is far from adequate. It would seem to us that if your newspaper discovers that an anonymous source blatantly lied to one of your reporters, the implied contract of the source-journalist relationship has been broken, and the source has forfeited his or her right to anonymity. Further, the fact that a "senior Bush official" is lying in an apparent effort to blunt criticism of the Bush administration seems extremely newsworthy -- the sort of information that should be the topic of an article in your newspaper, not merely hinted at in a two-sentence correction.
Reporters might protest that a policy of "outing" dishonest sources would make others less likely to talk in the future. But are your readers' interests best served by the reporter-source relationship as it exists now? If this incident is any indication, the answer seems to be no. The "senior Bush official" will suffer no consequences and will be free to spin, smear, and lie again in the pages of the Post or other news outlets -- all without revealing his or her identity.
What, precisely, is the Post's policy on anonymous sources who abuse the protection offered by your newspaper's reporters? Does a policy even exist? If not, we would encourage you to create one. After all, sources are not the only ones who need protection; the Post's readers do as well.
Sincerely,
David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
Send a copy of the letter to Karl Rove..........registered.
I assume that the MMFA article regarding a similar "Blame Blanco" quote in Newsweek and echoed by the conservative rags is in the works?
I have said this before and I will say it again. The MAJOR MEDIA in this country do their fundamental jobs so badly and ineptly that if you or I did OUR jobs like this we would be out of work.
The reasons for this may depend on where you land on the political spectrum, but in my view, it is done because the MSM is basically an unofficial branch of the Bush administration. Lately they have started to start to act somewhat independent, but in general, they are a joke.
The last four years of cheerleading by the MSM since 9/11 is disgusting.
I'm inclined to disagree with you -- but only on one point. With regard to the American mainstream media (and let's be specific here -- the global mainstream media has been nowhere nearly as kind), I agree with your sentiment that they've been kinder to the Bush administration than it truly deserves -- particularly since one of the reasons for having a free press in the first place is because they serve as a watchdog for the government (unless you're one of those who believe that Woodward and Bernstein should have kept their traps shut). I've said it elsewhere on this site and will say it again here -- it's no accident that freedom of the press is typically one of the first things to go when a dictatorial regime is attempting to establish a foothold within the governing body of a nation. The point on which you and I disagree is that your post seems to suggest that this behavior is entirely voluntary on the part of the American mainstream media -- and I'm not convinced that this is so. The Bush administration has shown on more than one occasion a marked tendency to keep GWB at a safe distance from anyone who it is believed might be inclined to ask provocative questions -- not just in the media, but across the board. Ever since 9-11, this administration and its supporters have also shown little if any hesitation to brand anyone who dares question or challenge them as unpatriotic -- if not worse. Since success in journalism -- especially in today's extremely competitive market -- depends on getting the story, I think many journalists in the American mainstream media have been reluctant to challenge the administration too strongly for fear of committing professional suicide. Do I understand it? Yes, I do -- but only to a certain extent. Do I agree or sympathize with them? No, I don't -- because to my way of thinking, they're choosing to renege on their responsibility to the American people (freedom is never entirely free...it always entails some element of responsibility). Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who sacrifice freedom for security neither deserve nor achieve either one -- and it seems to me as though many in the mainstream media have made that very choice, abdicating their freedom of the press in exchange for job security.
You have to add pressure from their corporate bosses.
Indeed. I'd actually thought of putting something in there to that effect, but it was rather late by the time I posted and I didn't want to make it too long (although that's very seldom stopped me before)...
Thanks for Doing what You are Doing David.
It is totally absurd that the depths of lies continue to go so deep.
Here is a copy of the PDF where the Governor asked for a state of emergency be declared.. [link to www.informationclearinghouse.info]
I am so mad, it's effecting my health.
let's not forget this same paper about a month ago claimed in a "news" story that sen. chuck shumer had said the democrats were going to "war" over the roberts nomination. their source? an anonymous tipster to the drudge report, who had supposedly heard this on a train the senator was riding.
It appears there is plenty of "blame" to go around. A big problem is that we are wasting a lot of time and effort in trying to affix that "blame" instead of doing something constructive for those most affected by a natural disaster, especially one that may be repeated again during this hurricane season that still has a couple of months to run. Preplanning from local to federal level was sadly lacking, post response from local to federal level appears to be too slow. Photo ops from Geraldo to Bush to LA government officials to several celebrities did little to alleviate the situation, but gave much fodder for second guessing. And speaking of "blame", don't forget Thomas Jefferson, if he hadn't purchased NO from the French, it would be their problem and not ours.
"...we are wasting a lot of time and effort in trying to affix that "blame" instead of doing something constructive..."
This is such a silly oft spouted "point". It makes no sense. How's it not possible to do both? How's it wasting time to call for accountability? It certainly doesn't seem to be affecting the relief efforts, except in a positive way. It almost looks as though the relief efforts didn't kick into higher gear until people were outraged and looking for someone to take due responsibility.
"Preplanning from local to federal level was sadly lacking"
The local governments had seen before touchdown it was going to be an issue and asked for assistance from the federal. Even if that hadn't happened, the fed should have seen how big the issue was on their own and known ANY states' resources would have been insufficient even working at perfect full tilt. The fact that the assistance was asked for just makes the fed lack of response that much worse. So far, the only thing I've seen that the local officials could and should have done better was get those school buses rolling, but even that, at best, would have only gotten 12,000 more people out of there. What about the rest of them? Obviously this can't completely, or even mostly, be blamed on the local gov. There's some responsibility that needs to be placed there, but not much.
- The fact that the assistance was asked for just makes the fed lack of response that much worse. - losingfaith ==============================================================
The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid.
She sent a request August 28, 2005.
The request went out on August 27th.
[link to www.nola.com]
"the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid."
Rocketman must build rockets for Haliburton. The link to Governor Blanco's letter is right in the story. Typical ReichWing obfuscation. I guess if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Goebbels--wasn't it? Well at least you are faithful to your lineage.
I think the problem is that she didn't make the right request. Bush would have responded promptly to this one:
Dear President Bush,
We have a lot of not-so rich, not-so white looters stealing abandoned property that rightfully belongs to rich white business owners. Please send troops to kill them all.
Thanks in advance for your prompt assistance, Gov Blanco
Anyone have a link to original Post story? I think that the best way of handling this situation is to forget about going after the Washington Post as an entity and focus on the original reporter who owns the byline. Make him/her defend the reporting. Anyone that would that easily take the word of an unnamed government source is probably another Judith Miller and needs to be exposed. The Washington Post will have to do better than a "correction" if the integrity of a named reporter is on the line.
This is the link:
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
However since access to WaPo stories requires free registration it may not take you to the story. So after registering just enter "many evacuated" into the WaPo search bar and it will take you to the story. The original byline on the story:
You think after the WMD fiasco that newspapers would be pushing their reporters to cross check their sources. Any freshman in college knows that a one source term paper gets you an F. We are getting F quality reporting from our media these days and then teeny weeny corrections when blatant fundamental errors are made by their journalist. This is unacceptable.
Brilliant letter. Thank you for that.
"If your mother says she loves you, check it out."
Whatever happened to that ethic in journalism? Are they really that lazy?
This is BEYOND contemptable. My High School journalism interested daughter performs more thorough verification of the facts before submitting an article. It's hard to believe that this is only incompentence and not purposeful deception.
Here is the letter I wrote.
I, too would like to know the the name of the Sr. Bush official that stated that Gov. Blanco did not declare a State of Emergency.This again is a "SMEAR TACTIC" of the bush Whitehouse Perhaps you should try reading the "Blogs" for your information. I actually read Gov. Blanco leatter to Pres. Bush ( on a blog site) and was very surprised to read in your paper that she did not declare a State of Emergency. Surely, I, in Plattsburgh, NY should not have more information then a Washington Post reporter. Perhaps your reporters should read the daily blogs. I find them better prepared, honest and have verifed information.
One thing that I don't understand, and which would bring this entire fiasco to a crashing ruin, is that Bush and the federal government is ONLY focusing on Louisiana. Let us not forget that THREE states received extensive damage from this storm: Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. In fact, that number could be bumped up to FOUR STATES if you were to include Katrina's initial landing in Florida, and the damage it inflicted when it was still an F-1. Four states, FOUR. Besides Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama also have hundreds dead, tens of thousands homeless, and billions of dollars in damage. This was a NATIONAL issue, as the storm ravaged more than ONE state, as such, FEMA, and the federal government should've played more of a role. It amazes me that this point has still not been powerfully asserted, as the Louisiana-based justifications the administration is using would no longer hold their water.
the post's own policy is that anonymous cover should not be given "casually or automatically". what is this, then? was there one reason to not publish the identity of the "senior bush official"? who would be hurt by publishing their name? this is exactly on the level with their using an unnamed source from the drudge report a few weeks ago. the washington post is a totally different paper since katherine graham died. this would not have been tolerated.
I agree with most of the people here who said the reporters did a lousy job. I’d also like to add that the editors are equally bad as they engaged in headline fraud in order to make it look like the administration was trying to shift blame.
First of all, it defies logic to think the official would purposely lie about something so easily refuted and then used against the official. If the quote is accurate the person simply had his facts wrong. The reporter should have cleared it up, and at least fact checked it, but perhaps the author and editors left it in to embarrass the official? I don’t know. However, it was only a small part of the story and the authors were incompetent.
Secondly, the subheading “White House Shifts Blame to State and Local Officials” is journalistic malfeasance.
I cannot print out the whole article, but the pertinent part states: "The federal government stands ready to work with state and local officials to secure New Orleans and the state of Louisiana," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said. "The president will not let any form of bureaucracy get in the way of protecting the citizens of Louisiana."
---
That of course, includes the Federal Government bureaucracy. So there is no blaming of local and state authorities there. The article goes on to say:
“Bush Bush, who has been criticized, even by supporters, for the delayed response to the disaster, used his weekly radio address to put responsibility for the failure on lower levels of government. The magnitude of the crisis "has created tremendous problems that have strained state and local capabilities," he said. "The result is that many of our citizens simply are not getting the help they need, especially in New Orleans. And that is unacceptable."
---
Any but the most prejudiced interpretation of the article shows that Bush is not a shifting of the blame, but only explaining as to why state and local capabilities were strained. Bush goes on to state that citizens not getting the help they need is unacceptable, (which it is.) Nowhere does Bush blame the state and local officials. Bush is including the Federal Government along with the state and local government when he says “and that is unacceptable”.
Governor Blanco later in the article is quoted, "We did not have enough resources here to do it all. . . . The magnitude is overwhelming."
As you can see Bush is only saying the same thing Blanco said with regards to the state being overwhelmed. I would definitely NOT call that “shifting the blame”.
So will MMFA, the paragon of open mindedness write another letter to the WP protesting the utter lack of professionalism by the reporters and editors for using a national tragedy to advance their own ideological agenda by conjuring up a conflict when there is none? Or will MMFA use this tragedy to advance its own partisan political agenda? Hmmmm.. I wonder?
bush, of course, will not attempt to shift the blame to local and state officials. he will be quite willing to let others do it for him, and then he can pretend that he's above it all. he loves to pretend he's mr. accountability, pretend the key word. that's why karl rove still sits at the right hand of the throne, when the white house said anyone "involved" in the plame outing would be fired. by any stretch of the word rove was involved.
"Nowhere does Bush blame the state and local officials. Bush is including the Federal Government along with the state and local government when he says “and that is unacceptable”. --anotheramerican
===========================
Bush doesn't say "federal" capabilities. Bush says "state and local capabilities".
There is no basis to anotheramerican's claim that Bush is including the federal government in his radio address statement. None.
Bush himself is playing the so-called "blame game" which he supposedly deplores.
Bush said:
"The magnitude of the crisis "has created tremendous problems that have strained state and local capabilities ... The result is that many of our citizens simply are not getting the help they need, especially in New Orleans. And that is unacceptable."
dave,
Of course Bush did not include the federal government as strained. It hadn't been. Any unbiased reading can see that. ;-)
You MUST be kidding.
anotheramerican - Wednesday September 7, 2005 02:16:21 PM EST
I think your whole premise is wrong, >>First of all, it defies logic to think the official would purposely lie about something so easily refuted and then used against the official.<<
Of course they would, Bush himself MADE UP an IAEA report that didnt exist, how easy is THAT to check? This administration tells shameless lies that are easily refuted all the time. Usually the press just lets them pass.
A number of Katrina "timelines" have been proferred over the last couple of days, ostensibly shifting much of the blame for the abyssmal state of emergency preparedness to local and state governments. Here is one from the Think Progress website that is really worth looking at. Note that they leave a link to offer corrections--something the Free Republic website would never do. Lets hope that this puts an end to the egregrious lies some of our local trolls have been attempting to pass as truth.
Did Blanco declare a state of emergency in secret? I don't think so. How could a reporter not know, or check, when she actually declared a state of emergency? It was in all the papers!
September 7, 2005
Michael Getler Ombudsman The Washington Post 1150 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20071 ombudsman@washpost.com
Dear Mr. Getler:
I agree entirely with the comments of David Brock of Media Matters for America in his concern (and suppressed disgust, I think) over the recent use of a dishonest anonymous source by The Washington Post. [link to mediamatters.org] . That source was cited by the Post on September 4, in the Post’s article titled "Many Evacuated, but Thousands Still Waiting; White House Shifts Blame to State and Local Officials."
This newest duplicity of the anonymous "senior Bush official" comes after a string of similar leaks from the White House, some merely nasty political attacks, some criminal and, some would say, treasonous (ref: Plame disclosure).
However, in this case, the falsity of the claim of the “senior Bush official” could be detected by reviewing available, and now widespread, public records. The New Orleans Times-Picayune reprinted an August 28 letter from Blanco to President Bush in which the Governor declared a state of emergency and requested vast resources from the Federal government. [link to gov.louisiana.gov] . The Post, in this case, did not do its job.
The story in the Gulf is there for us to see. The story about who is responsible for the extent of the injury and damage will unfold. The story Americans have not seen, the REAL story inherent in the anonymous “information” emanating from the White House, is how the Bush administration lies to “blunt criticism” (often of or involving earlier White House lies).
The duplicity of this administration has allowed our government to have a dramatically adverse affect on us all in numerous ways (a war based on lies is only the largest result, to date, of dishonesty in the White House). It seems strange to me that I must say this out loud to the same newpaper which "broke" the WaterGate story: this country cannot make sensible decisions if our government lies to us.
The story of lying government officials has been going on largely without comment by “main stream media” for almost five years. And the Post will not have done its job unless and until it determines which anonymous “senior Bush official” made this false statement, and publishes his or her name so none can use on his lies in the future. The story of a lying, propagandizing executive branch will continue to unfold without serious scrutiny until the Post DOES ITS JOB.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Thomas W. Cook.
Oops; delete the Previous post. My Buffer had the wrong thing in it.
What I meant to say:
The WaPo isn't the only paper spreading lies.
Remember the “Louisiana disaster plan, pg. 13, paragraph 5” BS Winger posts?
I’m sure most of you have seen the following quote being pasted all over the Net. The first hint that something was amiss was the “pg 13”; why not Page 13? It shows that someone was desperate to rush any ‘Talking Point’ out there. Then next hint was the lack of a URL to the Document; why don’t the people posting this want us to see the whole Document?
[i]This from the Louisiana disaster plan, pg. 13, paragraph 5, dated 01/00: “The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating'...”[/i]
What the posters left out was that this Paragraph fell under the “PART II: SITUATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS” Section that starts on Page 12.
[link to www.ohsep.louisiana.gov] [i]5. It will take a long time to evacuate large numbers of people from the Region.[/i] Page 12 (or should that be pg?), Paragraph 5.
[i]6. The road systems used for evacuations are limited, and many of the roadways are near bodies of water and susceptible to flooding.[/i] Page 12, Paragraph 6
[i]8. Many of the Region's emergency shelter facilities may be inundated by floodwaters when threatened by a slow moving Category 3 or above hurricane. Sheltering of evacuees outside of the Region becomes necessary.[/i] Page 12, Paragraph 8
[i]9. In most emergencies the number of persons needing public shelter will be limited. In the event of a catastrophic hurricane, however, the evacuation of over a million people from the Southeast Region could overwhelm normally available shelter resources.[/i] Page 12, Paragraph 9
As you can see, the Plan recognizes the difficult task on the ‘Situations” page.
The next part of this Section is the “Assumptions” page; which starts on the famous ‘pg 13’ and runs to page 15. A good read of it does not indicate that the Governor is responsible for what the “Assumptions” are; a good read of the entire page looks like what would happen in a perfect world.
Read them, and ask yourself; is this a description of what the Governor was “Supposed” to do; or is it what was “Hoped” could be accomplished with the resources at hand. Paragraph 8 and Paragraph 11 sure don’t look like things the Governor has much control over how people will act. And many of these Paragraphs seem to reflect wishes not orders.
[b]The “Actual” Evacuation part starts on page 16.[/b] It is broken down into Precautionary / Voluntary Evacuation, Recommended Evacuation and Mandatory Evacuation sections. And each one of those sections is broken down to what the Risk Area Parishes, Host Area Parishes and the State of Louisiana is responsible for.
[i] PART III: EVACUATION
A. PROCEDURES The procedures outlined here are the minimum actions that will be required from State, parish and municipal authorities in a hurricane emergency, to move as many people as possible from the areas threatened by the hurricane storm surge as identified by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' SLOSH estimates.[/i]
The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana will be judged on how they followed the steps outlined for each of them. We know the Mayor utilized Municipal Buses to move people to the Superdome; and that act alone probably saved many. Had he sent people far out of town on city buses; not as many people would have been evacuated from the area’s that were actually flooded. The Superdome may have been uncomfortable because the Fed’s dropped the ball on getting aid to them early; but the Mayor ensured that most survived.
And nowhere in the Evacuation Procedures do I see the words “School Buses”, or even School for that matter. What do people who make ‘ass-umptions’ do?
Someone should organize a boycott of wash post / newsweek advertisers until they correct this situation and at least issue a very strong apology, hopefully followed by a news story about who leaked and why. Boycotting advertisers should get their attention, no?