Post ombudsman defended editorial's falsehoods as a difference in "views"
SUMMARY: In a column purportedly explaining the inconsistencies between The Washington Post's April 9 editorial titled "A Good Leak" and an article published the same day by staff writers Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer, Post ombudsman Deborah Howell suggested the principal reason for the differences in the two pieces was that reporters and editorial writers "can see things quite differently." But the editorial did not merely advocate a position; it did so with numerous false statements.
In an April 16 column purportedly explaining the inconsistencies between The Washington Post's April 9 editorial titled "A Good Leak" and an article published the same day by staff writers Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer, Post ombudsman Deborah Howell suggested the principal reason for the differences in the two pieces was that reporters and editorial writers "can see things quite differently." "Editorials and news stories have different purposes," she wrote. "News stories are to inform; editorials are to influence."
But what Howell ignored in her purported explanation is that the editorial did not merely advocate a position; as Media Matters for America noted at the time, it did so with numerous false statements. Howell explained the inconsistencies between the article and the editorial as the result not of accurate reporting by Gellman and Linzer versus misinformation by the editorial writer, but essentially as the reporters' having a different "view" from that of the editorial writer, derived from reliance on different evidence.
The two Post pieces followed a key disclosure in legal papers filed by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald concerning former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. A federal grand jury indicted Libby in 2005 for perjury, obstruction, and false statements in conjunction with Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case. The legal papers revealed that Libby testified before the grand jury that in late June or early July 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney had told him that President Bush himself had authorized the leak to reporters of portions of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in order to rebut public statements that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV had made. In a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, Wilson disputed the administration's claim that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase from the African nation of Niger uranium for nuclear weapons. The April 9 Post article reported that the information that Cheney and Libby selected for release -- which included a statement in the NIE that Saddam had been "vigorously attempting to procure uranium from Africa" -- was unsupported by the evidence.
The article by Gellman and Linzer reported that through the filing, Fitzgerald "described a 'concerted action' by 'multiple people in the White House' -- using classified information -- to 'discredit, punish or seek revenge against' " Wilson. As Gellman and Linzer wrote, "One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before."
Notwithstanding this fact -- that the leak of cherry-picked parts of the 2002 NIE resulted in the misrepresentation of the administration's intelligence on Saddam's alleged efforts to obtain uranium -- the Post editorial board wrote that "President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons."
Howell did mention that the Gellman/Linzer story reported that the evidence that Cheney and Libby leaked to reporters had been disproved. But she neglected to mention that portions of the NIE itself undermined the administration's claim that Saddam had sought uranium. As Media Matters noted, the information Libby was reportedly instructed to give reporters -- that the NIE stated Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium -- is not an accurate presentation of the NIE's findings. In addition to that statement, the NIE noted that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research called the claim "highly dubious" -- indicating that it was, at best, disputed within the intelligence community. For this reason, Gellman and Linzer reported, the CIA specifically left the uranium claim out of the NIE's "key judgments."
Moreover, Howell defended the editorial page by saying that the editorial writer had not read the Gellman/Linzer story, but that in any event, according to the editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, in Howell's words, "it is unlikely the story would have influenced the editorial."
Howell also stated that the editorial was "written off a front-page story Friday by reporter R. Jeffrey Smith about Fitzgerald's filing." But Smith's article contained details that stood at odds with the editorial. Whereas the editorial claimed that "the material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established ... that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth" about Iraq's nuclear threat, Smith wrote:
Libby told [New York Times reporter Judith] Miller, among other things, that the NIE concluded Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium," according to Fitzgerald's filing. In fact, the CIA did not believe this allegation, which came from the Defense Intelligence Agency and remains unproved to this day, according to intelligence analysts.
The editorial also alleged that Fitzgerald's legal filing did not support Wilson's claim "that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame." But Smith wrote:
Libby, who was indicted last year for allegedly lying to the FBI and a grand jury about what he said to reporters about his contacts with the media, wants the materials because he thinks they will show that his misstatements were innocent and did not stem from an orchestrated administration campaign to discredit Wilson, according to his court filings.
Fitzgerald's brief uses unusually strong language to rebut this claim. In light of the grand jury testimony, the prosecutor said, "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."
Howell further stated in her column, "Don't expect newspapers to editorialize against leaks," but an April 16 New York Times editorial, titled "A Bad Leak," said:
President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist. This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record.
Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq -- in any accepted sense of that word -- when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report.
[...]
Obviously, we do not object to government officials talking to reporters about important matters that their bosses do not want discussed. It would be impossible to cover any administration, especially one so secretive as this, unless that happened. (Judith Miller, who then worked for The Times, was one of the reporters Mr. Libby chose for this leak, although she never wrote about it.) But the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public.
What Howell defended as a difference in views was in fact a difference in reporting -- accurate versus inaccurate. Howell's column amounted to a defense of the editorial page's reporting of false information.
It's nice to hear the WaPo acknowledge that they are living in an alternate reality where the sky is green, there really is a Santa Claus, and George W. Bush is a friggin' genius and as infallible as the Pope.
A lot of us have seen this kind of work before -- from slacker teenagers hoping to finess a C grade in a term paper. They're slackers of course, hoping everyone is an inattentive to detail as they are.
Just how does omnbudsman get chosen, anyway?
can be a full time job. But when you're the School Marm from Hell? No problem.
that she is not simply inept, or a slacker, either of which should render her unqualified for a sensitive job of ombudsperson. She is also a person who chooses to take sides and distorts the truth in order to do so. How can any newspaper, particularly one aspiring to hold onto the shreds of its prior reputation as a trustworthy leader, tolerate such behavior? Or, to look at it strictly from a "business" perspective, for those who no longer care about news integrity: how can a newspaper that allows such behavior hope to retain circulation in a community (i.e., the DC area) of well-educated persons who value truth and honesty and whose own political leanings do NOT favor the current administration's?
One can conclude only that the Post's leadership has the same goals as Howell.
It's a syllogism:
News stories are to inform; Editorials are not news stories; Therefore, editorials need not inform.
OK, Deb, but do they have to misinform?
Also, apropos of nothing, Deb, you have a tin ear. Try "persuade" instead of "influence."
... is worse than the crime.
Someone should remind the Washington Post of that.
If Fred Hiatt writes a signed column, or Ken Mehlman, or Michael Moore (who is fat, after all)--we can see it as a personal view.
But there are one of two options when we see an unsigned piece on the editorial page of a newspaper: 1)that somebody in the composing room picked up somebody's anonymous scribblings on the back of a take-out menu and mistakenly set it in tyoe,
or 2) that this is meant to be the official'view' of the newspaper, that supposedly informs the workings of the paper and is the basis on which the paper in its entirety functions.
If 'A Good Leak' is the position of the Post, why then does the post publish news aricles which are at odds with, and contradict, that view.
They're either incompetent at running their paper--or they're cowards about acting on their views with the reporters who keep on writing those (in the paper's official view) falsehoods.
Sunday's Times editorial on the same subject used the deliberate headline "A bad leak" to underscore the point at how badly WaPo performed on this one. While I won't forget how the Times also mislead its readers and bought the Bush lies, the Times seems to have learned it lesson and is trying harder. WaPo continues to read like the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times.
"Editorials and news stories have different purposes," she wrote. "News stories are to inform; editorials are to influence."
William Safire used this same reasoning to keep writing that Iraq had WMD long after it was proven they did not.
As I wrote at that time on the NY Times comments section that this was complete and utter nonsense. Just as it is now.
If it isn't then I would like to explain to you how Ms. Howell is really an alien from the planet Balzar and she is here to take over the world.
Hey, I am just trying to "influence" you folks. That's all.
...call it The Washington (Com)post? That wouldn't be a lie now, would it, Ms. Howell?
Probably over her head, too.
On how to 'influence' people is that EVERYTHING is an opinion. Especially any FACTS that are inconvienient.
...because the FACTS have an anti-Bush bias.
I've said it before, and will reiterate: A CONCLUSION that is based on FALSE PREMISES is an invalid conclusion/opinion.
The misinformed opinion was spoofed brilliantly by the Saturday Night Live skit of a few years ago, where "opinion" guest Emily Litella would rant and rail about a particular issue, outraged and oh-so-strongly opinionated (like the WaPo Editorial page):
"Trick or Treat for UNISEX is an outrage! Promoting boys and girls dressing alike is UnAmerican!" Emily says, until corrected that it's 'trick or treat for UNICEF'... then she offers a meek, "Oh. Never Mind."
The skit was hilarious, because it is SO TRUE. Bloviating demagogues get up on their soap box and raise hell ... when they have their FACTS wrong.
Which brings us to the job of an Ombudsman. This Howell woman believes she can just sidestep the issue by calling it a difference of opinion. WRONG. IF the editorial board has it right in their facts, this contradicts the NEWS side's depiction of events.
Howell's JOB is to look at the underlying PREMISES by which the editorial arrives at its conclusions, and compare them to the NEWS FACTS reported by the newspaper. If she decides that the editorial guys got it RIGHT, she is responsible for correcting the record, and specifying WHERE the reporting went wrong.
Her claim that they are BOTH right, in their own ways, is a gutless cop-out, and an indication that there is no such thing as journalistic integrity (it's all just a matter of opinion, don't you know?)
This woman should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY, and bring in someone who will either DEFEND the news content, or CORRECT it with retractions.
She's proving that the "bud" in ombudsman refers to weed.
She is a liar...and should be fired...
It could have been more devastating. MMFA failed to note that Howell ignored the fact that Hiatt's editorial claimed that Wilson said that Cheney sent him to Niger. This is false.
Sanders LaMont of the Sacramento Bee (CA) composed this guideline for newspaper ombudsmen:
"The Ten Commandments of Ombudsmen"
1. Shut up and listen. The reason this reader called was because he or she had something to say about your newspaper, and they want it to be better.
2. Take even irritating callers seriously. He or she may have a valid point obscured by an obstreperous personality.
3. Respond, somehow, to every call or letter. An acknowledgment may be all that is required, but avoid lectures or sarcasm.
4. Assure each caller that the message they bring will be delivered to a person in the newspaper management who has the authority to do something about it.
5. Deliver all the messages, quickly, to the right people at the newspaper.
6. Don’t promise what you can’t deliver. Don’t give the caller the impression you will change things.
7. If the call involves a correction or retraction, get as much detail as possible and relay the information immediately to the senior editor available at that time. Don’t make promises, and don’t leave word on phone mail..
8. Make no assumptions about a caller based upon the sound of her/his voice, self-deprecating description, or apparent age. Every reader counts and has something to say.
9. Make no assumptions about newsroom folks based upon your stereotypical views of reporters and editors, or that voiced by the callers. Professional journalists don’t want to make mistakes and most are not as defensive as portrayed.
10. Be polite. It costs nothing, may open the door to a wonderful conversation, and your mother and father would be proud.
As nearly as I can tell, Howell violates every one of these "commandments". She is arrogant, dismissive of any criticism, defensive of the newpaper, and has yet to acknowledge that any of the concerns raised by MMFA and others has any merit.
Further, as the "READER'S ADVOCATE", there is no evidence she has taken one iota of effort towards addressing/correcting/ and/or even EXPLAINING the gross disconnect between FACTS REPORTED in her newpaper and "opinions" which exist only by ignoring those inconvenient facts.
As "Ombudsman", she seems to subscribe to the Antonin Scalia school of responding to concerns: the all-purpose "GET OVER IT".
The "Italian" gesture we all know means "F**K OFF"
Debbie, you're doing a heck of a job!
Howell makes the "leap of logic" that editorials, those pieces we find now and again on the Editorial pages of our newspapers that address a pertinent issue of the day, are written to "influence" the readership's opinions, to make the readers agree with a view endorsed by the writer. Her logic fails to reach the other side when the editorial is unsigned, as this makes the readers wonder whose view they are agreeing with. The logical conclusion made here is that the piece reflects the view of the newspaper's staff; that it is, in fact, the position taken by the top management. And if so, then the readers would expect the reporting in other parts of the newspaper to reflect the general position and tone evinced by the editorial; the two should be parts of the same machine.
Yet here we have an editorial that grossly misleads the readership into believing "false positive" facts, while reports from other parts of the paper refute everything in the editorial; what's a poor reader to do?
Hey, Debbie...your job is to address reader's concerns and complaints, not prop up the incompetant editorial staff. Do it or take a hike.