In a December 3 washingtonpost.com online chat, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted that a November 29 Post article about discredited rumors that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attended a madrassa as a child “was [not] well executed” and “failed to make ... clear” that the madrassa “charge is bogus.” Similarly, as Talking Points Memo reporter-blogger Greg Sargent noted, in his November 30 “Media Notes” column, Kurtz wrote: "I can't understand why the story didn't mention that the official at the Indonesian elementary school alleged to have been a madrassa -- according to an unsourced story in the conservative online magazine Insight -- had told CNN it had always been a public school and not a religious school." By contrast, on the December 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Kurtz noted criticism of the article by “liberal bloggers” but did not note the substance of the criticism and said, "Washington Post editors say this [article] was actually intended to knock down the rumors." Similarly, according to Sargent, Post reporter Perry Bacon Jr., who wrote the November 29 article, told Sargent that he thought the article made “clear” that Obama “is a Christian”; and the Post's Peter Baker and Lois Romano have also defended the article as, sufficiently, in Romano's words, “chronicl[ing] his denials.”

As Media Matters for America noted, in the November 29 front-page article on how Obama “has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10,” Bacon reported that an “early rumor about Obama's faith came from Insight, a conservative online magazine. The Insight article said Obama had 'spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia' ” [emphasis in original]. But rather than citing the investigative reports by CNN, the Associated Press, and ABC News conclusively debunking the smear, or providing his own reporting on whether the school Obama attended was, in fact, a madrassa, Bacon reported only that “Obama denied the rumor.”

Following the article's publication, according to Sargent, Bacon responded to Sargent's criticism of the article by stating:

I thought the facts that 1. these falsehoods persist and 2. Obama make mentions of his time living in a Muslim country on the campaign trail as part of his foreign policy were both worth remarking. I think the story makes clear, including in the candidate's own words, he is a Christian.

During a November 29 washingtonpost.com online chat, a reader asked Romano, “Why is The Post perpetuating these unfair attacks?” Romano replied:

We are getting many questions of our story on Obama today. I'll try to address this as best I can. These are always very difficult decisions -- how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehoods out there. This discussion has reached a high pitch on the Internet and our editors decided it was in the readers interest to address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because they read he doesn't put [h]is hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this -- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

As far as the headline -- probably not the best.

Later, replying to another reader's assertion that the Post's inclusion of the discredited madrassa rumor “without clearly stating it isn't true is a disservice to journalism,” Romano stated: “But we do chronicle his denials.”

In a November 30 post on the Post's “The Trail” blog, Baker further defended the November 29 madrassa story, claiming, “Any reasonable reading of the story makes clear they are not true. ... And yet the bloggers seem to think readers are so stupid they will actually think the Post is saying the opposite.” From Baker's post:

The Post ran a story on the front page this week on the whispers about Obama's supposed Muslim faith even though he is a Christian. The reporter wrote the story because a voter in Iowa told him that Obama is a Muslim and he was struck that people remain so ill informed. That sort of misinformation has been common out there and, as the story showed, spread by some people in an attempt to taint Obama. But somehow a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge they present the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors.

Any reasonable reading of the story makes clear they are not true. Right there in the second paragraph, it says Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ in Chicago. In other words, a Christian, not a Muslim. And yet the bloggers seem to think readers are so stupid they will actually think the Post is saying the opposite. The story's obvious intent is to clarify, which it did. If people are misinformed about a key aspect of a major presidential candidate to his detriment, then journalism performs a service by addressing misinformation. And if foes are using unfounded rumors to damage a candidate, especially in a subterranean way, then journalism should expose that. Critics can reasonably debate this or that wording in the story, but certainly the intent is clear no matter how much it is distorted on the Web.

By contrast, in his December 3 online chat, Kurtz asserted that “Post editors say they were trying to knock down the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor, but I don't believe the piece was well executed. It didn't read like a debunking piece.” Kurtz continued:

There was too much about Obama “denying” or “disputing” allegations rather than just branding them false. This was particularly true in the case of the madrassa he allegedly attended as a child. That charge is bogus, as a CNN interview with a top official at the Indonesian school demonstrated, and the Post story failed to make that clear, in my view.

As Sargent noted, Kurtz similarly wrote in his November 30 column: “I can't understand why the story didn't mention that the official at the Indonesian elementary school alleged to have been a madrassa -- according to an unsourced story in the conservative online magazine Insight -- had told CNN it had always been a public school and not a religious school.”

During the December 2 edition of Reliable Sources, which he hosts, Kurtz noted Baker's assertion that the article “spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing The Post of spreading the rumors.” But during the broadcast, Kurtz never noted the substance of the “liberal” criticism of the article: that the article reported only the madrassa rumors and the Obama campaign's denial, but not the numerous news reports thoroughly debunking the rumor. Nor did Kurtz express similar sentiment that the article was not “well executed.”

In her December 2 column, Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote, “Next week: The Obama story that's burning up the Internet.”

From Kurtz's December 3 washingtonpost.com online chat:

San Diego: The Washington Post's Lois Romano said Thursday in defense of the Post's coverage of the “Obama whisper campaign”: “How to address something that people are talking about, that clearly has become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact-check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehood out there.”

Do you agree that it is part of your job to acknowledge there's a “discussion” going on regarding every rumor, smear, overt falsehood or piece of propaganda -- without commenting on the veracity of the claims -- as The Post did in the Obama incident? In other words, the fact that someone did in fact say something and created interest in the statement on the Internet is more newsworthy then someone saying something false and creating interest in the statement on the Internet?

washingtonpost.com: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him (Post, Nov. 29)

Howard Kurtz: No, of course not. But it's always a subject of journalistic debate as to when a rumor or smear has gained enough currency that a newspaper should weigh in and debunk it, even at the risk of spreading the original trash. I had debates in this newsroom many times about wanting to knock down some of the Clinton scandal rumors that were gaining currency in tabloids or British papers, and that was before the Internet was the force that it is today.

Post editors say they were trying to knock down the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor, but I don't believe the piece was well executed. It didn't read like a debunking piece. There was too much about Obama “denying” or “disputing” allegations rather than just branding them false. This was particularly true in the case of the madrassa he allegedly attended as a child. That charge is bogus, as a CNN interview with a top official at the Indonesian school demonstrated, and the Post story failed to make that clear, in my view.

From Romano's November 29 online chat:

Obama and “the rumors”: Lois: I object to today's story in The Post talking about the “rumors” floating around that Obama is Muslim. It is simply inaccurate and poor reporting to call them rumors. They are false claims. Obama is not a Muslim; calling them rumors gives them credence. In fact, even using the phrase “Obama's Muslim ties” is debatable. Having a stepfather who did “occasionally attend services” at a mosque and having a Muslim grandfather who lived on the other side of the world are pretty slim “ties.” Why is The Post perpetuating these unfair attacks?

washingtonpost.com: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him (Post, Nov. 29)

Lois Romano: We are getting many questions of our story on Obama today. I'll try to address this as best I can. These are always very difficult decisions -- how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehoods out there. This discussion has reached a high pitch on the Internet and our editors decided it was in the readers interest to address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because they read he doesn't put [h]is hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this -- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

As far as the headline -- probably not the best.

[...]

Anonymous:"...how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position..." But Lois, you should take a position. Not only has he denied it, but every legitimate report says it isn't true. I assume you take a position on the earth being round, because it is verifiable. Obama is verifiably not a Muslim ... if only because he denies that he is.

It isn't a question of fair and balanced when there isn't any serious foundation to the report. For The Post to perpetuate it without clearly stating it isn't true is a disservice to journalism, your readers and a U.S. senator. Let's not even get into the question of the fact that it isn't a crime to be a Muslim and run for office -- which isn't the Obama story at all.

Lois Romano: But we do chronicle his denials.

From the December 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: I got to break in here. You two can take this outside, hopefully without guns.

Now, Washington Post taking some heat this week for a front-page story. The headline -- if we can put it up -- “Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him.” The story said that the Democratic candidate has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim and attended a madrassa as a child. Obama aides sharply disputed the initial story suggesting that he was a Muslim.

Keli Goff, is it news to try to explore and investigate the source of these rumors?

KELI GOFF (political analyst): Sure. On the front pages though, I don't know that that was necessarily necessary. And I think that what some critics take issue with in this particular piece is the fact that it somewhat gave credence -- the lede and the headline seemed to somewhat validate some of these rumors.

For instance, CNN did a story on this, you know, back in January, and the headline was really simple -- it said: “CNN Debunks False Rumors about Obama Attending Madrassa.” And that's not exactly what this headline does. It gives some sort of validity by putting it on the front page and exploring it as a legitimate criticism.

KURTZ: Right. And just to elaborate, CNN interviewed the top official at the school that was alleged to have been a madrassa. This is when he was in elementary school, when Obama was in elementary school. And he denied that it had ever been anything other than public school.

BLANQUITA CULLUM (conservative radio host): But Howard, what it raises -- OK, you can have all kinds of issues coming out -- it raises, where is the “yuck” factor? Where is the perception that we really question issues?

For example, how much will we tolerate whether they had mistresses, whether they had, you know, Rose law firms, all of that kind of scandal. Where is the real bias? Is the real bias that we are concerned truly about a candidate if they reportedly, allegedly, have a Muslim background? And the question is: How is that going to affect the turnout of the vote?

KURTZ: All right. Washington Post editors say this was actually intended to knock down the rumors.

Peter Baker, a reporter defending the piece by his colleague, Perry Bacon, said, “Somehow a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge they present in the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors.”

Let me move on now to Oprah Winfrey. I was up in New Hampshire this week and this got a lot of attention, Oprah at a campaign for Obama. Let's roll some of the tape.

[begin video clip]

JULIE CHEN (CBS News anchor): Oprah is so accessible. She's on the air every day. I mean, that's -- like who doesn't love Oprah?

[...]

DANA BASH (CNN congressional correspondent): She actually is somebody who has the ability to move mountains and change minds.

[...]

DAN ABRAMS (MSNBC host): Realistically, Clinton is a far more formidable force than Oprah. Yes, she's enormously successful and influential, and I know this is heresy. But I don't know that she will actually lead people to pull the lever for Obama.

[end video clip]

KURTZ: Keli Goff, I've got about half a minute. Why was it such big news that an African-American talk show host in Chicago would stump for an African-American candidate from Chicago?

GOFF: Because Oprah's not a celebrity; she's a brand. I mean, it's nice that people like Barbra Streisand or Ben Affleck, you know, want to share their political thoughts, but at the end of the day, people are paying them to be entertainers and to entertain them.

People look to Oprah not to entertain them, but to give her guidance on everything from what to wear, what to read, and possibly who to vote for. She's in a league of her own.

KURTZ: A huge story.

CULLUM: However, the problem is -- I mean, I agree with you on that, Keli, but the problem is, if they start trying to tie in things like this perception of where his religion lies, where his loyalty lies, does that backfire on Oprah? I have a tendency to think that she can bring in a percentage of the base that will not normally vote, but it's going to be iffy. It could backfire on her.

KURTZ: Well, Barbra Streisand endorsing Hillary Clinton, that didn't seem to be anywhere nearly as big a story.

Keli Goff, Blanquita Cullum, thanks very much for batting these issues around with us this morning.