Wash. Post ombudsman admonishes Milbank for using anonymous source, imputing meaning to secondhand quote
SUMMARY: Responding to reader complaints about The Washington Post's Dana Milbank's use of an "anonymous secondhand quotation from Sen. Barack Obama," Post ombudsman Deborah Howell chastised Milbank for citing the source anonymously and for imputing a particular interpretation to a quote he did not witness. Howell found that "[n]either [Jonathan] Weisman nor Milbank called the source" to confirm their interpretation of the quote.
Responding to reader complaints about Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank's use in a July 30 column of an "anonymous secondhand quotation from Sen. Barack Obama" to characterize Obama as "presumptuous," Post ombudsman Deborah Howell chastised Milbank for citing the source anonymously and for imputing a particular interpretation to a quote he did not witness. Howell wrote in her August 10 column: "Anonymous quotes should be used sparingly; this one wasn't worth it. If you weren't there, be careful about judging the context." Further, Howell found that "[n]either [Post national political reporter Jonathan] Weisman nor Milbank called the source" to confirm their interpretation of the quote.
In a July 31 online chat, Milbank addressed criticism of his July 30 column by referring to such criticism as "whining," and wrote: "House Democratic aides got up Thursday morning and decided that the quotes looked bad. While not challenging the quotations themselves, they said that the quotes were out of context. This is interesting, because our source -- who was among the people complaining about the quotes yesterday -- sent us the quotes in writing in an email Wednesday night. Evidently no recording was made, so we'll probably never know the exact wording."
And in an August 7 online discussion, Milbank asserted: "My colleague Jonathan Weisman and I believe the quote was correct as written, and that this supposed 'context' is a recreation, after-the-fact, by Democratic aides who were worried about how the quote looked. Perhaps Obama didn't mean for it to come out that way, but there's every reason to believe it did."
However, as Media Matters for America has noted, Weisman did not share Milbank's certainty about their initial interpretation of Obama's alleged quote. While Weisman wrote in a July 29 entry on the Post's political blog, The Trail, that Obama "was beginning to believe his own hype," he later updated it to report that "House leadership aides pushed back against interpretations of this comment as self-aggrandizing, saying that when the presumptive Democratic nominee said, 'I have become a symbol of the possibility of America,' he was actually trying to deflect attention from himself." In an August 8 online chat, Weisman called his own position "a little more squishy" than Milbank's flat assertion that the context provided the next day was "a recreation, after-the-fact." Weisman further wrote, "I can't say whether the first rendition was more accurate than the second. I can say those providing the second rendition had good reason to supply context that would nullify the first. I can also say I trust the suppliers of both renditions."
From the August 10 Washington Post column "The Anger Over an Obama Quote":
Readers and partisans -- about 160 -- said the quote was taken out of context or misinterpreted. Their anger was mainly focused on Milbank, who used the quote as part of a sharply written critique of Obama as his party's "presumptuous nominee."
There was no tape and no transcript of Obama's talk, but the quote came from someone who told me that the quote didn't reflect arrogance. Here's where it gets tricky for me; I dislike most anonymous quotes, including this one. I figured out who the source probably was and confirmed my suspicion by talking with him, but no journalist should ever reveal another's source except in the gravest of circumstances.
Neither Weisman nor Milbank called the source. Weisman considered the source more or less official and didn't use his name, even though the source didn't ask for anonymity in the e-mail. Weisman said he has "an understanding going back years that he is giving me privileged information from closed meetings; it is by definition on background. With someone you interact with constantly, there just aren't the formalities of sourcing on every conversation and e-mail." Milbank called the source "unimpeachable. When he gives you a quote you can take it to the bank. You don't need to go around verifying it with others."
[...]
Several lessons can be learned here. For reporters: Anonymous quotes should be used sparingly; this one wasn't worth it. If you weren't there, be careful about judging the context. Treat readers well; we need them.
Then Milbank takes someone else's second-hand interpretation of the remark to mean that Obama is being self-aggrandizing, or the opposite of what was intended. When confronted with this, Milbank whines that people are whining about his fraudulent reasoning. Okay then, he gets paid to do this?!
I've heard this argument used many a time by people who don't ever want to do anything and won't make the slightest effort to even try.
Finally someone gets called out over the "anonymous source"...
How come only Milbank gets slammed for calling out the Obamessiah for acting like he's God's Gift to America?
The "Obamessiah" got old really fast.
When people like Mr. Milbank give you out of context non-quotes you eat it up like candy and think that it supports your false view of Mr. Obama.
Perhaps because he was likes a tiger who changed his stripes when he wrote that column. Over the last few months, I've usually found Dana to be pretty even-handed regarding both candidates as well as fair in his assessments, but he crossed a line on July 30 by not checking his and Johnathan's source(s). He then compounded the error by saying those who criticized him were "whiners".
Well, too bad Dana! When we buy the Washington Post, like it or not, we're contributing to his salary, and if he calls us whiners for criticizing something that was proven false by multiple sources, he should apologize, or at the least, correct the record. But NOOO, Dana's ego wouldn't allow him to do that. He even left the Olbermann show "Countdown", rather than admit he made a mistake.
Many readers of that newspaper will have a difficult time believing much of anything he writes going forward. As for me, I won't waste my time reading his column, nor am I the least bit interested in what he has to say now that he's gone over to CNN.
How come only Milbank gets slammed for calling out the Obamessiah for acting like he's God's Gift to America?
He's not getting slammed. He's getting a promotion and a raise.
African American running for POTUS: I am NOT the Messiah!
Right wing stooge & weatherman on Murdoch morning cable show: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
African American running for POTUS: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Blonde air-headed right wing news model : Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
African American running for POTUS: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Moronic viewers of Murdoch morning cable show who believe everything right wingers tell them: He is! He is the Messiah!
African American running for POTUS: Now, fcuk off!
[silence]
Right wing stooge & weatherman on Murdoch morning cable show: How shall we fcuk off, O Lord?
Sometimes complaining about a statement being out of context is just a way to avoid blame. But when the full context gives the quote an entirely different meaning then it is the equivalent of a lie. When you choose to call those who see through your error "whiners" then it is just a sign of your own hubris or you might even call it "presumptuousness".
Keith Olbermann found Dana Milbank's behavior so offensive that he was banned from appearing on his show until he corrected his behavior. Milbank never did, and instead is now a political commentator for CNN.
I found another thing interesting from the ombudsman's column. She said that she knew who the anonymous source was, and she confirmed that for herself. I thought it was interesting that however that info came to Milbank, that was enough info for her to identify the source. I wonder why that was? Is there a serial email anonymous source in power in the Democratic Party? If so, who is it? Biden, Durbin, Hillary Clinton? Is there someone in the party who's such a serial leaker that they are well-known and assumed to be the source of stories like this? Again, just interesting.
If the source is this well-known and accessible that Howell can figure it out and verify that he was the source, then why didn't Milbank call him to make sure his interpretation was correct when he was told that Senate aides were disputing his assigned meaning? That's the big issue for me - he went after the people criticizing his behavior instead of trying to get the answer! He attacked the messengers because of the message they were trying to get to him.
Olbermann made a brief mention of it a few days after the initial column, trying not to be too critical yet making his point crystal clear.
He mentioned the column and the contextual errors, and said that he and his program refused to have Milbank on until he retracted his statements. Instead, Milbank resigned from the show, saying that he had accepted an offer from another network.
Olbermann wished him the best and simply moved on. Clearly he was disappointed by the whole episode.