Wash. Post's Deborah Howell misfires, ignoring falsehoods in Milbank article
SUMMARY: In her February 19 column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell claimed that liberals have complained that Post columnist and reporter Dana Milbank has "skewered Democrats." But Howell said next to nothing about complaints liberals have registered about Milbank's work. Instead, she simply wrote that liberals have objected to Milbank's columns "skewer[ing] Democrats" and made no effort to consider the actual flaws in his January 31 column, including at least one outright falsehood and one distortion.
In her February 19 ombudsman column, The Washington Post's Deborah Howell claimed that liberals have complained that Post columnist and reporter Dana Milbank has "skewered Democrats," and pointed specifically to a January 31 Milbank column. Despite exploring in detail the validity of conservatives' objections to a recent appearance on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, in which Milbank wore a bright orange hunting outfit to discuss Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting companion, Howell said next to nothing about complaints liberals have registered about Milbank's work. Instead, she simply wrote that liberals have objected to Milbank's columns "skewer[ing] Democrats" and made no effort to consider the actual flaws in his January 31 column. In fact, as Media Matters for America noted at the time, that column contained at least one outright falsehood and one distortion, the latter undermining the column's entire premise.
In a column that purported to discuss whether Milbank inappropriately injects his opinion into his work, Howell missed a key point. Regardless of whether Milbank has license as a news columnist to inject his views into his work -- and whether he has license to appear on television making light of a serious matter -- he certainly does not have license to inject falsehoods into his work. This is a key distinction that appears to have escaped Howell in her February 19 column -- the difference between opinion and fact, negative opinion and factual falsehood. Columnists may or may not be allowed to express opinions, although Howell quotes Post editor Liz Spayd suggesting that even that is off limits for a news columnist like Milbank; what they can't do -- whether they are news or opinion columnists -- and what Howell failed utterly in her column to call Milbank on, is base those views on false information.
Readers would never know it from Howell's column, but in his January 31 column, Milbank falsely reported that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) "got only 25 of the 60 needed votes" to mount a filibuster against President Bush's nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. In fact, as Media Matters and numerous weblogs (see, for example, here) noted at the time, it was Alito's supporters who "needed" the 60 votes to invoke "cloture," or end debate on the nomination and proceed to a floor vote; filibuster supporters needed 41 votes. Recognizing the error, The Washington Post ran a correction, which, according to the Nexis database, appeared in the print version the next day.
As Media Matters also noted, in that same column, Milbank depicted advocates of impeachment as a fringe element of the Democratic Party -- which he said is in one of its "periodic splits between pragmatism and symbolism" -- while ignoring polling that has shown that a majority of respondents believes Congress should consider impeaching Bush over his authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance. Moreover, as Media Matters previously noted, a poll from November 2005 found that 53 percent of Americans thought that Congress should consider impeachment "[i]f President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq." Given that, in Howell's words, the column was "about a liberal political event that featured former attorney general Ramsey Clark and antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan," Milbank's distortion was inextricable from the column's central premise.
From Media Matters' perspective at least, Milbank's "skewer[ing] Democrats" was not the problem per se with his column. The problem was that his assertions were based on misinformation. Howell ended her February 19 column by quoting a reader approvingly:
"If you are going to keep using his work, how about labeling it as opinion and not news?"
Exactly.
No, not exactly. Any newspaper should insist on factual accuracy from reporters and columnists. Howell, the readers' representative at The Washington Post, did not do that in her column.
From Howell's February 19 column:
Most of the critical mail I got last week came from conservatives, but I've also received complaints from liberals when they think Milbank has skewered Democrats, especially in a Jan. 31 column about a liberal political event that featured former attorney general Ramsey Clark and antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan.
While I condemn Milbank perhaps deliberate lie about the number of votes needed for a filibuster, I find no fault in his opinion that it is not pragmantic to expect a filibuster in a Republican-controlled congress. Don't get me wrong. I am on Cindy Sheehan's side. I am pushing for an impeachment, even though I know that Republicans do not give a rat's ass about the majority of Americans who want Bush impeached. But what I am saying is that Milbank doesn't see it as a likelyhood. Bush must be impeached now. Will it happen? No, because of the Republican predominance in congress. Should we stop pressuring the Republicans to consider impeachment? Never. But although we must do it out of ethics, you know how those hard-headed Right-wing bigots are, and Milbank knows this too (being one of them). In conclusion, I will email Howell, who has become on of the most inefficient journalists in the mainstream media, and blame her for ignoring Milbank's lie regarding filibuster votes.
"In conclusion, I will email Howell, who has become on of the most inefficient journalists in the mainstream media, and blame her for ignoring Milbank's lie regarding filibuster votes."
The Milibank "lie" regarding filibuster votes has been corrected and is listed as such in the online article...the only person who has been ignoring this is apparently you..
If her job is to clarify, she goes out of her way to obfuscate. If her job is to seek TRUTH, her performance is to excuse away inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. If her job is to bolster and protect journalistic integrity, she comes down hard instead on the side of making journalism more suspect and less trustworthy. If her job is to be responsive, she is instead cranky, aloof, and dismissive. And above all, DEFENSIVE. She routinely attacks, rather than addressing, those with concerns.
This was pulled from the Washington Post's online site, where their "mission statement" resides:
[link to www.asne.org]
Perhaps Ms. Howell needs to review the following:
"No story is fair if it omits facts of major importance or significance. Fairness includes completeness.
"No story is fair if it includes essentially irrelevant information at the expense of significant facts. Fairness includes relevance.
"No story is fair if it consciously or unconsciously misleads or even deceives the reader. Fairness includes honesty – leveling with the reader.
"No story is fair if reporters hide their biases or emotions behind such subtly pejorative words as “refused,” “despite,” “quietly,” “admit” and “massive.” Fairness requires straightforwardness ahead of flashiness."
Considering the Post's complicity in pursuing the dozens of non-scandals in the Clinton Adminstration, followed with their complicity in supporting the Bush Administrations run-up to the Iraq war with countless phony rationales dutifully "reported" without critical questioning, the Post has a lot of damage control to do.
Is Ms. Howell making things BETTER, or WORSE?
From NPR to the entire MSM -- WHAT?!! Did posters here actually think that the dishonest MSM would have an honest ombudsperson?
NOPE -- just a damage control hack.
The thrust of Milbank's piece is about Democrats "tasting victory."
Milbank appears to lament the opposing sides within the Democratic Party (especially the Cindy Sheehan element). It seems he simply wants the party to come together.
His Jan. 31 article begins, "The new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds congressional Democrats in the best position they've held in 14 years, besting President Bush and Republican lawmakers on Iraq, the economy, health care, immigration, ethics and more."
And I'm still reeling from her reference in this column to Countdown with Keith Olbermann as a "comedy" show. She needs to issue a few more corrections and plenty more apologies with her shoddy brand of "journalism" evidenced in this column.
Apparantly Howell feels it is her job, not to represent the reader, and not to ensure her paper is publishing truth and facts to inform the reader. Instead, Howell feels it is her duty to instill false balance whether or not the truth is involved.
This is why Howell is so desperate to cover up the Reid comments. She feels they were justified because it balanced the right and left as both being corrupt. Balance is good...to her regardless of whether or not that balance is true.
However she has no problem blasting this other guybecause he spoke the truth but was dressed in a way that only attacked one side...the right. So to Howell, that is wrong and biased because he didn't instert lies in order to falsely balance the story.
HOwell and the POst would rather lie to readers, under the illusion of "balance" than to report the truth and facts.
I'm tired of all tv newscasts. Can't get no satisfaction. Kieth Oberman's show was my last chance at some news that at least portrayed (or tried) to give peace a chance in an insane way of using his position to let "just give me some truth" amist the extremist -cloud of righteousness that permeates his fellow stoolmates. But if Milbank doesn't go, I'm almost headed to radio only. At least Franken, Hartman, and the heartland's Big Eddie, will at least humor this heart and mind with a good laugh and somtimes some solid common sense that makes me listen. And that's all I can ask for right now. Progressively yours. Leftylou
Advocates of impeachment do not equal Considerers of impeachment. People who agreed with the statement "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." do not necessarily believe that Bush should be impeached. They only think it should be considered. I will consider buying an SUV when I shop for my next car. But I do not advocate buying an SUV. I don't go around telling people "You should buy an SUV. They're great. So much room ." I will look into SUV's and consider buying one based on the current price of gasoline and my current driving habits, but I DO NOT advocate buying one.
That might be why when a more direct question is asked "Should President Bush be Impeached and Removed from Office?" only 32% say Yes as compared to 58% No. So I would say Milbank was correct when he depicted impeachment advocates as a fringe element (although 32% is still a very high fringe and quite scary..)
Asking the question "should Bush be impeached and removed from office?" is much like asking "should a burglary suspect be tried and sentenced to prison?" It's a poor question designed to elicit a negative response, then misapply the response only to the first part of the question. Impeachment is only the process by which charges are brought against the executive by the House, not a determination of guilt.
We have an admission of warantless wiretapping being authorized by the executive, an action which appears to be a violation of FISA and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. If the President claims such actions were legal, let him make his case to the Senate instead of to the court of public opinion.
CD
You say, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
You compare this to your saying, "I will consider buying an SUV when I shop for my next car. But I do not advocate buying an SUV."
RESPONSE: Your "consideration" did not contain a contengency, as the above poll question about BUSH did.
No problem.
I'll fix it for you: "I will buy an SUV if it has a windshield."
Bush lied about the reasons for war, and any SUV you pick WILL have a windshield.
Bush WILL be impeached, and removed. I'm sorry, but I do find your present stance of straining the difference between "considering" and "DOING", when the contingent is an obvious slam dunk. It's good you're getting used to the idea.
"RESPONSE: Your "consideration" did not contain a contengency, as the above poll question about BUSH did. "
True...but I wasn't talking about the contingency aspect (or conditional probability) of the Bush poll question (did you even read my post?) What I was talking about is the difference between "considering" something and "advocating" something.
The people who said yes to the consider impeachment question (53% of public) believe it should be thought about. Some of them think it should be acted upon and carried out after the consideration and these are the people who are advocating impeachment (32% of public or roughly 60% of those who said yes to the consider question). Some don't.
"Bush lied about the reasons for war," Here we go again...
"Bush WILL be impeached, and removed. " so you can see into the future? if I go place a bet at tradesports and he doesn't get impeached, will you refund my money?
"It's good you're getting used to the idea." Yes, sadly I am getting used to the lemmings of MMFA responding with incoherent posts that make no sense and offer not one related fact to their crazy assertions.
that most people understand that whether someone should be removed from office depends on the outcome of the investigation and "trial" that would result from the impeachment process. They may support impeachment but not removal from office at this time. Even if one is strongly opposed to many of Bush's policies and actions, and alleged actions, and believe that if proven he should be removed from office, s/he may disagree with the statement you quoted. S/he may believe s/he should not pre-judge the outcome of the impeachment process, but instead should wait until after all the facts have been presented.
Why sure, let’s just up & impeach that little fuzz-bucket! So what’ll happen then? Can anybody guess who’ll be a-waddl’n up onto the dais to get sworn in? That is, if he don’t stroke-out or keel over first, cuz his ticker just plum froze-up while a-think’n what a great, bold-faced “hunter” is attached to that-there little pump’s environs?
Ps—Can somebody do something about that “nurse Ratchit” of a school-marm-from-hell’s eyeballs? With her countenance, perish the thought, if our little Georgie Washington had stood before [with] her withering standard of oblivion and “fessed-up” about chopping that cherry tree down. Why, with but a single, solitary gaze…she’d a disintegrated him…body & soul! No telling what that woman could do if she used both peepers at once.