Wash. Post ombudsman endorses practice of printing misleading -- even false -- Bush administration claims without rebuttal
SUMMARY: In a post on her internal weblog, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has reportedly endorsed the practice of printing misleading -- even false -- Bush administration claims without including a word of rebuttal to those claims.
In a post on her internal weblog, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has reportedly endorsed the practice of printing misleading -- even false -- Bush administration claims without including a word of rebuttal to those claims. Howell's post, which concerned a recent Media Matters for America item about a Washington Post article, also contained a misleading description of a conversation between the Post reporter who wrote the article and a Media Matters spokeswoman.
In a January 4 article about the Bush administration's domestic spying operation, Post staff writer Dafna Linzer reported:
The NSA program operated in secret until it was made public in news accounts last month. Since then, President Bush and his advisers have defended it as legal and necessary to protect the country against future attacks and have said Congress was repeatedly consulted.
Linzer's article did not include a single word, in either her voice or anyone else's, pointing out that the administration's claim that "Congress was repeatedly consulted" is misleading at best. Media Matters noted in an item in response to Linzer's article:
Yet the available evidence suggests that the administration did not fully inform congressional leaders about the program, let alone "consult" them, which the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines as "to ask the advice or opinion of" or "to deliberate together." As Media Matters for America has noted, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have all stated that they did not receive written reports from the White House on the surveillance operation, as required by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended in 2001. Further, Rockefeller wrote in a 2003 letter to Vice President Dick Cheney that security restrictions made him "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse" the program, and has since said that his concerns about it "were never addressed." As the New York Times reported on December 21, Graham claimed that he was never informed "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens."
According to a post on MediaBistro.com, Howell posted an entry on her weblog for Post employees to address the Media Matters criticism of Linzer's article:
The e-mail campaign of the week _ a weak one _ is from mediamatters.com [sic] and says that Dafna Linzer in a Jan. 4 story "repeated the much-disputed White House claim that the Bush administration 'repeatedly consulted' Congress about its domestic surveillance program."
It was clear if you read the story that she was simply giving the administration's point of view as well as others. Linzer tells me she has called the blog (not easy to reach) and demanded a correction that she "uncritically" wrote her story. The spokesman for Mediamatters.com would not tell her who wrote the story and said that no one involved in the story would talk to her. The website lists David Brock as the president and CEO. Brock is the conservative-turned-liberal who wrote "Blinded by the Right."
But Linzer's article did not give readers any point of view that rebutted the administration's claim that Congress was "repeatedly consulted." That misleading claim was simply printed without challenge. The Washington Post's ombudsman has therefore endorsed the practice of printing misleading Bush administration spin without providing readers any information that counters the misleading spin.
Howell and Linzer seem to believe that, because Linzer mentioned people who disagree with some of the administration's claims, the article need not include information rebutting all of their claims -- even if that means printing false claims without any refutation. By Howell's -- and Linzer's -- logic, if the Post reports that Bush says "the earth is flat, the sky is red, and the moon is made of green cheese," the Post is under no obligation to include information rebutting each of these false claims, as long as it includes mention of someone disagreeing with one of them.
Her casual dismissal of Media Matters' item as "weak" is par for the course for Howell, who has displayed an alarming habit of using her position as ombudsman not to advocate for readers but to flippantly dismiss their concerns.
Further, Howell's statement that Media Matters is "not easy to reach" (it isn't clear whether this is Linzer's characterization or Howell's) is simply bizarre. Linzer did reach Media Matters, by telephone, as she acknowledged. It couldn't have been too difficult for her to do so; Media Matters' contact information is prominently displayed on the Media Matters website. Any difficulty Linzer encountered likely arose from the fact that she called three Media Matters media contacts after 7 p.m. and did not leave a message for any of them. She ultimately reached a fourth Media Matters staffer and received a call back from Media Matters' media relations director the next morning.
In light of Howell and Linzer's perplexing complaint that Media Matters is "not easy to reach," it is worth noting that Howell herself has been quite difficult to reach. When she began her new job as the Post's ombudsman, a Media Matters representative attempted to contact her by both phone and email to introduce the organization. Howell never responded. Further, University of California professor and blogger Brad DeLong has written that Howell is the "one and only one person at the Washington Post who will not return my phone calls" -- a strange practice for an ombudsman.
Nor is Howell's description of Linzer's conversation with Media Matters accurate.
Howell wrote that Linzer said she "demanded a correction that she 'uncritically' wrote her story." The Media Matters item in question did not say Linzer "uncritically wrote her story." It said she was guilty of "uncritical repetition of the Bush administration's claim." She did, in fact, uncritically repeat a misleading Bush administration claim and included no information countering that claim. Media Matters stands by the item.
Howell continued: "The spokesman for Mediamatters.com would not tell her [Linzer] who wrote the story and said that no one involved in the story would talk to her."
Media Matters' items, including the item about Linzer's article, conclude with the initials of the person who wrote them, so "who wrote the story" is no great secret to Linzer or anyone else who cares. The claim that a Media Matters spokeswoman "said that no one involved in the story would talk to her" is false. The spokeswoman Linzer talked to was the Media Matters staff member responsible for media inquiries about the item in question. In that capacity, she explained the item to Linzer. When Linzer indicated that she did not accept this explanation, Linzer was encouraged to detail her complaints in an email. She chose not to do so. Linzer said the Post would do a story about the Media Matters item; she was told that if the Post decided to do so, the reporter assigned to the story should contact us for comment.
If the Post ombudswoman can't figure out how to click on "contact us" then she doesn't belong in her job. If the WAPO editors are happy with her work, then there must be a secret merger with the Wash Times in the works. The editors have been leaning heavily in that direction.
Deborah Howell just doesn't have the skill-set necessary for the job of public editor. She's not only over her head, she's just not suited to balancing competing arguments and that is the primary job of the editor. She also lacks polish and she just doesn't know how to slyly duck an incoming sucker punch. I suspect the Post got exactly what it wanted in Howell -- a fear-biting team player, a circle-the-wagons sort of partisan. She's just awful.
These newspapers gave up on journalism some time ago. I offer as proof: Judith Miller and Bob Woodward (the current version). What is the point of reading them? The right-wing has somehow duped people into believing that they are part of the "liberal media". Yet, they haven't taken on the Bush Administration in 5 years. They should all be required to read through their shoddy reporting and editorials leading up to the bogus Iraq War. Any 12 year old with internet access had a better fix on what Bush was up to than the Washington Post and New York Times did. I suggest people just stop reading these papers rather than trying to get them to reform themselves. It ain't going to happen.
I know it's hard. Sometimes I can't stand to read what Republicans write and watch what Republicans say on news shows and listen to what the Republican talking heads say on the radio. So much of it is thick with prejudice and ingnorance. But what they are saying has to be known in order to form complete opinions. I'm sure that you agree. We cannot fall into the trap, like many Republicans do along with many reporters do, of only listening to outlets that we agree with.
the media only reports information that they agree with.
"In a post on her internal weblog..."
Huh? Ist that like graffiti on her pancreas?
On becoming progressively more concerned about the balance between "fact" and "politics" on MMFA. Please.... the only way we can ever make progress is by bluntly demanding "the facts." MMFA, in my humble opinion, seems to be drifting recently. Let's go back to straight, objective fact-checking. That's easy these days. Let's take the facts and jam them down Donald W. Cheney-Rice's throat. They deserve nothing more, and nothing less, than the clarity of truth and intellect.
I think they laid out the facts very well. The journalist reported something that the administration said that other sources have shown to be untrue. But the journalist failed to provide any information from previously published sources or question the statement by asking those persons who were allegedly consulted whether that were true. When this problem was protested to the Ombudsperson, she should have immediately recognized the problem and (a) suggested that the paper publish a clarification under the errata column that regularly runs that would point out these other facts; and (b) urged a change in editorial policy, or reminded reporters of their obligations to report facts, for future articles.
The only thing I can see that isn't strictly a matter of fact, is the logical conclusion that MMFA drew about what the Ombudsperson's failure to understand and correct the problem--and worse, she became inappropriately defensive and accusatory towards MMFA. Their conclusion is reasonable, though others could interpret it differently (as ineptness, for example).
...printed all of bush's wmd claims about iraq and buried or didn't print the voluminous contrary information that saddam's weapons had been destroyed. both paper's admitted this but now they seem to be back to the old practice of: you must trust us because we are trustworthy. kind of sounds like what bush tells us. you must follow me because i am protecting you. but the press has been lying for bush for years. during the florida recount james baker, bush confidante and now representing the saudis against the 9-11 families, repeatedly told the press that the votes had been counted "5 and 6" times when in most cases they were not even recounted once by hand. but the media, rather than point out his lie, simply repeated the clips of him saying it over and over.
Both exhibit: "breathtaking inanity," repeated intellectual dishonesty, betrayal of expected duties, using lies to reach a bad-faith and unsupported conclusion, etc.
I've read all the relevant links. Media Matter is on the money. Ms. Howell, you truly should be ashamed of yourself.
Saying "we are just reporting their position" is no defense to anything, since "just reporting their position" is the purpose of a press release, not of investigative and political journalists, who are expected to do more than simply parrot what they are given in press releases.
The Post is shoddy. Their arrangement with Woodward underscores how far they've gotten from the days when they could be trusted to actually do some journalism.
It's clear from Deborah Howell's articles since she assumed the position of Washington Post ombudsman that her title is misleading, to say the least. From her full-spirited defense of the Post's actions regarding Bob Woodward to this sorry display, it's become obvious that her actual function is apologist. Right-wing attack dog is probably not far off the mark either.