|
|
January 20, 2006
Transparency at the Post: Q & A with Jim Brady of Washingtonpost.com"I don't think there are many reporters who oppose thoughtful criticism of their work. What they oppose is being called vulgar names and assigned all sorts of evil motives by people who don't know them. That's not a dialogue, in my opinion, it's akin to shouting insults from a moving car."When Jim Brady decides to shut down the comments at post.blog to prevent even bigger problems we’re going backwards in our ability to have a conversation with the Washington Post. That isn’t good. If the press decides to close itself off because the costs of participating in the new openness are judged to be too high, that is a loss for everyone. (For background, see the AP story, the summary by Editor & Publisher; Vaughn Ververs at Public Eye here, and here; Fishbowl DC on Media Matters vs. Deborah Howell; and this blogger for a detailed chronology with links.) Maybe we can get it changed back to open again. I hope so because I was the one who reminded Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake that the post.blog had a comment function. It had taken heavy use, including some very angry people making themselves known, during the argument over Dan Froomkin’s White House Briefing. Posts that Froomkin, and national political editor John Harris wrote attracted 1,000+ comments, some of them quite heated, and over the top. Jane took my suggestion and recommended that her readers bring their reactions to the “Maryland Moment” thread, which was at the top of the post.blog. From there it snowballed. I understand why people were angry at Deborah Howell. She seems to have taken the concept of balance to new lengths, where not only news accounts and ombudsman columns need to be balanced, but the Jack Abramoff scandal itself “needs” to be balanced between the two major parties. Her both-sides-fed-at-the-trough statements have been called inaccurate, outrageous, unfortunate, less-than artful. “He had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties…” I read these strained descriptions of bipartisan exposure as more of a wish— a wish for balance in the facts of the scandal itself. (See also Deborah Howell responds at the post.blog.) But I also understand why Brady did what he did. If washingtonpost.com lets stand extreme charges aimed to maximize rage at Howell, and some of the charges contain ugly personal insults, then Brady’s position becomes impossible if the staff of the Washington Post objects, and demands to know:
And I don’t think Brady had good answers to any of that—do you?—so he shut down the comments for now. The only good thing about his decision is the room he left for practical suggestions. (Got any? Head to comments.) That, and he’s willing to explain himself and talk about the controversy. Here’s my Q & A with Brady, which we did by e-mail late last night and this morning. Q: Has transparency at the Washington Post taken a hit with your decision to close comments at post.blog? So this isn’t about our unwillingess to hear criticism, it was an unwillingness to continue to have Post staffers viciously attacked on the site and an inability on our end to work quickly enough to avoid those posts from showing up. The readers who have complained that there was nothing offensive or profane in the comments should remember that they didn’t see the ones we removed. If they had, they would better understand why we did what we did. If you look around the site, we’ve built great communities in other blogs and through Live Online, so I feel pretty comfortable about our willingness to engage our readers. In this case, obviously people were angry at Deborah’s column, so they vented for a few days. Then, in an act that actually displayed transparency, she responded to the readers online — three days before her column in the paper — to address the complaints. And because she didn’t say exactly what the commenters wanted her to say, she was attacked again for most of Thursday before we decided we couldn’t effectively manage the flow any lomger. So you could say that our attempt to be more transparent is what got us in trouble here. As far as the blog goes, Deborah just started in this position a few months ago, and like all ombudsmen, she’s swamped with letters, calls and e-mails. Deborah has worked closely with washingtonpost.com since she started, and there’s been some discussion about her doing more online, but I doubt the events of the past week have helped that mission much. On the technical side, we need to be more creative with our profanity filters. We do block a handful of profane words, though for reasons I can’t yet explain, it didn’t seem to work in all cases here. But, either way, our list was not long enough or creative enough. Also, we’ll be looking at whether we need to review comments before going live, either across the board or only for particularly controversial topics. Additionally, we need better measures for blocking users who continue to cause problems. So those are some of the things we’re re-evaluating. It seems to me if you’re dismissing the complaints of the partisans you’re reacting in exactly the wrong way; they’re your best customers. They’re way involved in the news. You have to find a way of hearing them, or your sunk. Of course some of them are crazy, excessive, extremely rude and they say things for shock value or just to rage at the machine. Maybe it’s hard to find the signal in the noise, but that is exactly what the press has to do. There’s an idiocy to partisan complaints; there’s also the heart and soul of politics in them. No political journalist can afford to ignore that, and no online editors, either. I’m afraid that after an incident like this, more will. What do you think? Jim Brady: I guess my quibble would be with the core assumption that the issue here was partisanship. The issue here was civility. Whether it’s from the left or the right, we’ve decided as a site that we’re not going to have an “anything goes” policy. If you want to take issue with articles in The Post or on washingtonpost.com, go right ahead. If you want to complain that you think we’re biased to the left or right — and, believe me, we get it from both sides — have at it. But if you want to viciously attack and insult Post or Post.com staffers or other blog commenters, then go somewhere else to do it. That’s the deal we’ve had with a large majority of our loyal readers for years, and we’ve decided that’s going to be our policy going forward. Q: Thanks, Jim, for answering my questions. (End.) My commentary: About transparency and the need for the Post to engage with critics, you’re not going to find anyone in the national press who gets it more than Jim Brady does. And so Jane Hamsher is wrong in her post about the comment shut down, where she raged at Brady, claiming he wanted to silence critics of the newspaper. “I’m assuming WaPo management just imperiously decided they didn’t want to have a public record of opposition to the embarrassment that is Deborah Howell, and Brady was forced to make some excuse for shutting it down.” That’s a reckless assumption. I think he’ll try to bring the comment board back at post.blog, although I’m not sure “civility” should be the watchword there when he does. In fact Brady said in his online chat today that he hopes comments critical of Howell will be returned to their place in the dialogue. “We’ll go back through them and restore the ones that did not violate our rules.” Meanwhile, flaming the friends of transparency isn’t helping anyone. Get it, Jane? I don’t think “civility” gets Brady anywhere. And I’m not confident I know what he means when he says, “The issue here was civility.” Absent enforcement by pro-active moderators, The Rules the Post declares in force will simply not be in force. This is not a new finding about the Internet. Jane Hamsher was therefore right when she said at her blog: “anyone who runs a board open to the public just knows that people who show up are often not going to play by the ‘rules’ you set up, in fact they’ll break them just because you have them.” If that is correct (realistically, I think it is) then a commitment to having open comments means a commitment to moderating them carefully. If you don’t do that, then you can’t really say: it’s a shame a few rotten apples spoil it for everyone. To demand civility is one thing, to expect it something else. Brady said he was expecting breakdowns with the outpouring at Howell, but it just got to be too much. I wonder what the results would be if “trusted readers” did the moderating for a few hours (2-3) a week, or something like that. Probably it wouldn’t work, but maybe someone reading this knows better. We could just say: hire the people you need and re-open the boards, washingtonpost! But then Brady’s cost of being open to comment just increased, and that has consequences for future acts of openness. Bad for transparency at the Post. Driving up the internal costs of opening outward is not smart politics for those who want two-way newspapers that speak, listen, hear and get heard. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Deborah Howell answers back: The Firestorm Over My Column. Going forward, here’s my plan. I’ll watch every word. I’ll read every e-mail and answer as many legitimate complaints as I can. The vast majority of my work takes place outside this column. But I will reject abuse and all that it stands for. She also revises her language on making a mistake about Abramoff: “I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn’t. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties. My mistake set off a firestorm…” Sure to be talked about. David Carr of the New York Times weighs in with a column arguing that comments are not worth the trouble. “It was not that long ago when readers enraged by something they had seen in the newspaper would have to find a pen, a piece of paper, an envelope and a stamp to make their feelings heard. Now, mainstream media outlets find themselves under attack for not providing bandwidth and visibility to people who wish them dead.” He has more on Howell being “stunned” by the reactions to her. And he says if you want to respond to him, write a letter and mail it— like, with a stamp. Farhad Manjoo of Salon interviewed Howell and Post editor Len Downie and winds up with the best reported piece I’ve seen. A must if you’re following the story closely. Saturday’s Post had Deluge Shuts Down Post Blog (Jan. 21) Paul Farhi: The deluge, which overwhelmed the Web site’s screening efforts, began after Howell wrote in a column published Sunday that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff “had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.” That is incorrect. As Howell noted on Thursday morning in a short piece on Post.blog, Abramoff did not make direct contributions to Democrats but directed his lobbying clients to do so. “That is incorrect” is what we weren’t hearing before. “Howell said yesterday she felt ‘stunned’ by the reaction to her Sunday column, which she called ‘imprecise’ in its characterization of Abramoff’s actions.” Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly: Flame wars aren’t pretty things, to be sure, but I think Jim Brady is dead wrong when he says, “I don’t think the tone would have been much different if she’d posted something on Monday or Tuesday. The basic issue here is that she didn’t deliver the exact message her critics wanted her to.” In fact, if Howell had posted a simple correction to her column on Monday saying that she had made a mistake and Jack Abramoff donated money only to Republicans — and left it at that instead of straining to justify her original error — none of this would have happened. The messenger may have been rude and crude in this case, but the messenger was also right. “When you actually watch — from the inside — how mainstream newsrooms work, it is really not too much to say that they operate on two guiding principles: reporting the facts and avoiding impressions of ‘liberal bias,’ says Josh Marshall. Things like the Howell blow-up aren’t pretty, but they’re “evening the balance, creating a better press.” Brad Delong on Howell’s “Firestorm” column: I’m happy that she’s changed her line on why Democrats aren’t in the first tier of people being investigated from “stay tuned” to “it’s not a bipartisan scandal; it’s a Republican scandal.” “Jay, you’re wrong.” Steve Gilliard responds: The Post doesn’t want transparency. They didn’t like the fact that they were challenged on a major issue of credibility and factual error. Deborah Howell refused to conceed this major error and when challenged, they mischaracterized the response and then shut down comments. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit: “Given the Post’s addition of technorati links to many of their stories, they’re in a better position than most to say ‘the blogosphere is our comment section.’ And, you know, it is.” Jim Brady did Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, and talked about the suspension of comments. But Jane Hamsher and Atrios are not impressed with his choice of venue. Harry Jaffe of the Washingtonian has questions about where blogging is going at the Washington Post. He sees dangers ahead. “I sympathize with the managers at the Post, but the reality is that they chose to play in a Media 2.0 space by launching blogs in the first place,” writes Terry Heaton. “Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t justify juvenile behavior like taking your ball and going home.” Heaton points to Umair Haque at Bubblegeneration, who has a wilder take. We’re in a different risk climate but there’s value for those who can handle it. How Not to Manage the Edge: Washington Post Case Study: “I’m not saying that lunatics should be given free reign to comment. But neither should editors and execs think they have, anymore, totally free reign to dictate how the resources of the firm are used. In many cases, they’re much better off thinking of those resources as common resources - in this case, editors are much better off thinking the paper belongs to both readers and writers.” Reader’s suggestion in comments: Why not host a debate between Howell and a “civil” proxy for the blogger critics/readers, such as Brad DeLong? “They think we’re all trolls.” Jane Hamsher responds to Brady’s Q and A with Post readers, and to this post. “Flaming the friends of transparency isn’t helping anyone,” I wrote. “Get it, Jane?” What I get is that listening to Brady and Rosen discuss the management of a large public board is like listening to two white, middle-aged Exxon executives discuss “what’s really wrong with the negroes.” As if this was some huge, unforseeable problem. Atrios on it: “We politely ask for corrections. They don’t happen. We start screaming for corrections. They still don’t happen. Eventually some half-assed weaselly blame-the-uncivil-critics statement is released. We scream louder. And, then, the horeshit pops up again on CNN.” See his follow-up too. Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News writes a letter to Romenesko about the inexplicables of Deborah Howell: “Seriously — to whom does one complain at the Washington Post when the person who is there to receive reader complaints defiantly gets it wrong?” Rosen points out that Brady’s loudest complainers are the paper’s best customers, and on that basis chides Brady for shutting down comments. But Rosen wants it both ways, going on to criticize Jane Hamsher for her comments about the shutdown. You know Jay, either comments get shut down or they don’t. You never sounded more like a hopeless academic… But Jane Hamsher might be wrong in her comments about Brady, and the Washington Post might be wrong to dismiss complaints it reflexively labels “partisan.” That’s not having it both ways, Mister. That’s saying two things are true that don’t exclude one another. I expect a logic correction. Ryan Pitts of the Spokesman-Review at his group blog, DeadParrots.net. “Sometimes a cooling-off period is exactly the right thing.” “What a bunch of babies.” That’s Stephen Spruiell at National Review’s Media Blog about those who are livid at the Post. Hey, SS: when will we see comments at the National Review’s blogs? (The Corner, for example.) Stephen now says: “comments on NRO blogs would be above my pay grade, but I wouldn’t be opposed.” He then revised his post: “Maybe this episode can help conservatives keep things in perspective the next time we challenge the media.” Steve Yelvington has been in the newspaper biz: Yes, it was out of control. Yes, people were attacking reader rep Deborah Howell personally. But so what? When Deborah Howell was editor of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, she was nicknamed “Dragon Lady.” She’s a tough woman and she can stand the flames. Glenn Fleishman at Romenesko letters says: “You can’t ask for civility. You can’t expect it.” When Brady asks for civility, he’s thinking about an audience similar to that which reads his print paper, not several hundred million people worldwide who might happen to trip into his forum. When Kinsley said that a few bad eggs spoiled the Wikitorial, apart from the very terrible idea that the Wikitorial represented, he also thought he was dealing with a subset of all users. Scott Rosenberg on what to expect: “If, in 2006, you’re an iconic media institution that’s seeking to give the public a platform to vent its disagreements and complaints, you should plan for a certain volume of problems. You should expect some disrespect. You should state what standards you intend to enforce, and you should have a plan for how you expect to enforce them.” In a follow-up post Rosenberg compares conversation-by-blog in the software and political world. It’s too tribal to work in politics, but it is working in tech, he argues.
Posted by Jay Rosen at January 20, 2006 12:48 PM
Comments
props to Brady and his willingness to address his critics! and mega-props to you, Jay, for asking such great questions! Lack of civility does seem at least to be a partial excuse, because anybody who's been in the business long enough is thick-skinned enough to take insults for what they are (anger-venting), let them roll off and respond to the meaningful criticism. And what can eliminating the conduit for such venting do but increase the level of anger? Posted by: Nora at January 20, 2006 1:33 PM | Permalink Thanks, Jay. I went to the live chat and recommended citizen moderators -- like ombudsmen for blog posters -- who could filter out the objectionable words. One problem I see with the unwillingness to host virulently anti-Post opinions or anti-journalist rants is that anyone who sticks her or his head up in this climate -- in any climate, really -- is going to have her share of angry detractors. It just goes with being part of the national conversation in a high-profile way. I don't think it is rationally avoidable. Cuss words can and maybe should be filtered -- but nasty opinions should not be. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at January 20, 2006 1:34 PM | Permalink "In my experience, open forums in 'visible' places without moderation simply don’t work" Jay, if you are still working on your commentary, I would be interested in an elaboration about the nuts-and-bolts of "moderation," in your experience. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at January 20, 2006 1:34 PM | Permalink Brady can talk around it all he wants, but he has never provided a satisfactory explanation as to why numerous comments, in the hundreds, that do not constitute offensive or hate speech have been taken down from the website. Unfortunately, they do, however, tend to demonstrate that Deborah Howell is either incompetent or a transmission belt for GOP talking points. Her efforts to connect Democrats to the Abramoff scandal, and Kurtz's assistance, are just not credible. Brady's response during an Post online chat today as to the need to remove all comments, and his intention to repost them in a few days (will this really happen?), is just the classic political/legal approach: wait a few days, and hope everything dies down, and we can repost the comments when no one cares anymore and claim that we really did allow discussion. I guess you could call that transparency, by the standards of the Jacksonian era. Meanwhile, Howell will print a column on Sunday (and, isn't it curious that Brady, in that chat today, refused to comment at all on the quality of Howell's work, despite several attempts to get him to do so, suggesting that there may be a major disagreement between the paper and the web operation on this issue, or maybe, just an indication that Brady is being scripted by the attorneys: "Just talk about the website and how the blogs will be operated."), and that is going to be explosive when she engages in another hacktistic attempt to justify her wrong statements about the Democrats and Abramoff. This is not going away. Blogs like DailyKos and firedoglake and others are going to cut Howell to ribbons, while the Post acts as if the bloggers don't exist, or alternatively, that no one believes what they say. As for Brady, I hope he has his resume out. He deserves better than covering for people like Howell, Kurtz and Sue Schmidt. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 20, 2006 1:43 PM | Permalink Finding the signal in the noise from people like Jane Hamsher isn't worth the time. It's like trying to find the "signal in the noise" from someone who's mentally ill. Sometimes there is no signal. I don't blame the Post for ignoring people like Hamsher, who want to put forward their arguments in the most vicious manner possible. There is no "heart and soul of politics" in them. Their "heart and soul" is trying to find the most vicious and rude way to insult you. I wouldn't want those people as my customers. Would you try to find the "signal in the noise" of someone who called you on the phone and started screaming at you? Or would you listen and try to figure out if this person actually had a point? These people deserve to be tuned out, not coddled to see if there's any "signal in their noise." The way back to restoring civilized discussions of issues is to marginalize the screamers and the nut jobs. To pay attention to them only encourages more of their venom. Posted by: Dexter Westbrook at January 20, 2006 1:45 PM | Permalink The question was raised earlier as to whether post.blog was overwhelmed by an orchestrated assault. I liken it to the cavalryman who's quietly tending his campfire, hears a noise, looks up and, lo and behold, what does he see -- over the nearest hill here come 3,000 pissed-off Apaches, whooping and hollering and armed to the teeth. (Or, in the interests of equal opportunity, make it the small band of Apaches quietly harvesting their corn who look up and see 3,000 rabid members of the U.S. Cavalry bearing down on them. Either way, the analogy works. ) Brady didn't discuss orchestration here today, but he did over at AskPost.com, at least indirectly, when he referred to "cases where's there's been a concerted effort to flood us with comments in a short period of time." I think that's the real dilemma for a guy in his position. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 20, 2006 1:52 PM | Permalink This is a longstanding problem harking back to the UseNet and 300 bpi Compuserv forums. One thing that does ameliorate this is to require users to log on with a real identity. People are much less likely to engage in this kind of abuse if they are not writing behind a pseudonym. I've almost alsways used my name on line, and I've found it makes for a little more deliberateness before a post. It worked well for TheWell, and on technical compuserv forums. Posted by: JayAckroyd at January 20, 2006 2:21 PM | Permalink the nearest hill here come 3,000 pissed-off Apaches, whooping and hollering and armed to the teeth This has been building for more than a month; it's not a big surprise. My question is, If the Post didn't want a siege, why did they raise the drawbridge? The pitchforks came out and the mob gathered because Howell wasn't responding (and no, making a single, haughty dismissal of the issue is not being responsive). Why not host a debate between Howell and a "civil" (if shrill!) proxy for the blogger critics/readers, such as Brad DeLong? Posted by: Sven at January 20, 2006 2:23 PM | Permalink Jay Rosen: Thank you for your thoughts and Q&A. Very helpful (and civil!) Dexter Westbrook: I find it hard to believe that you have actually read Jane Hamsher. Firedoglake is one of the most substantive blogs out there. Partisan, sure, impassioned, sure, but any objective reading shows that it's got yer substance. The Post has the right to moderate comments. But by shutting them down, the Post sure looks like it is diverting attention from Howell's ham-handed, bogus "balance," and pointing fingers at the mean, dirty rabble instead of responding to the criticism. The Post has been consistently stonewalling on Woodward, on the Froomkin debacle and now, Howell's bizarre form of balanced journalism that involves implying misconduct where none exists. Shutting down the blog, and engaging in attacks on Jane Hamsher (and, note that the one here fails to engage in any of the many substantive comments that she had made on these issues) and others that aggressively criticism them will not reestablish the Post's lost credibility. Whining about the "lack of civility" is an old tactic that has been used innumerable times to avoid the substance of the issue, in this instance, the inability of the Post to compel its journalists to act ethically and responsibly. I've rarely heard anyone or any newspaper emphasize a lack of civility when it makes their critics look bad, and buttresses their position. It's only when the contrary is true that I see it happen, as here. Brady would have us believe, years of Internet experience to the contrary, that the Post was forced to remove ALL of the comments about the Howell fiasco to stop a surge of insulting negative ones. It's ridiculous, and it's sad to see Brady (someone who Hamsher has consistently praised by the way for his implementation of visionary practices within the stodgy print media world) forced to embarass himself publicly in this way. My off the wall guess is that Howell played hardball through the Guild or an attorney, and threatened legal action if all the remarks weren't pulled. So, now, we have the Post posting her web clarification, free of any criticism. All previous comments are gone, and no new ones can be posted. Kinda like a directive issued directly from Stalin. And, this makes Jane Hamsher the problem? I'm sure that they love it over at the White House. And that should make National Affairs Editor John Harris very happy. After all, during the Froomkin affair, he criticized Froomkin's web column on the ground the paper needed to be concerned about how it was perceived by the White House. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 20, 2006 2:39 PM | Permalink Howell really has to go.... the Post simply cannot afford the constant hits to its credibility that having someone like her as its "ombudsman" is going to bring. (I'm no fan of Byron Calame, but I can't imagine him making a factually false statement, and not correcting it the moment it was shown to be factually false. ) ...and unfortunately, the anger and contempt of the audience toward Howell is going to wind up in Brady's lap. The irony, of course, is that Howell and Brady are both supposedly "keeping the Post accountable" --- the problem of course is that Howell herself needs to be held accountable. Brady does a very good Howie Kurtz. And just as with Howie at the end of the day it won't wash. And I'm absolutely serious about the lying. What IS Deborah Howell's job anyway? She certainly isn't an ombudsman. That would mean she'd deal with actual reader complainst -- rather than RNC complaints as she made plain in her piece about Abramoff. As she's already announced that she has no intention of responding to queires from "Media Matters in America" I can hardly wait to read what manner of specious piffle she's going to try to pass off as a "response to my critics." The "Washington Post" is perfectly within its rights to have an RNC shill on staff. They just out to identify her as such -- and hire a REAL ombudsman. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at January 20, 2006 2:41 PM | Permalink The problem for Brady is two-fold. First, he's just re-purposing content from the paper in many cases. An the paper is under independent control. So he has no authority to make someone respond to criticisms, or to control his own content. Second, it appears that he either doesn't get the web fully, or is pretending not to due to #1. The fact that he thinks it was some special effort to dredge up Howell for a non-retraction non-apology "3 days before her column" says load. This was not a difficult correction. It could (and should) have been done within minutes of a fact check. Instead, the Post let this sit and fester for 5 days before issuing a non-apology. What did they expect would happen? Frustration gets the best of everyone, sometimes. And as to chat "interactivity', a one sided black box where the Post person can cherry pick questions isn't "interactivity'. It's the illusion of interactivity, where the worth of the chat depends on the integrity of the host. Given the likely parallel between outrage and lower integrity, this is self defeating. Which goes back to #1. A lot of journalists are used to having the big megaphone unchallenged. Ten years ago Howell could shove whatever she wanted out there, and people could only send mail into the black box, to be ignored if wanted. Today, someone making a dumb mistake (we'll be charitable and assume that was what it was) will get publically nailed with a smaller, but still powerful megaphone. That's what happened to Howell. And she obviously didn't like it much. The power shifts. But for Brady, this is a huge issue. He wants interactivity, but the nature of the .com/Post split, and the desire of Post reporters to meaintain the sole megaphone, unchallenged make it impossible for him to actually do what is necessary for it to work. Posted by: John Nowicki at January 20, 2006 2:42 PM | Permalink A big ol' Sing Out Louise! to John Nowicki -- who has it dead to rights (above). The speed and disseminating power of the 'net has overwhelmed the guardians of the status quo. They're not used to anyone questioning their authority, so they turn it into a question of "civility." There's nothing civil about their rank snobbery. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at January 20, 2006 2:48 PM | Permalink There's another downside beyond lost civility in the kind of flamestorm that engulfed the Post in this episode -- namely, that the vituperation and name-calling simply come to dominate the conversation and crowd out more useful discussion. The same problem arises when commenters hijack blog comments with an endless back-and-forth with one another. Once again, this quickly sends me (and, I suspect, most busy readers) elsewhere. Posted by: Howard Weaver at January 20, 2006 3:08 PM | Permalink Thanks again for a thoughtful post. The real issue here, however, isn't civility; it's control. This is the principal conflict between old media and the new, so it shouldn't surprise anybody that it shows up when the pressure is on. While we're at it, we should examine the word "civility" and it's use here. Samuel Clemens was a civilized guy who wrote as Mark Twain, "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." Posted by: Terry Heaton at January 20, 2006 3:08 PM | Permalink
Posted by: Phredd at January 20, 2006 3:09 PM | Permalink What does calling a reporter (or anyone, for that matter) 'bitch' or 'whore' or even less pleasant descriptives have to do with criticism of a report or 'challenging the big megaphone' of the media? It has nothing to do with thin-skin or fear of criticism to reject boorish behavior. And spewing venom has nothing to do with critiquing the report and/or reporter. Or ombudsman. If the net is capable of self-correcting errors faster and more efficiently then old-school media, then what stops it from correcting boorish and hateful behavior during discussions? Clearly, Brady is open to keeping communication open as he continues to respond to reader anger over the Howell mess. But the deserved spanking that Howell received from readers was undone by the childishly venomous reaction of some critics, not by Brady. I don't blame Brady for shutting it down. It righteous anger can drown out the obscene and hateful response, then we've got bigger problems than post.blog. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 20, 2006 3:15 PM | Permalink Here's a recent example from Jane Hamsher's Web site about what I'm talking about. It's oh so substantive, and classy, too. It's a comment about a recent book, unread by me, by a National Review editor, called "Women who Make the World Worse." There's a series of vituperative, one-star reviews posted on Amazon by people who don't share the author's conservative politics. Here's the Hamsher posting: "I'd also like to thank Amazon for keeping the one star ratings on Kate O'Beirne's book as long as they did (and I like to think it was some self-respecting woman at Amazon who was responsible for holding out against extreme publisher/right wing pressure for so long, and if so, hon, you are my hero). It was long enough, however, to put the book in the shitter where it belongs and as we promised, the bitch is dead meat." Anyone who wants to pay attention to this kind of stuff is welcome to, I guess. I think it's a a waste of time. It's crude, it's low class, it's not persuasive, it's wearying to read. Signal in the noise? The person who generates such noise doesn't have a signal worth listening to. Posted by: Dexter Westbrook at January 20, 2006 3:23 PM | Permalink Damn. Er, that should be "It righteous anger can't drown out the obscene and hateful response, then we've got bigger problems than post.blog. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 20, 2006 3:28 PM | Permalink Wow. That was maybe the most fatuous exhcange I've ever read, I think Brady is even denser than I assumed. No sense given him credit for putting back something he shouldn't have removed before he puts it back. Maybe this time they will explain their "rules." Get it, Jay? Howard Weaver above: ...namely, that the vituperation and name-calling simply come to dominate the conversation and crowd out more useful discussion. Totally agree. As do many others I'd guess. Even happens here on occasion(!) One way to improve this a bit is with more robust discussion software, such as that running Slashdot or other sites where discussions are threaded, and allow comment scoring and such. That's generally a much more involved setup though, both technically and maintenance-wise. DailyKos uses such software, but I don't read it so I don't know how well it does or doesn't work. It seems to help quite a bit at Slashdot in my experience. But eventually that sort of thing will probably need to be more widely implemented. At least for myself and many others to be able to get through active comment sections without saying "screw it" and going to check the weather. Another one of those "substantive" posts by Jane Hamsher: referring to O'Beirne as "Sandpaper Snatch." Yeah, plenty of signal in that noise! Posted by: Dexter Westbrook at January 20, 2006 3:35 PM | Permalink Dexter, feel free to substantively address what Hamsher has written about the Post and Howell anytime. Someone here said that Brady is "open" to having transparent blog dialogue about the Post, and actually praised him for the remark. Yes, he's "open" to it, as he's shut down all dissenting voices on the blog to Howell's peculiar, fact free variant of journalism. Just like Deng Xiaoping was "open" to the Democracy Movement in Tiananmen Square. The whole thing is a joke, and everyone knows it, and his primary objective, apparently ordered by Post management, is to give Howell a platform this Sunday to write whatever absurd nonsense to she wants to write about the blog, Abramoff and the Democrats, free of any criticism on the Post's site. As I said, I sense Guild or attorney involvement here. Brady will have those comments back up on the website about 3 or 4 days after Howell's column runs on Sunday. That looks like it could be the deal that got cut. Amazing that the Post would like a hack journalist destroy the viability of its Internet site, but that's what it is doing. Hopefully, as I said, Brady is looking for another job, because the Post, and people like Howell, will never tire of making him a public laughingstock again and again, as they are doing now. Can't wait to read DailyKos, firedoglake, Brad Delong, et al, after Howell's column runs on Sunday. It's going to the journalistic equivalent of the Titanic. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 20, 2006 3:44 PM | Permalink Whoa! Brady "shut down all dissenting voices?" And he's like Deng Xiaoping? Who needs perspective, eh, Richard? Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 20, 2006 3:50 PM | Permalink Mr. Estes, Hamsher has nothing of substance worth discussing. That's why she calls people "bitch" and "sandpaper snatch." Have fun wading through the hatred. Posted by: Dexter Westbrook at January 20, 2006 3:53 PM | Permalink I think it would have been far better had Howell said something along the lines of I have reread those reports and I see readers are quite correct; no Democrat took money from Abramoff. This incident teaches me how important it is to read carefully and how easy it is to make a mistake. It gives me better insight as to how reporters can get it wrong and will make me a better ombudsman. I greatly regret the error. Had she said something along those lines the incident would have been closed and further criticism would have looked churlish. I think the Washington Post would do well to adopt some sort of Slashdot style of registration and self-moderation. It is effective with a minimum support requirement. Jay, you are exactly correct when you say that partisans are a political reporter’s best customer. That is true in any market; but particularly in a town where politics is the chief activity. I also think leaving nasty comments, including those which call into question a staffer’s possible ancestry or personal virtue, should be left up. They are self-discrediting. Lastly, it ought to be kept in mind what Washington, DC is like. We have a President, 100 Senators, 435 Congressmen, the IMF, World Bank, numerous associations and embassies. All of these organizations receive voluminous mail, much of it nasty. I can’t think of a community less sympathetic to those too thin skinned to deal with nasty comments. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 20, 2006 3:56 PM | Permalink Richard E., if you can't wait to read DKos, fdl, Delong, why bother with the WaPo? As far as Hamsher, Limbaugh has a huge following of dittoheads who think that he is substantive. By that standard does that make Rush and Jane substantive? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 20, 2006 4:00 PM | Permalink Dexter-- "Crude, low class, wearying to read" is an aesthetic judgment. Jay, in his "signal in the noise" idea was not engaging in aesthetics. I took him to suggest that he expects to find an underlying authentic attitude, even in the face of an unappealing presentation. If so, I agree with Jay in this instance. By way of historical example, there were plenty of liberal types who were blindsided by the Gingrich Revolution in the 90s because they dismissed the resonant message of Rush Limbaugh et al on account of talkradio's tone ("low class" and "wearying" perhaps?). Similarly nowadays those same chattering classes fail to realize that Bill O'Reilly strikes a chord in the body politic, seeing only his pomposity and vituperation. The messenger is not required to be either aesthetically pleasing or civil first, before being qualified to represent a viable point of view. However, Dexter, you are right to the extent that debate would be more stimulating if people accompanied their signals with less noise. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at January 20, 2006 4:01 PM | Permalink Public internet forums hosted by major media organizations were quite fashionable about 5-10 years ago, but most were cancelled by their hosts for uncertain reasons. Even C-SPAN, the pinnacle of public service in the media, quietly axed its polite and worthwhile internet "Community Forum" in late 2004. It seems the MSM (...and even C-SPAN) do not really like the daily experience of dealing with uncontrolled input from their public -- apparently it's too untidy & unsettling. Operating a successful public internet forum, of course, requires some daily effort & administrative attention -- but it is certainly a reasonably straightforward and inexpensive task. Several good ones have thrived for many years. For what specific 'purpose' did the Washington Post management originally start their blog/forums ?? Do they even know ? Posted by: DavidisonM at January 20, 2006 4:24 PM | Permalink i have said this elsewhere on other forums: tho i did not read every single comment on the mirrored caches of the post.com's comments, none of them rose above (or sank below, if you will) the standard set by chris matthews, rush limbaugh, sean hannity, michael savage, or indeed, any op-ed page (including the post's) in the country. some were strident, some were forceful, most were passionate, several angry, and some downright more clever than anything howell ever wrote (i especially liked the one that said the skipper, gilligan and mary ann voted ms. howell off the island). but what else did the post expect when it vetted a blatant falsehood as fact, and then refused to acknowledge the proofs that were offered that showed as much? it's a bit like hearing your parents admonish you "kids, we're not going to discuss why we killed your pet dog until you stop screaming." only this time the dog is the truth. a national newspaper cannot regurgitate partisan talking points presented as the truth and not expect emotions to run high. and the supposed "proofs" that ms. howell provided online links for neglected to substantiate several important missing steps, ie, were the clients already giving monies to the democrats, were those monies supposedly "directed" by abramoff actually ever received by democrats, and were the democrats aware of abramoff's invovlement, thus ensuring quid pro quo, to allow ms. howell to allege as much? no, howell made assumptions and published them as fact, and then refused to acknowledge it when the readers called her on it. there is nothing that escalates emotions more than insisting to engage in dialogue, without actually hearing the other side (and being blatant about your refusal). as for jane hamsher's points, even jay must admit she is correct that setting up a national online forum must per force involve an expectation of troll-weeding, and if not, then the responsibility for the resulting fiasco lies with those who set up the forum without foresight, and not the trolls themselves. trolls are a fact of life on the internets. don't open the door to the public and then get upset because they don't dress as nice as you do. it takes very little effort and time to delete offending comments, as jay, jane, dkos and others can tell you. and therefore, we can only assume that washpost.com deleted the entire batch to eliminate the offending factual points the readers provided. Andrew: I tried to address your earlier question about moderation in what I added to "My commentary." This post was linked to by Instapundit and Firedoglake around the same time. That's something that hasn't happened before. Nobody at the Post has taken responsibility for Howell's comments. Nobody has printed a retraction, and the wagons have been circled by the likes of Howie Kurtz and Jim VandeHei, who now excuses Howell's comments as "a somewhat inartful way of making the point that Abramoff's clients, at his direction, gave money to members of both parties." Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 20, 2006 4:41 PM | Permalink Brady's whining about lack of civility and name-calling is absurd. I read many posts as they came up live, and the ones that were truly out of line were relatively few. The use of the term "hate speech" -- by Vandehei, specifically, and perhaps other Post-people -- to describe garden-variety name-calling is truly bizarre and probably quite revealing of their true political leanings. Anyway, what a bunch of whiny babies! Posted by: nobody at January 20, 2006 4:42 PM | Permalink "Crude, low class, wearying to read" is an aesthetic judgment. Jay, in his "signal in the noise" idea was not engaging in aesthetics .... The messenger is not required to be either aesthetically pleasing or civil first, before being qualified to represent a viable point of view. I think what Dexter is longing for is an aesthetics of Internet debate.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 20, 2006 4:43 PM | Permalink Seems to me you can have a "thick skin" against words only to the extent the words are allowed to have impact. IMO, journalists don't have "thick skins" as much as they have an iron-clad view that no reader complaint could possibly have legitimacy. Then, when something like this happens, there is no armor. Thomas Lifson's communication with the NYT about the faked picture from the strike in Pakistan is a case in point. The reply, possibly from Keller, indicates complete lack of interest in the subject. Keller, or whomever it was, doesn't need a thick skin. They did nothing wrong and so nothing anybody says about it has any heft. There is no need for a thick skin in that situation, for a real-life example. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 20, 2006 4:46 PM | Permalink Dexter plays the attack the messenger game. Jane praised Brady initially in her post: I respect Jim Brady, he's made a series of smart decisions for the Washington Post online that have really given the paper an amazing internet presence, far ahead of the New York Times or anyone else. But the reason he gave for shutting off the comments to Deborah Howell's blog is just absurd.. Does that sound hateful to you? The basic issue here is that she didn’t deliver the exact message her critics wanted her to. She didn't deliever the truth! If Howell responded quickly and made a change to her initially "faulty" reporting this would have been averted but she and the Post stuck their heads in the sand. Posted by: John Amato at January 20, 2006 4:46 PM | Permalink One problem is that the left is outraged by the very idea of an ombudmsman at a major newspaper that doesn't automatically dismiss the right. Criticizing anything that can be characterized as coming from left of center is just salt in the wound. But Brady is right--the main problem is the filth and personal assaults in the comments section. I don't read blogs that permit that kind of garbage for very long. People who enjoy that are free to run their own sites, and do. It's a shame they've had to close it down, but I hope it's temporary and that they figure out how to run a spirited establishment that can't get overrun by the thugs. And another thing: There can't be a major national newspaper that invites anywhere near the amount of criticism and reader participation than the Washington Post. Which is nice, since politically it still skews to the left and which, last time I checked, still lacked an identifiably conservative voice at washingtonpost.com. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at January 20, 2006 4:50 PM | Permalink "The basic issue here is that she didn’t deliver the exact message her critics wanted her to." Could Brady be any more condescending? And they wonder why people are angry at them. Posted by: nobody at January 20, 2006 4:51 PM | Permalink Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what Brady is actually saying is that the presence of incivility on the Post blog created a burden because it meant that someone from Post.com actually had to read the comments, rather than just let them sit there unread, safe in the knowledge that they contained nothing offensive.... it seems to me that if someone at the Post was actually reading the comments, it wouldn't be much of an effort to hit a "delete" key when they found an offensive one. In other words, ordinarily nobody at the Post much cares what people say in the comments section of the Post.com blog --- and its only because people started getting nasty that Howell (and other Post reporters being called "b*tch" or "wh*re") cared what was being written by the rabble. Rosen overlooks Howell's true crime as an ombud i.e., cheerleading, and by doing so, commits another Howell sin, e.g., carelessness, though by several order of magnitude, transgresses far less than would-be "liberals" brimming with unfocused vitriol. Howell: "Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." Note: Howell is NOT making the assertion herself though in the context of cheerleading coverage by the Post, IS recounting Smith's reportage that Abramoff "made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." Thus, reasonable, salient responses to Howell's panegyric might include: 1) did SCHMIDT literally or substantively report what Howell repeated (that Abramoff "made substantial contributions to both major parties")?; 2) and if so, was SCHMIDT'S reportage accurate? Ditto Howell on Birnbaum: Howell: "The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money." Here again, Howell is NOT asserting her finding that certain Democrats may have "gotten Abramoff campaign money," but rather and instead, BIRNBAUM'S conclusion to this effect. Rosen: "Her both-sides-fed-at-the-trough statements have been called inaccurate, outrageous, unfortunate, less-than artful. 'He had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties…' I read these strained descriptions of bipartisan exposure as more of a wish— a wish for balance in the facts of the scandal itself." No, they were less Howell's statements than those of Schmidt and Birnbaum; but yes, such statements demand more than reflex parroting by an ombud and should compel investigation, clarification, reconciliation or correction. To this end, Howell's subsequent clarification that Abramoff "directed" campaign contributions to both parties is perfectly consistent with Josh Marshall's acknowledgement that a) "general" discussions of "Abramoff money", however imprecise or problematic, refer less to "personal contributions from Abramoff" than they do campaign "contributions from entities [Abramoff] worked for as a lobbyist" and b) that Abramoff directed tribal contributions to specific members of Congress (Marshall: "We know from some of the publicly released emails, that Abramoff in many cases used his clients' bank accounts very much as if they were his own, often giving them specific amounts and recipients for political contributions"). That Marshall -- a leading, credible sentinel on all things Abramoff -- is an adult, unlike the incontinent hordes of Hamsher/Atrios, is not an insignificant distinction. Marshall: When you hear about Republicans and Democrats getting 'Abramoff money' what's being talked about aren't personal contributions from Abramoff but contributions from entities he worked for as a lobbyist. So, for instance, Abramoff lobbies for Indian tribe X. Indian tribe X contributes to politician Y. Hence, politician Y got 'Abramoff money'. Posted by: sinsneer at January 20, 2006 4:55 PM | Permalink corr. "Howell is NOT making the assertion herself though in the context of cheerleading coverage by the Post, IS recounting [Schmidt's] reportage" Posted by: sinsneer at January 20, 2006 5:01 PM | Permalink I just ran through the official corrections posted by WP online since the ombudsman's column ran and, unless I missed it (entirely possible, please let me know if so), the paper has not run an official correction of her plain misstatement of fact. Her days-late clarification noting "A better way to have said it..." only added to the problem. When you state a fact incorrectly, you have a duty to cop to that quite normal turn of events and correct the record. The Post invited some of this firestorm on itself by ignoring that simple principle. She might have meant to say something different or more nuanced, but what she wrote was factually inaccurate and that requires a correction. No harm, no foul if it's offered up with reasonable speed and in good faith. The problem seems to be that Howell and the Post are in a defensive crouch because of who they perceive as demanding a correction. And while it's true that there are many interpretations of any given truth under the sun, there are bedrock facts that don't change no matter who's pointing them out. If I write about an event as taking place on Tuesday and it really took place on Monday, it doesn't matter whether Shirley Temple or Osama bin Laden points out my error; I made a mistake and am required to correct it. Why is that seemingly so difficult for the Post to grasp? Her statement that "a number of Democrats... have gotten Abramoff campaign money" is factually inaccurate, no matter what she actually intended to say. If the Post had run a simple correction on Monday, my guess is this would not have exploded nearly to this level. In writing about a nuanced political story, it's no crime to get a detail wrong. But refusing to correct it shows bad faith and a fairly shocking level of intellectual dishonesty. As the Hon. Judge Elihu Smails might put it, "Well, we're waiting..." Also, Jay, your comment about Howell's apparent need to see the Abramoff scandal "balanced between the two major parties" regardless of the facts on the ground I think is just a great example of that tired editorial writer's trope of casting "a pox on both their houses" regardless of who's implicated in a scandal because that's the balanced (and lazy and least likely to offend--at least in the days before everyone on the web was empowered to instantly cry foul) way of treating these issues. Clearly, that practice has to stop, which coincidentally is what I argued in my column this week. Posted by: Frank Sennett at January 20, 2006 5:06 PM | Permalink There is no "heart and soul of politics" in them. Their "heart and soul" is trying to find the most vicious and rude way to insult you. I wouldn't want those people as my customers. Really, I don't think there is anything wrong with a blogger (from any side, angle?) calling attention to something and directing their readers to register a complaint (if they agree), however I agree with Dexter that Hamsher has taken things too far (particularly in regards to O'Breine) If the comparison is, well Rush Limbaugh does it, is that a good thing? Encouraging and or thanking readers for spamming the review section of a book they haven't obviously read with the sole purpose of discouraging others from buying it is childish and in my opinion the equivalent what she is accusing the Post of...quashing opinion, censoring ideas. I don't expect Jane's readers to be Kate O'Breine fans with comments like "the bitch is deadmeat", but come on? Uh here is an idea, encourage a few of your blog readers to read the book so to therefore compile sensible and reasonable arguments to counter Kate's claims? Also, I am unaware of the last time Rush Limbaugh said something like that, and if he did he's a jerk too. I thought the suggestion of having commenters (at the Post) register to comment was a decent one. I think that would discourage the senseless, just for shock value comments (the ones that contain nothing but attacks and threat types) and would help moderators keep track of the usual suspects. Also, thanks Jay. You are tough nut and I appreciate that. Posted by: topsecretk9 at January 20, 2006 5:08 PM | Permalink I will believe Brady if Washington Post promises that it will never ever publish the rantings of the Republicans when they question the patriotism of democrats. Posted by: anonymous at January 20, 2006 5:14 PM | Permalink Hmm. Hamsher linked to you. Wonder if you get a taste of the Post predicament now? This should be interesting. Posted by: topsecretk9 at January 20, 2006 5:16 PM | Permalink Sennett: Her statement that "a number of Democrats... have gotten Abramoff campaign money" is factually inaccurate, no matter what she actually intended to say. Marshall: When you hear about Republicans and Democrats getting 'Abramoff money' what's being talked about aren't personal contributions from Abramoff but contributions from entities he worked for as a lobbyist. So, for instance, Abramoff lobbies for Indian tribe X. Indian tribe X contributes to politician Y. Hence, politician Y got 'Abramoff money'. Ergo, Josh Marshall, "inaccurate," ibid. "A partisan GOP hack/shill/tool who should be fired." Posted by: sinsneer at January 20, 2006 5:21 PM | Permalink Meanwhile CNN hires Glen Beck who says: "...you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year. And I had such compassion for them, and I really wanted to help them, and I was behind, you know, "Let's give them money, let's get this started." All of this stuff. And I really didn't -- of the 3,000 victims' families, I don't hate all of them. Probably about 10 of them. And when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh shut up!" I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." Yeah Jane Hamsher is so much worse ! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at January 20, 2006 5:26 PM | Permalink The problem is simply this: Deborah Howell is in over her head. She cannot see her own bias and essentially refuses to accept criticism. She has a high profile position and she feels that this should insulate her from criticism. It doesn't, and it will not, no matter how much she ignores reader dismay and anger. The problem runs deeper than this. There are a number of journalists at the Washington Post who, if not biased, could be a lot more sceptical and do more investgation into the background material pertinent to their writing. It has become more difficult in recent years to do accurate reporting which reflects a modicum of objectivity. Readers are demanding more, especially after the unfortunate, hapless failures of Judith Miller and Bob Woodward. The American people deserve better, and we're becoming more vocal and insistent in our expectations. Deborah Howell, for one, has been found wanting. Repeatedly. Posted by: Jim Young at January 20, 2006 5:28 PM | Permalink More Glen Back: "Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure." Posted by: David Ehrenstein at January 20, 2006 5:28 PM | Permalink Then there's Kellyanne Conway on Joe (dead intern) Scarborough's show: "If you held a piece of tissue paper between some of the comments that Bin Laden today and some of the comments that the president's detractor's say-it would be very difficult to stick more than a piece of tissue paper between--there's not much of a difference." Posted by: David Ehrenstein at January 20, 2006 5:30 PM | Permalink Jay, thanks for posting that excerpt from Hamsher's most recent post on the topic. I was about to do it myself. Perhaps Dexter, who likes to comment upon everything that Hamsher writes that is unrelated to this subject, will respond? And, please note, as Hamsher wrote elsewhere in that post, the hate speech/insult excuse for the shutting down of the blog is gaining traction. It's being used by the Post's friends in the media to get it off the hook for refusing to repudiate the false reporting of Howell and Schmidt on the Abramoff case. The Post is adamant about persisting in its access journalism and recycling GOP talking points. Accordingly, Brady would have us believe that there is no way to filter and monitor comments to the blog without shutting down the blog entirely and removing all comments. He would have us believe that there is no way to restore the original comments FOR SEVERAL DAYS. Earth to Brady: it's 2006, not 1936. Why is he putting out such nonsense? Because, it is essential that the public at large be preventing from legitimately criticizing what Howell, Schmidt, and their enabler, Kurtz, are doing, apparently with the support of Post management. Jay, next time you talk to Brady, please ask him these two questions: (1) Have you been required to consult with the Post's legal counsel before making any public statements? (2) If so, what have they advised you to say? Why do I think that the New York Observer is going to break an embarassing story about this? Posted by: Richard Estes at January 20, 2006 5:35 PM | Permalink Why uncorrected lies by Deborah Howell matter... Kyra Phillips on CNN today, discussing the Howell controversy (as quoted by Atrios).... What set off readers was a Sunday column by Post ombudsman Deborah Howell who wrote that corrupt former lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans. That's true but most of the money went to Republicans. and, Duncan explained the feelings of a lot of people when he wrote... The problem really is that no matter how many times we try to kill right wing horseshit (or as Media Matters delicately calls it, "conservative misinformation") it keeps coming back to haunt us. It infects the media bloodstream. We politely ask for corrections. They don't happen. We start screaming for corrections. They still don't happen. Eventually some half-assed weaselly blame-the-uncivil-critics statement is released. We scream louder. And, then, the horeshit pops up again on CNN. Did the Post require a valid email address (i.e. a registration system) in order to post a comment? If not, why not? Posted by: Dan Gillmor at January 20, 2006 5:56 PM | Permalink I didn't attack Jane Hamsher. I just quoted what she says. "The bitch is dead meat." "Sandpaper snatch." I certainly don't read and comment on everything Hamsher writes. It would be a waste of my time. She's a troll with a Web site. The only thing she demonstrates is the depths to which people can sink. As for the fellow that somebody said CNN hired, who has a habit of saying repulsive things, I've never heard of him, and I certainly don't plan to watch him. In any case, is that your argument? CNN hires somebody who's off the hook, so Jane Hamsher isn't so bad? The truth is, they are both repulsive. The sad thing is, it's not hard to make an argument without being repulsive. Really. Is calling someone a "bitch" or "sandpaper snatch" really necessary? Does it gain you respect? Is it worth defending? Posted by: Dexter Westbrook at January 20, 2006 6:05 PM | Permalink sinsneer (5:21 p.m.): What you quote is Marshall is addressing what other people mean when they refer to "Abramoff money." He goes on to reject that use of the phrase as a problematic generalization, one which he says is "unfairly tarring" people when used to describe those didn't get money directly from Jackoff or otherwise weren't in on Jackoff's illegal schemes. In other words, Marshall is rejecting the smear that Howell used. He's criticizing the use of "Abramoff money" to mean anything other than Abramoff's money; he's not endorsing it. Also, Howell isn't simply reporting what Schmidt and Birnbaum wrote. That would be a pointless effort (readers already know what the reporters wrote, which is why they contacted Howell to complain) and isn't part of her job description ("The Ombudsman serves as the reader's advocate. She attends to questions, comments and complaints regarding The Post's content"). Howell's job is to address readers' concerns as to whether what Schmidt and Birnbaum wrote was accurate or, alternatively, whether the readers' criticisms of what was reported are fair criticisms (which also requires addressing the accuracy of the reporters' claims). It's Howell's job to address the factual merits of what was in the paper -- in response to, and on behalf of -- the readership she supposedly represents. Posted by: Roger Ailes at January 20, 2006 6:08 PM | Permalink Just when you thought Deborah Howell, Jim Brady, and WaPo who tried to erase all evidence of comments on the WaPo’s Blog as reported by the Drudge Report do you realize that those search engine bots worked faster than they did in trying to blink them out of existence. Not to mention a couple of blog sites that got some of the earlier and later blog comments archived. I found the January 17th and 18th comments, WaPo Lies have the January 15th and 16th comments archived while Democratic Underground has the January 19th archived. http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2006/01/deborah-howell-failed-to-get-rid-of.html Why couldn't WaPo just leave the comments as they are and just turn off the comments so no more would be added after 4 days of attempted deletion that finally ended with the whole thing disappearing. Expecting civility from commenters in the blogosphere is like trying not to upset a nervous and overly-protective skunk. You'll know it when you get hit. And it'll stay with you even if you do kill that skunk.
Posted by: mcconnell at January 20, 2006 6:11 PM | Permalink No, Dexter. My point is Jane Hamsher has a blog -- like zillions of other people. And you take grave exception to it. Nothing Jane has said on her blog has turned up in the much-discussed Washington Post blogposts. Glenn Beck has been hired by CNN -- a major disseminator of television news reaching millions of people world-wide. Just a tad different than a blog, donchathink? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at January 20, 2006 6:12 PM | Permalink Well, Mr. Westbrook, it appears then that we have two trolls in the White House. President Bush (from Labor Day 2000) "There's Adam Clymer -- major league asshole -- from the New York Times," Bush said. "Yeah, big time," returned Cheney. Vice-President Cheney (from June 22, 2004) The discussion ended with Cheney telling Leahy to "... go fuck yourself" and giving Leahy the middle finger. I've heard of these foul-mouthed miscreants, and yet somehow they keep getting air time. Does [this kind of language] gain you respect? Is it worth defending? So tell me... is Hamsher just blowing off steam? Or are Bush and Cheney just trolls not even worth our listening/viewing time? Posted by: Daryl J at January 20, 2006 6:17 PM | Permalink If Limbaugh said something like "the bitch is dead meat," it would represent the rarest display of candor. What we're dealing with here is a discourse that has become so polluted by Limbaugh and his progeny that blatent falsehood -- not to mention character assassination -- apparently no longer disqualifies any "commentary" from respect by our media, provided of course it comes from the right. This is only the beginning, only a small hole in the dyke. There is an ocean of pent-up outrage behind it. Posted by: nobody at January 20, 2006 6:20 PM | Permalink Roger Ailes is, I think, right to bring up the job description. Where I think Howell went wrong was in her idea for a column praising the Post for its Abramoff coverage. Was that an interest readers had? Was it a reader-driven column? It seemed to me newsroom-driven. Also, the obudsman's column, and the pages it appears on, should be among the most Web literate, user-friendly, context-giving pages the site has. But Howell's columns don't even have links. Is that tenable in 2006? I would say no, it's untenable. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 20, 2006 6:20 PM | Permalink "The basic issue here is that she didn’t deliver the exact message her critics wanted her to." Telling the TRUTH isn't about always about "inartful wording" in this case its black and white. Saying that Abramoff gave money to democrats is a lie, period. And as demonstrated by Kyra on CNN's pick up of the Post's inartful falsehood, a lie is around the world before the truth gets out of bed. CIVILITY? People are so desperate about this because if we can't trust the Post, we have no one left in the mainstream print media, we will never bridge the ideological civil war that the republicans have started, until we as a people can agree on facts. Howell's (the OMSBUDSMAN!)disregard for a very important fact, advances the horrible he-said-she-said relativism that has taken over everything except a few outlets like the Post. And the Post's biggest fans, the readers who commented, some 'inartfully', are the ones who fear to lose the otherwise stellar reporting the Post offers them. Posted by: Lee Gray at January 20, 2006 6:21 PM | Permalink Finally the words we have all waited to hear from PressThink: "Roger Ailes is, I think, right..." Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at January 20, 2006 6:22 PM | Permalink Did the Post require a valid email address (i.e. a registration system) in order to post a comment? If not, why not? IF the Post's blogging system accommodates such options, we'd agree mail registration might help, as would certain types of (automated) abuse-triggered filtering. For example, if Post blog content were capable of integration with Typekey -- which many Knight-Ridder papers now incorporate into their online blogs -- email registration would be relatively simple, though not without cost, to implement. Otherwise, NYT-like moderation would presumably be more costly with negligible tangible/intangible ROI. Then, there's always the Haloscan standard of open sewage and effluvia currently touted by Atrios, Hamsher etc., to muster largely unemployed, mostly marginalized, imaginatively limited armies of vitriolic shutins to teach "the MSM" an overdue lesson or two. Posted by: sinsneer at January 20, 2006 6:23 PM | Permalink Re: Dan's question about registration, I thought this was interesting. Jay Small: Even if you require registration to post comments, losing that registration profile when you're "kicked out" had better mean something to a misbehaving user -- beyond just the risk that he or she will have to register again. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 20, 2006 6:31 PM | Permalink we've all had the following experience: "please turn that down, it's giving me a headache, sweety." it's just another way of saying what atrios said, but still, does the post really not get it? and of all the right wing posters here, is there not oen who is willing to engage the substance of readers' complaints about howell? it seems like such an artful dodge to say "well someone swore, so that's that". what about the people who didn't swear? and who gives a fuck about swearing? aren't we adults here? are we all so sensitive? Posted by: Robert Green at January 20, 2006 6:33 PM | Permalink Dexter Westbrook's prissy comments show how little ethics has to do with dainty sensibility. The ethical issue is that the prime reporters for the Washington Post have uncritically relayed false information from Delays apologists, the supposed ombudsman from the Post wrote something that was demonstratably false, and that the Post refused to retract or correct, but instead shut down comments because people were mean! Dex, my boy, people in America use bad words and rude language all the time. VP Cheney told a Senator to go fuck himself and even our Holy President is known to curse at times. Those of us in the working world hear that kinda stuff routinely. Toughen up and learn to pay attention to what's important instead of wincing as you hold the lavender scented hankercheif up to your nostrils. Posted by: citizen k at January 20, 2006 6:34 PM | Permalink I am shocked, shocked by all the profanity and hate speech! We at WaPo are so genteel that we faint each time somebody says 'bitch', even when they actually are refering to a female canine! Seriously though, can somebody explain why we have all those colorful phrases in our language if we are not ever to utter them?:) Like I said in a previous post in a previous thread, this makes for a fine case study in journalistic hubris; on how not to engage your readers, especially when you screw up. Posted by: village idiot at January 20, 2006 6:36 PM | Permalink Rebecca Blood in her Weblog Handbook sez: "The weblog's greatest strength---its uncensored, unmediated, uncontrolled voice---is also its greatest weakness." Just sayin'. Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 20, 2006 6:45 PM | Permalink I didn't attack Jane Hamsher. I just quoted what she says. "The bitch is dead meat." "Sandpaper snatch." I certainly don't read and comment on everything Hamsher writes. It would be a waste of my time. She's a troll with a Web site. The only thing she demonstrates is the depths to which people can sink. Excuse me, my irony meter just blew up in my face! One simply wonders, given the above, what you would consider an attack! .... and who was it that was caught by an errant microphone calling a Times reporter a major league a#$hole? Good luck to the culture police:) Posted by: village idiot at January 20, 2006 6:52 PM | Permalink Where I think Howell went wrong was in her idea for a column praising the Post for its Abramoff coverage. Was that an interest readers had? Was it a reader-driven column? It seemed to me newsroom-driven. Jay, I think that the impetus to do a column on the Post's Abramoff coverage was from "readers" -- specifically, it was a response to criticism of the Schmidt/Grimaldi "profile" of Abramoff that was published on December 29th --- you know, the one that said... DeLay, a Christian conservative, did not quite know what to make of Abramoff, who wore a beard and a yarmulke. They forged political ties, but the two men never became personally close, according to associates of both men. that piece - specifically that quote, created quite a stir, and doubtless generated numerous complaints to Howell. But I think that its correct to say that Howell's approach to the topic was "newsroom driven". *************************** I think that Brady does "get it".... check out the "Special Report" page on Abramoff that Howell cited, which includes a prominently displayed "box" entitled Jack Abramoff & the DeLay Scandal. The text which introduces the list of related articles says.... Jack Abramoff, whom Rep. Tom DeLay once called "one of my closest and dearest friends," held fundraisers for the congressman and arranged for DeLay to accompany him on a luxury golf trip to Scotland and a trip to the Northern Mariana Islands. Abramoff also maintained close ties with DeLay aides. ********************* and the Post.blog has restored some of the comments Some Comments Returned Some previously posted comments have been returned to post.blog. Specifically, all comments that meet washingtonpost.com's standards for community interaction have been returned to the post Now here's a political analysis of what's up with the press attacks, via The Talent Show. The whole reason lefty-bloggers have been pointing out this media misinformation over and over again is to defend you guys. Since you beltway chickenshits have proven yourselves unwilling to defend your own views, we've put ourselves in the unenviable position of going up against media giants whose primary concern is avoiding the ire of conservative watchdog groups. And now that the inevitable pushback is occurring, the conventional wisdom is coalescing around the lie that bloggers and their readers are ignorant, vindictive trolls who add nothing to polite discourse. Here we are trying to pick up the slack for your ineffective war rooms and this is the thanks we get? We've got your back, why can't you get ours? Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 20, 2006 6:59 PM | Permalink I see that someone already beat me to it while I was getting my WiFi connection to communicate; did not mean to repeat, sorry. Posted by: village idiot at January 20, 2006 7:02 PM | Permalink To my fellow bloggers, all I can say, let turn up the heat. It's the only way guys like Brady know we are pissed off. We got our message out, whether or not the comments section was removed. The Post now knows that we know that its ombudsman prints untruthful statements and refuses to correct herself when given the opportunity. And the reason they know this, again, is us. Plain and simple. I say: good work! And let's do more of it...We are starting to make a real difference... - Posted by: Hank Essay at January 20, 2006 7:05 PM | Permalink Ailes: Also, Howell isn't simply reporting what Schmidt and Birnbaum wrote. That would be a pointless effort (readers already know what the reporters wrote, which is why they contacted Howell to complain). Have you read the article? No, that's exactly what Howell "reported" -- which is the crux of the problem. "Getting the Abramoff Story" was, essentially, a "pointless effort" of uncritical regurgitation -- though most of her critics failed to even get that right. Ailes: Howell's job is to address readers' concerns as to whether what Schmidt and Birnbaum wrote was accurate or, alternatively, whether the readers' criticisms of what was reported are fair criticisms (which also requires addressing the accuracy of the reporters' claims). It's Howell's job to address the factual merits of what was in the paper -- in response to, and on behalf of -- the readership she supposedly represents. Yes, we said as much earlier, though "restatements" might more accurately describe what Howell conveyed: @5:21-- "No, they were less Howell's statements than those of Schmidt and Birnbaum; but yes, such statements demand more than reflex parroting by an ombud and should compel investigation, clarification, reconciliation or correction."; also @5:21-- "Rosen overlooks Howell's true crime as an ombud i.e., cheerleading,"; likewise @5:21-- "Howell is NOT making the assertion herself though in the context of cheerleading coverage by the Post, IS recounting Smith's reportage ... Thus, reasonable, salient responses to Howell's panegyric might include: 1) did SCHMIDT literally or substantively report what Howell repeated? ... 2) and if so, was SCHMIDT'S reportage accurate?" Howell, from her original post and subsequent response, did not independently investigate the conclusions of Schmidt nor Birnbaum in the reportage cited and thus "restates" THEIR findings that Abramoff directed contributions to both parties. Ailes: He goes on to reject that use of the phrase as a problematic generalization, one which he says is "unfairly tarring" people ... No, you are misquoting Marshall and revising his thrust: In the case of exceptions, Josh says there are members of Congress with ex ante ties to Indian issues or by local proximity who are, "to some extent, being unfairly tarred." Josh is also QUITE CLEAR that those Republicans AND Democrats who reportedly received "Abramoff money" are NOT exclusively defined by personal contributions received from Abramoff but also and include "contributions from entities [Abramoff] worked for as a lobbyist." Marshall is also QUITE CLEAR that Abramoff directed tribal clients to make donations based on "publicly released emails, that Abramoff in many cases used his clients' bank accounts very much as if they were his own, often giving them specific amounts and recipients for political contributions." More Marshall: "In many cases, too, he had them make donations that had little or nothing to do with their own interests (defined in lobbying terms)." Posted by: sinsneer at January 20, 2006 7:12 PM | Permalink Brady still refuses to deal with the heart of the matter, which is the shoddy reporting by the WaPo as a whole, particularly in the cases of Schmidt, Willis, Howell and Kurtz, who spend more time trying to blunt the impact of the Abramoff scandal by implying that it is a bipartisan affair. And now to try to flame Jane Hamsher for the Post's own failings--shame. It's clear that Brady doesn't get it, or if he does, the heat is on from above. It's scuttlebutt, perhaps, but at least one "high official" in the White House is well-known for his sociopathic and profanity-laced threats to underlings and unruly reporters. Is profanity, then, all right if it is used over the telephone or from superior to underling? That's simply hypocrisy. To remove threatening letters makes sense, but the Post is still removing legitimate comments at the rate of hundreds per hour. Yet reasonable calls for the Post to tell the truth continue to pour in. It's not as though an unruly mob is collected outside the building, torches in hand. Do you think they will ever get it? Posted by: notjonathon at January 20, 2006 7:14 PM | Permalink Brady (and yourself) continues to ignore the following basic contradiction. In his live discussion at the Post's site today (and in previous comments and interviews): 1) Brady said that they had to delete existing comments (and not just disallow future ones, as they did on some posts for a short while) because of 'profanity' in them. 2) Brady said that there was no 'profanity' in the existing comments (as pointed out by readers who went through the cached copies stored on other websites) because they had already deleted offending comments. How can Brady say these two things in consecutive answers without realizing that he makes himself look like a liar who thinks his readers are fools? Brady refuses to admit that he jumped the gun and screwed up on this one (which would be perfectly understandable and readers would forgive). Instead, he's putting himself in the same position as Ms. Howell -- i.e., arrogantly denying the obvious and approaching terminal credibility damage. Posted by: mzw at January 20, 2006 7:24 PM | Permalink hum, because W called Clymer an a-hole and Cheney tells Leahy to go f__ himself, it is ok for commenters to slam Howell and WaPo reporters all kinds of profanity? So 2 instances of profanity by our Prez and Veep allows us to be unciviled? Should you direct your profanity at Bush and Cheney instead of the press? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 20, 2006 7:31 PM | Permalink sinsneer completely mischaracterizes what Josh Marshall says. (And I am quite sure that Josh would be the first to say that he is certainly not the authority on all things Abramoff.) Here is the link to Josh's post than sinsneer so disingenuously mischaracterizes. Posted by: Phredd at January 20, 2006 7:43 PM | Permalink There are two issues here, one minor, one major. Unfortunately the trivial one is titillating enough to allow Brady, et. al., to use it as an excuse for skating on the major one. The minor issue is profanity and rough language. Yeah, it's nasty and off-putting, but there are ways of handing that without shutting down the comments entirely. Automatic filters to reject the f-bomb and allied terms help a lot, but I've been wondering for a long time why the folks who do Bayesian filtering for spam in email don't write something to screen the worst of the pottymouth out of blog comments. The elephant in the drawing-room is the general case of how newspapers and other media -- the Press, in Jay's formulation -- handle errors and retractions. Atrios's comment is spot on. We on the Right have given up trying, so it's just amusing to us to watch the indignation from the Left when their propaganda arm shows enough independence to get off message; we go off on blogs and talk radio to bitch, having learned over the years that the Press's attitude is unyielding. They define "the truth" and "newsworthy". Anyone criticizing that is "uncivil" at best. Corrections will not be made in any useful form. The most one can expect is the "false but accurate" waffle, or (more often) the Press apologizes for the fact that people got angry about the error. They will never apologize for the error itself, and the Retractions Editor is the legendary Ms. Waite -- if you want a substantive correction, go to Helen Waite. That habit grew from the fact that corrections are difficult and expensive in print media, and nearly impossible in broadcast, because they displace the current news. That was probably a defensible attitude in the day of steam-driven presses and Uncle Walter in monochrome, but in the modern day, especially on the Internet, it's a lost cause. What the Press did was to elevate a problem impossible of easy solution into a shibboleth basic to their operations. The Press Disposes; that's the way it is, and there will be something else tomorrow. "The first draft of history." So it has mistakes in it. Somebody else will fix that, later. Later is here, and "somebody else" is champing at the bit. If the Press does not back off, realize that it is not The Anointed Prophet of Real TRVTH, and start issuing substantive corrections and retractions when it makes an egregious screwup, this sort of thing will become the norm. There are just too many people out there watching, and some of them know what they're doing. Reporters (and editors) who consider that knowing the subject they're writing about is a loss of status to the Holy Priesthood of the Press will continue to have problems; in fact, their troubles will grow. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at January 20, 2006 7:44 PM | Permalink I side with Jane Hamsher on this one. If the ombudsman is too shy to deal with the public, maybe she should write columns on religion. Posted by: steveb at January 20, 2006 7:46 PM | Permalink WE WANT OUR TALKING POINTS BLESSED BY MSM, dammit. Or else. Posted by: taintedlove at January 20, 2006 7:48 PM | Permalink good one, taintedlove. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 20, 2006 7:53 PM | Permalink Phredd: And I am quite sure that Josh would be the first to say that he is certainly not the authority on all things Abramoff. Ha! I, for one, would love to hear Josh say "sinsneer completely mischaracterizes what Josh Marshall says." Shorter Josh: Abramoff et. al. is CLEARLY a Republican scandal though it's ALSO CLEAR both parties received Abramoff money with Abramoff often directing client contributions to specific members of Congress. Posted by: sinsneer at January 20, 2006 7:55 PM | Permalink Sisneer is completely mischaracterizing Josh Marshall who has been very clear in pointing out that Abramoff's main activity was as a bagman for the Republican machine. Marshall notes that Abramoff was a Republican activist and would surely agree that efforts to portray Abramoff as just a lobbyist with ties to both parties are deeply disingenous. Posted by: citizen k at January 20, 2006 8:05 PM | Permalink Dexter, Unless it is a knowing lie, reporting that Dems got Abramoff money is a third order vice. Unless it is a knowing lie, belatedly issuing an artfully worded non-correction is a second order misdemeanour. Unless irredeemably obtuse, complaining about thereby reaping a harvest of uncivility is a first order crime - given the importance of the substantive subject matter. Infuriating people tend naturally to value the third order virtue of civility. If you can't detect substance at firedoglake you are either irredeemably obtuse or indulging in "civilised" ad hominem. Posted by: AlanDownunder at January 20, 2006 8:09 PM | Permalink When you hear about Republicans and Democrats getting 'Abramoff money' what's being talked about aren't personal contributions from Abramoff but contributions from entities he worked for as a lobbyist. So, for instance, Abramoff lobbies for Indian tribe X. Indian tribe X contributes to politician Y. Hence, politician Y got 'Abramoff money'. Now, is that logic fair? Is that 'Abramoff money'? As a political matter, it probably makes sense now for every pol to unload that money -- a conclusion most of them, as you can see, are coming to on their own. On the merits, though, it's more difficult to make generalizations. We know from some of the publicly released emails, that Abramoff in many cases used his clients' bank accounts very much as if they were his own, often giving them specific amounts and recipients for political contributions. In many cases, too, he had them make donations that had little or nothing to do with their own interests (defined in lobbying terms). For instance, what interest did a couple of Abramoff tribe clients have giving money to the New Hampshire Republican party a day or two before they pulled their phone-jamming scam? There are other cases though where a given politician was associated with Indian rights issues either before Abramoff came on the scene or because of the state or district they represent. There are members of Congress in both parties who fall into that category and are, to some extent, being unfairly tarred. For these reasons, pure dollar amounts can't tell the whole story without getting more deeply into the context. Posted by: Josh Marshall at January 20, 2006 8:13 PM | Permalink Howell's lie - that Abramoff gave money to Democrats - is an inartfully worded lie in support of a bigger and more subtle lie - that Abramoff was not a republican operative, but a lobbyist who corrupted both parties. Posted by: citizen k at January 20, 2006 8:17 PM | Permalink Sisneer is completely mischaracterizing Josh Marshall who has been very clear in pointing out that Abramoff's main activity was as a bagman for the Republican machine. Marshall notes that Abramoff was a Republican activist and would surely agree that efforts to portray Abramoff as just a lobbyist with ties to both parties are deeply disingenous. Posted by: citizen x at January 20, 2006 8:17 PM | Permalink Howell's lie - that Abramoff gave money to Democrats - is an inartfully worded lie in support of a bigger and more subtle lie - that Abramoff was not a republican operative, but a lobbyist who corrupted both parties. Posted by: citizen x at January 20, 2006 8:20 PM | Permalink There's so much spinning going on here, I'm beginning to feel faint (or feint, hee!hee!). Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 20, 2006 8:26 PM | Permalink Ah, the "miserable carping retromingent vigilantes" on the Left are attacking the "nattering nabobs of negativism" with the vitriolic foul language of "righteous anger". I can hear Reed Irvine chuckling in his grave. I just can't tell you how happy it makes me to know the name "sandpaper snatch" for Kate O'Beirne is catching on. Go forth and pass it on. Posted by: Jane Hamsher at January 20, 2006 8:55 PM | Permalink Quoting Brady's online chat today: "If you need to use that language to make your point, I'm sorry, you don't have one." Go! Jane! Go! Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 20, 2006 9:07 PM | Permalink Anyway, what does 'sandpaper snatch' mean? I googled it quickly but could not see any meaninful results. Posted by: village idiot at January 20, 2006 9:31 PM | Permalink Jane's a Natural Born Killer. Read the reviews. Posted by: AnonyMouse at January 20, 2006 9:36 PM | Permalink r u serious? snatch is slang for? and described as sandpaper ... Posted by: AnonyMouse at January 20, 2006 9:39 PM | Permalink oops; never mind .... Posted by: village idiot at January 20, 2006 9:44 PM | Permalink Let me try desparately to be as sincere as possible. To any and all members of the journalistic community: What you are witnessing is the the result of (at least) a decade of deplorable and indefensible behavior on the part of much of the Washington press corps and punditocracy. We remember Clinton's second term -- Whitewater, Travelgate, and on and on. We remember the 2000 election -- Al Gore claims he invented the internet! Al Gore hired a woman to teach him how to be a man! Al Gore wears earth tones! Al Gore heaved a big SIGH! How rude! We remember Florida. We remember that Bush sat still in a 2nd grade classroom while our country was under attack. We remember that a gang of slanderers smeared Max Cleland while the press was essentially silent. We remember that a gang of slanderers smeared John Kerry while the press was essentially silent. We remember high profile members of the media cozying up to Rush Limbaugh. We remember the press's reporting of the run-up to the Iraq invasion. We remember the press's feeding frenzy that stopped Howard Dean's campaign. We remember the punditocracy's portrayal of Al Gore and Howard Dean as insane. So, please forgive us for saying you are all full of shit. Posted by: nobody at January 20, 2006 9:45 PM | Permalink If Google loses the government case, will my search for 'sandpaper snatch' be reported to the DoJ?:) How long before Jay decides enough is enough and takes the sword of righteousness to these impure posts? Posted by: village idiot at January 20, 2006 9:50 PM | Permalink Lame... The basic issue here is that she didn’t deliver the exact message her critics wanted her to. Nonsense. The basic issue is either civility (as Brady would have us believe), or the fact that Deborah Howell made an demonstrably false statement and the Post refused to correct it (as most of the rest of us would aver). This sort of "our critics are just nasty nitpickers" explanations are why people are throwing around words like infantile. Deborah Howell put a lie in her column. The Post has not only refused to retract it, but has defended it. Mealy-mouthed versions of said lie have not surprisingly made their way into the a whole raft of other venues. The issue has been deliberately confused and the factual truth of the matter deliberately distorted. Deliberately. Chew on that for a minute please, Post defenders (including you, Jim Brady). It doesn't matter whether the Post was just protecting itself, or protecting the GOP, or protecting Howell as she deliberately protected the GOP, or just being haughty... Any way you cut it a factual error was deliberately defended. The Post published a lie. Yeah, yeah, happens all the time. We all remember the Clinton years, right? And yeah, it is the Post's privilege to publish things that are factually false, even if they know them to be false before they publish. BTW that privilege is even protected by legal precedent -- set by a suit brought against FNC, astonishingly enough, but I'm sure it applies to print media. So rest easy, Post. It's only your credibility at stake, and plenty of papers keep the bottom line healthy without that. p.s. Dexter dear, Jane Hamsher actually took the trouble to explain her willingness to go all ad hominem on Kate O'Beirne. She didn't get all injured and whiny and self-important, she didn't deny that she was using offensive language, she didn't deny being deliberately inflammatory, and she didn't insult her critics' intelligence... She just didn't back down. If you actually cared I'm sure you could find it in the fdl archives. Posted by: radish at January 20, 2006 9:52 PM | Permalink I just wish the Washington Post would actually follow through on a single scandal. Any of the 30 or so scandals that have been associated with this administration have been bad enough to bring down the government... if we still had a free press. Posted by: BC at January 20, 2006 10:03 PM | Permalink How did this argument become about the acceptable level of pissed-offedness that is allowable at a person who is by the terms of her employment, a failure, and a detriment to the fourth estate? Posted by: Tim at January 20, 2006 10:14 PM | Permalink Get a clue BC, if any of the "scandals" had any truth to them, they would have "brought down the government". For better or worse, our national press is in the business of scandalmongering. Information and truth are cast aside in hopes of "bringing down the government." This was just as true when Clinton was President. This is what the press does now, for better or worse, and most of the "scandals" are partisan driven (left or right) and therefore have limited "truth". Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 20, 2006 10:20 PM | Permalink "I expect a logic correction." I examined your statement and modified the post in question. You may be sorry you asked. Posted by: Mr. Snitch! at January 20, 2006 10:21 PM | Permalink Tim has a good point---fire Howell and appoint Michael Moore and Ann Coulter as replacements. Works for me. Posted by: taintedlove at January 20, 2006 10:28 PM | Permalink On the contrary, I am delighted you replied, Mister. Allows me to see where you are coming from. This post is now at firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, Raw Story, Steve Gilliard, Instapundit, National Review and Romenesko. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 20, 2006 10:30 PM | Permalink I think you're forgetting that Deborah Howell has committed a number of commissions and omissions that have injured and damaged the reputation of others by communicating defamatory statements. A libel cause of action accrues if a defendant publishes a false, defamatory statement of fact about the plaintiff. Defamatory statements are allegations of illegality that constitute Libel Per Se when in written form and Slander Per Se when published orally. You can't compare crimes of defamation that destroys and blackens reputations to the outrage and anger expressed at those who maliciously and consistently are defaming the character of others. Posted by: Leslie Pool at January 20, 2006 10:35 PM | Permalink If nothing else, this comments section shows how very far we have fallen in a few short decades in the quaility of our arch repartee. A phrase worthy of Churchill, or George Bernard Shaw. Now we're reduced to "sandpaper snatch" -- Jane Hamster's gutter description for the crotch of Kate O'Beirne, or for anyone else who disagrees with Jane. I see a Ph.D. thesis in the making here: The Debasement of Political Invective. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 20, 2006 10:37 PM | Permalink From Steve Gilliard via firedoglake: It would also do your argument some good to admit what we both know: journalists have very thin skins and hate criticism. It would be easy to see that Howell was unsettled by the vehemence of the comments directed her way and unnerved by them. Because criticism in journalism has been restricted to the occasional letter, not daily parusing of stories and constant e-mail contact. In short, the public is holding journalists accountable in real time, and that is a shock for many reporters and editors. Sorry if this is already covered elsewhere in this thread. Posted by: village idiot at January 20, 2006 10:38 PM | Permalink The problem is that every time they try to defend their reporter or ombudsman, they do it by sort of acknowledging a problem ("inartfully worded") and then contorting the facts to make it seem like the egregious mistake wasn't so egregious after all. And in doing so, they end up adding to the original mistake. We've seen that over and over again-- rather than simply saying, "Ooops, made a mistake!" and apologizing, the ombudsman has all these defenders out there pushing the truth even farther away. How is a reader supposed to figure out what the facts are, when the supposed reporters and editors are concealing it in order to protect their own? Journalists are not supposed to be defense attorneys. They are not supposed to mount a defense to try to create reasonable doubt. They are supposed to try to convey the truth to their readers. And yes, that might mean saying that your own colleague down the hall screwed up or parroted the spin without analyzing it. It might mean pointing out when a colleague's spouse is on the payroll of someone with an agenda. No, it doesn't win you a lot of points in the company's popularity contests. It might even get you fired. But we have seen reporters who -- however subtly-- have called their own colleagues to account. This is, after all, exactly what their "tenure" and union status is supposed to let them do-- to tell the truth and keep their job. Posted by: jerri at January 20, 2006 10:43 PM | Permalink Does anybody see a quid pro quo in Jim VandeHei going out to bat for Deborah Howell after she did battle for him and Harris with WPNI on the Froomkin column? P.S.: Steve, if Shaw were to be writing today, he might have considered 'SS' rather evocative, and may have perhaps even wished he coined it for one of his more earthy characters! Posted by: village idiot at January 20, 2006 11:01 PM | Permalink Hello Jay, I have been blogging about this also, and I have been following the comments at post.blog since they began (I also have kept copies of the comments if anyone wants them. As an experienced forum moderator/Administrator and blogger, I had a strong suspicion that they would soon be deleted). I understand your point of view Jay, and in many ways I agree with you. I also agree with Jane Hamsher (firedoglake), John Amato (Crooks& Liars), And the several journalists that commented at Poynter Online, and various other bloggers. How can one agree with so many? Especially when it seems that many are at odds? I believe you are all correct from your personal viewpoints. You all agree that there was & is a serious problem. I think that many of the seeming differences stem from not getting each other to recognise the individual point of view. My point of view is this: 1. People had been led to believe that an Ombudsman is the bastion of honesty, integrity, ethics and morals at any media (and in particular, news) outlet. Of course, we know that this ideal is usually far from reality. But there have been some Ombudsmen recently that have at least tried to uphold these values, and risked their careers doing so. And so it went. In the end, the angry customers of WaPo were angry NOT because of what Howell wrote any more, but directly at WaPo for ignoring them or treating them as ignorant children. A few comments from various WaPo employees only served to fan the flames of the readers anger. When WaPo finally did reply, it was a slap in the face of their readers. For THAT, WaPo is guilty and seriously needs to have a hard think about what they are doing. Without customers, there will be no WaPo. So for me, whilst I do indeed understand, and even sympathise with Jim Brady, in the end I cannot help but think of him as a fool. What he should be doing (I believe) is: 1. Apologise to his readers for the way they have been mistreated (whether he thinks they have been or not), I believe (from reading the comments) that this wasn’t ‘just’ about Deborah Howell, many commenters also commented that for them, this was the last straw. They pointed out what they perceived to be the partisan scandals of Bob Woodward and Sue Schmidt. As they saw it, Deborah Howell was the third strike (as at least one commentor pointed out). If Jim learned nothing else from this experience, he must have learned that the rules HAVE changed. News is no longer static. Thanks to the Internet and the blogsphere in particular, news and information is now very dynamic and fast. It is no longer enough for the MSM to tell people what the MSM want’s them to know. People now have the means to verify that information, and call the media organization out if they feel that the information given was wrong in any way. He should also have learned that American’s are finally getting fed up with what they perceive as obvious bias in reporting. They want the MSM to tell the truth, nothing else will do. The fact is that thanks to the reaction of Jim Brady, the WaPo readers now see him as the kid that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. They think it is now obvious that WaPo got caught out in a lie, and were embarrassed, and even angry that they got caught! Just like a child. The readers are disgusted, basically. As several commenters said, WaPo’s credibility is sinking fast. Understand, I am talking about ‘perception’ here. Jim has now made it even harder for WaPo to fix this growing perception of bias. Even other news outlets are publishing stories about it. In some way’s, it’s amusing. :) Just as politics has changed and become personalized and very partisan for the public, so it seems has journalism. There are essentially 4 political support camps now, Democrat, Republican, G. W. Bush, everyone else. It’s no longer about Democrat’s vs Republicans. George Bush has made it personal. So too has journalism become personal. For example, it seems that he readers of the NTY are having a good laugh at WaPo. At the same tome, some NTY readers are having a hard look at NTY, and their ombudsman also. What happened at WaPo could easily happen at NYT or any other news outlet. :) Posted by: Kryten42 at January 20, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink For Christ sake! This issue isn't about the blog comments. This is about the credibility of the newspaper. If the Post can't get basic facts straight -- and the fact in this case, that Abramoff ONLY donates to Republicans, should be obvious to anyone with a pulse in D.C. and any claims to the contrary should be sextuple checked -- then they can shut down the comments, the blog, the website and the printing press for all I care. Is there a purpose to running a newspaper that institutionally refuses to admit errors? Posted by: space at January 20, 2006 11:19 PM | Permalink village idiot: You're going to have to go some before you can convince me -- or Jim Brady, or Jay Rosen -- that "sandpaper snatch" is a proper or effective response to someone who advances a view the opposite of your own. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 20, 2006 11:47 PM | Permalink Steve: It is probably just me; now that I know what it means, it just strikes me as very funny, sort of something I would expect to come across in a Martin Amis book! I am not too much into the left / right thing, so my newfound enjoyment of the phrase remains undiluted by the fact that the wingers are getting a few giggles from the whole thing.:) Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 12:11 AM | Permalink Jay, Thanks for leaving Jane's post up. I think it shows the emptiness of her argument and the limits of her range and her cause. This is politics. In order to have a tool to use against the opposition the corruption has to be totally one sided. Thus any intimation that it is not weakens the case. Thus the hysteria. If both sides are relatively equally involved she loses an issue. Obviously she has been looking for an issue for 5 years and has become desperate. It is a monkey thing in my opinion. When a different regime takes over favors and power are handed out differently. Some monkeys get killed. Some get less to eat. Thus monkey politics. It is in our genes. Which explains the exagerated fears. (not exagerated in other places and times) What it means in this situation is that some folks are not properly civilized. It takes a lot of effort to quell the monkey fears. It is a skill that can be taught. (sometimes too well) Of course my side won an election which (unlike many in the previous twenty years) I considered critical. We will see how I do when Hillary gets elected. :-) I'm just a monkey like the rest of them. Posted by: M. Simon at January 21, 2006 12:11 AM | Permalink I hate to be the barer of bad news for Democrats on this board. However, the DNC is issuing press releases that make little distinction between Abramoff donations and Abramoff-related donations as they criticize Republicans. Posted by: MnZ at January 21, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink MnZ, That's sort of mischaracterizing it. But isn't it odd that the DNC's latest press release mostly references Washington Post articles. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 21, 2006 12:21 AM | Permalink BTW I liked Clinton, You see I have an attraction to Rubenesque Jewish women. And her on her knees while Clinton is discussing world affairs with Arafat. The image was, to me worth the cost of the Clinton Presidency. As to not going after the bad guys. There was no national will for it. And I'm as guilty of that as he was. BTW I never voted Clinton. He was during my Libertarian Party phase. (better than when I was a Communist) I'm a swing voter these days. Obama over Keyes. Obama was way to socialist for my taste (he seems to have moderated since the election), but I can't abide theocons. Posted by: M. Simon at January 21, 2006 12:31 AM | Permalink I was under the impression initial investigation into this scandal included three Republicans and two Democrats. Throw all the bums out. Posted by: M. Simon at January 21, 2006 12:39 AM | Permalink M. I'm afraid your impression is incorrect. Please see Abramoff's Factual basis of plea and this handy graphic to help keep the players straight. No Democrats there. Posted by: Phredd at January 21, 2006 12:46 AM | Permalink M. Simon write Thus the hysteria. If both sides are relatively equally involved she loses an issue. illustrating the damage to truth in the WP stories. In fact, Abramoff was a career Republican operator - he donated only to Republicans, swapped aids with Karl Rove and Tom Delay, and worked closely with Grover. Abramoff was part of the K-street project and Grover and others have been very open about how they would set up 50 years of republican political power by controlling the loot. The Posts repeated efforts to cover for this situation are lies of the worst kind. It's obvious that the Democrats are far from blameless and not free of corruption, but in this context the Posts coverage is like an attempt to make Enron equivalent to a couple of missing quarters at a kids lemonade stand. Posted by: citizen k at January 21, 2006 12:49 AM | Permalink I'm not talking the Abramoff stage of the investigation. The second group under investigation does include three Rs and two Ds. Jack A. had a nice dodge. He gave some of the the money he got to the Rs and sent explicit instructions to the tribes on who to and how much to give to Dems. Which they followed. If you look at the outcome the tribe got what it paid for. A restriction on competition. Evidently the Rs give not a fig for the Indians and the Ds think some Indians are more deserving than others. Crooks every where you look. I think the Dems are making a big mistake though. When you go around screaming innocence, if contrary facts come out you look more guilty. Edge to the Republicans. Don't do it. Hold your fire until you see the whites of every one's eyes. So you all are correct. Only Rs got money from Jack. Which doesn't mean Jack in the overall scheme of things (as it were). God I love spirited discussions here (Hi Jay and Steve L.) Steve Lovelady, Some sweet words from the lady you so chivalrously champion. O'Beirne's modus operandi is way more grievous and damaging than Hamsher's potty mouth. Hamsher sees that O'Beirne is beyond civilised rational engagement and has the good sense to respond in the only ways left open - consciously and unapologetically. And now the WaPo is in danger of going the way of O'Beirne and leaving open only the loudest and crudest forms of response. You see, most people find unshakeable adherence to damaging falsehood about serious criminality somewhat unsettling - especially when their concern is airily and loftily scorned. Posted by: AlanDownunder at January 21, 2006 1:13 AM | Permalink citizen k, I'd have to agree that the initial choice of words was a bit inept. Still not far from the final (after the outcry) version. To have such a big argument over such small potatos (did I spell that right?) shows more than a bit of desperation. As to libel. A joke. The figures in question are too involved in public life for a simple error to become libel. Another sign of desperation. Are Democrats really that desperate? This is clearly about Howell's misstatements, but, come on folks; Democrats may not have been indicted, or may not be targets of criminal investigations yet, but surely they are not immune to corruption, are they? They would have done it differently perhaps (is there something like more environmentally friendly and less racist corruption?:)), but there is little that differentiates most democrats from most republicans when it comes to self-interest and hunger for power and control. That said, Mr. Delay and his ilk have certainly taken the game to a rarified level. In the end, like in the tragedies, it will be their own arrogance that will bring down Mr. Delay, Ms. Howell and Mr. Cheney. Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 1:21 AM | Permalink Howell's Law: Whomever prescribes symmetrical treatment for asymmetrical threats guarantees in time symmetrical threats. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 1:30 AM | Permalink Just to be clear, I wasn't calling the Post babies. Far from it. I don't blame them for disabling comments. Second, comments on NRO blogs would be above my pay grade, but I wouldn't be opposed. the fact that we are focussed on Congresscritters and their relationship with Abramoff, rather than the corruption of the Executive branch via Abramoff, is indicative of how well Team Bush has managed this debacle through Sue Schmidt and the Post. Ney is decidedly small potatoes, when one considers the overwhelming evidence that Gail Norton was part of a "pay for play" scheme that cost two Native American tribes at least $50,000 each. (look at the notation for CREA on the list cited by Deborah Howell....) And then there is the tribal election scandals. One of the big reasons that Abramoff was able to send business to Scanlon (and share in the proceeds) was that Scanlon and Abramoff manipulated tribal elections --- providing massive amounts of uncompensated services to their "slates" of tribal council candidates, who would, once they were elected, enter into exorbitant contracts with Scanlon and Abramoff. Tribal elections are federally regulated, but the Interior Department under Norton ignored complaints about these elections.... ****************** it seems to me that Sue Schmidt was "tipped off" to the Abramoff scandal story because she was "Steno Sue" -- willing to "spin" the story however the GOP wanted. Abramoff was able to operate corruptly with absolute impunity -- until the "Sun Cruz" deal blew up in his face after the guy who'd sold Sun Cruz to Abramoff and his partner was found murdered.....and Abramoff's partner became a prime suspect. Even the Ashcroft Justice Department couldn't ignore what the investigators looking into the gangland-style murder found, and related to the Feds. Abramoff's connection to the murders made him damaged goods, and the White House needed to get "ahead" of the Abramoff story.... so they tipped off Sue Schmidt, who has been spinning a tale of "bi-partisan congressional corruption" while pretty much ignoring anything having to do with the Bush administration and Abramoff. This is clearly about Howell's misstatements, but, come on folks; Democrats may not have been indicted, or may not be targets of criminal investigations yet, but surely they are not immune to corruption, are they? You obviously don't understand the distinction between "everybody does it" and "everybody did it." :) I think it's pretty clear that Brady is creating a bogeyman with regard to horrifying posts that in my opinion never existed anywhere outside his imagination. Thanks to an archived copy of 238 WaPo blog posts, I think it's apparent that Brady is making things up, and greatly exaggerating the ostensible incivility of his guests. The detail (including 42 posts that WaPo has explicitly deleted) is here. Posted by: jukeboxgrad at January 21, 2006 2:13 AM | Permalink You see, most people find unshakeable adherence to damaging falsehood about serious criminality somewhat unsettling - especially when their concern is airily and loftily scorned. Indeed. Kind of makes you pine for the days when it was only about sex and we could just move on. I must say though that watching the libs in high dudgeon over media bias/inaccuracy is most entertaining. Do play on. Posted by: outlier at January 21, 2006 2:23 AM | Permalink I don't know what I understand anymore. I blame it all on the moral relativism propagated by the media:). And I wonder about how effective punishment has been as a deterrent against white collar crime (question for Brad DeLong: is there anything like 'deterrence elasticity of corruption'?). But then, a serendipitous consequence to my moral degeneration: I discovered a subtler side to Jane's colorful prose today, and have resolved to follow the rhetorical flourishes at firedoglake more carefully in the future. Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 2:37 AM | Permalink I must admit I was laughing a bit at an NYU sponsored blog calling some of the comments "over the top." Having spent two years at NYU being reviled by every liberal and spat upon by members of the top administration, NYU describing anything as over the top when it comes to journalism is laughable. You can read some of my experiences here: They come from Accuracy in Academia and the Student Press Law Center. I have never believed that freedom of speech is to be guarded by some make believe societal demand. Too often the people that control the media are businessmen that are more interested in protecting their bottom line or politicians (historically typically of the left) that want to assert some dominance of their constituents in order to enforce some hidden corrupt agenda. I will assert that there is nothing that is over the top. There is nothing that needs to be "hidden" from the masses in order to protect them. If the masses cannot be trusted then the elites cannot be trusted. Why? Because in an enlightened society with full access and full endorsement of education there should literally be no uneducated masses. If there is, then all politicians, all political pundits, all philosophical ideologues are to blame. The same ones that pontificate about the lack of understanding of the masses. Jesse Jackson is indicted. The Leow's family is indicted (Board of Trustees members at NYU). Bush is indicted. Every elite of every political stripe is indicted. Freedom is freedom. Not freedom from killing someone. But freedom from being lied to. Freedom from feeling like because of Intro to Philosophy the natural inclination of humans is to destroy. Nevermind. Thousands of years of lies is hard to oppose. In this forum at least. Posted by: Jeff Barea at January 21, 2006 3:35 AM | Permalink What a moronic discussion. Jay, I'm really surprised at your unthinking insistence on allowing comments. I've never once seen you question the many bloggers that don't enable comments--you smack the NRO media blogger in this post, but never once mention Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, or the many others who don't enable them. Comments increase traffic rankings. The only value that open comments add to the business bottom line is traffic, and Brady's site doesn't need traffic. Very few bloggers who become popular continue to enable comments--unless the comments are the reason for their high traffic ranking (eg. Kos, LGF, Atrios). I realize that many people who've drunk too much of the blogosphere Koolaid go on and on about the meaningful comment interactions, but these are all people with more influence than traffic. washingtonpost.com is not some esoteric little media blog attracting earnest navel-gazers and righteous koolaid lovers (I count myself among the former). His site is one of the Big Three located at MSM Ground Zero, and will always be a lightning rod for controversy, with all sides of the political spectrum ready and eager to wreak havoc on the site any time it upsets someone--and it will daily. If he keeps comments up, he'll have to incur the costs of monitoring the site 24x7--first for obscenity, then for answering the inevitable and endless complaints about biased monitoring. All this for what? What does he get out of it? Increased advertising? Never. Increased respect for the newspaper? Not at all. About all he might get is a solid core of readers who seem to spend all their time in the comments section, creating work for the monitors. As someone mentioned earlier, most online newspaper sites had public forums in the 90s until they figured all this out. But since that didn't happen in the blogosphere, it didn't happen at all. He can't have open comments, and he's a fool if he tries. If I ran the site, I'd come up with a gimmick. I'd let people apply to be a comment-writer on the Post. That would still create lots of angst and criticism, but people would compete like crazed heavyweights for the access and what the hell--the anger and criticism wouldn't be on his site, so who cares? Open Letter to the Washington Post -- "L'affaire Debbie Howell" represents a serious problem at the Washington Post -- not with its readers. Deborah Howell printed blatant falsehoods in your paper. Jack Abramoff never gave one red cent to Democrats or to the Democratic Party. To pretend, to insinuate, to print anything contrary to that true fact is to fabricate, to prevaricate, and to do steno-spin for the Bush Administration and the Republican Party. Howie Kurtz, Jim Brady, and now Jim VandeHei are doing cover-up for Deborah Howell's partisan and demonstrably false words printed in your paper. Ms. Howell's and the Post's defensiveness and hubristic arrogance in this matter are astounding. I suppose this shouldn't be surprising since the Washington Post has been a cheerleader for Bush's War on Iraq since it was begun -- on demonstrably faulty and "twisted" intelligence and deliberate and false insinuations that Saddam was somehow connected to 9/11. This "Howell-Abramoff" matter is a much smaller arena for fertilizing and fomenting false information, but it is indicative of the Post's attitude (since the halcyon days of Katharine Graham and Watergate) about telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth in your paper. Bristling defensively, rationalizing away the blatant falsehoods propagated by Ms. Howell, and then shutting down a website because a few people have uncivilly cursed her is a rather jejune response to criticism, don't you think? Besides, most of the criticism seems to me to be valid, even if some of it was "inartfully worded" -- as Howie Kurtz described Ms. Howell's reporting. And after all, you people are supposed to be the "grown-ups" here, the "adults" with access to the arcane knowledge of the world inside the Beltway, aren't you? Now, because someone in the stands calls a member of your team bad names, you're going to pick up your ball and go home to Mommy? Sorry, but to me it sounds like a storyline out of Peanuts, not the Washington Post.
Posted by: radlib1 at January 21, 2006 4:38 AM | Permalink Brady does an interview with Hugh Hewitt: HH: The central fact which seemed to upset the critics of the column, is that the Post has reported that between 1999 and 2004, Jack Abramoff's Indian clients contributed to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats, tens of millions of dollars to both, correct? See, The Washington Post hasn't produced a single document, a memo, an email, nothing, that demonstrates satisfactorily that Abramoff "directed donations to Democrats" -- you can browse through this extensive file of Abramoff's correspondence (Large pdf) without finding any--let alone that a Democrat knew or performed an official service in exchange for a donation. (After all, isn't that what corruption is? Certainly it is not the receiving of donations.) If they have any evidence, fine, show it to me and I'll shut up. But that patched together, whited out graphic they have doesn't do it for me.
JB: This actually all started on Sunday when the ombudsman of the newsman, Deborah Howell wrote a column about the Abramoff scandal, and in that column, made a reference to both Republicans and Democrats being the beneficiary of Abramoff donations. And what she should have said, and what she put up on the blog on Thursday was that he directed...he did direct contributions to Democrats, which is undeniable. There's lot of documents that show that. Again, if they have the documents, why not show them. Instead they delete a post that points out clearly how misleading their patched-together, whited-out graphic is. HH: Jim Brady, who do you think these people are? Because I run into them in this business, but we have a six second delay, goodness knows why. Who do you think they are? Why are they so fundamentally unhappy? So, we see, the narrative is written and the major press is running with it: Those nasty ole low-life lefty bloggers are abusing our pristine staff, who are beyond reproach, and those corrupt Democrats took dirty Indian money. End of story, we're right, you're wrong, and mean! Now shut up! Shut up! Cut their mic! Posted by: Phredd at January 21, 2006 7:15 AM | Permalink cal: I ask Stephen Sprueill of National Review when NRO was going to have comments at its blogs and that gives you basis to denounce my "unthinking insistence on allowing comments?" Where did you learn to reason this way? From the blogosphere? Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 8:33 AM | Permalink To Cal's point and one a lot further up from DavidisonM on why publishers may be better off without comment sections or forums. As I recall, there were two main reasons why many publishers' sites shut down their forum sites after the initial Internet rush of the 1990s. Back then, the mantra touted was 'stickiness': provide lots of things to keep the eyeballs on your site. Getting user involvement then was absolutely part of the plan. The trouble was, people didn't stick around. They preferred to pick their own Usenet boards or other forums to comment on news and other stuff. The publishers' forums were embarrasingly quiet by comparison. An obvious lack of involvement is just one thing that threatens ad revenue, which is more serious at the higher end of the newspaper spectrum than with supermarket tabloids, which tend to collect more of their revenue from readers. A further problem with having those boards or comments is that advertisers may point to them as not attracting the kind of readers they want to promote to. That's not good for business. It is only recently that demands from a vocal minority and the rapid rise of blogging as an audience magnet that publishers have looked at building comments sections and community sites. And the same factors are playing out. In many cases, the discussion happens largely elsewhere. While the comments you get do not enhance the paper's image. Comments calling out errors are not the problem; it's the reams and reams of insults. They look bad, no matter the cause. Advertisers have this nasty habit of wanting to know why their brand is ending up next to gutter-level ranting. And commenters here have pointed out how they give up on insult-heavy blogs. If you are computing the numbers, you are going to look at how many readers are upset about the deleted comments versus the reaction from the advertiser plus the other readers - who may well be the majority - who feel they read a paper with some standards in terms of language. Why, as a manager, are you going to run with comments when the people screaming about the removal the most proudly boast how they haven't read the paper for years? I have seen those comments repeatedly on other threads. If they aren't customers, why are you going to incur extra costs on their behalf? I think Mr Snitch made that point in his blog post. This is on top of any other concerns as to whether an employee can demand the protection of an employer from abuse and various other factors that may have played into the deletion of the comments in this case. Posted by: Chris Edwards at January 21, 2006 8:59 AM | Permalink One aspect of this discussion about Howell and the reaction to her "clarification" is that her comments are simply not applicable to this statement: "Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." What this says is that Abramoff himself was getting "10 to 20 times as much" as others, and Abramoff himself contributed to both parties. The subject of the paragraph was not 'directed contributions' -- it was the money that Jack Abramoff made personally from the tribes, and what Abramoff did with his own money. And this is the reason that people called Howell a liar .... Jay, What do you think of Jim Brady's comments on the Hugh Hewitt radio show? http://www.radioblogger.com/#001326 Its seems very clear that the reason there is not a correction on "Abramoff money" is that Brady and I guess the editorial decision-makers of the Post have decided that Abramoff "must have" directed his clients to give money to Democrats. I don't believe this is verified that the clients gave mony on the say-so of Abramoff himself. Its an assumption. And perhaps a good one, but unless the WP knows for certain shouldn't they be more circumspeck in definitively drawing that conclusion? So its very interesting to me that this idea of "Abramoff money" isn't really a Debra Howel liabitity only. Clearly other editorial minds at that Post are relying on this kind of "scandal balance" even while admitting this is primirily a Republican problem. He also says that they can't "tolerate" their reporters being called "names." Is that someone the WP can reasonable expect. Granted there's a HUGE difference in calling someone the "c-word" verses calling them a "republican-shill." What I find most interesting is the Brady went on the Hugh Hewitt show!. He definately ran to a media outlet that was designed to sympathize with his positions (Abramoff gave money to both clients...lefty progressives are big meanies). He didn't go on NPR and he didn't got on Air America. Kos also raises the issue of what constitutes "coordinated attacks." Its very clear to me that the way many of the lefty blogs (atrios, firedog, americablog) operate isn't by talking to each other and deciding HOW to operate but by feeding off each other. So Atrios posts something first and then firedoglake posts as well. Is that a "coordinated attack" or is that more of feeding frenzy as each blog operater independently decides based on what others are talking about, that posting against Howell, WP is a good idea. Clearly Brady thinks it was a kind of mutually-decided attempt rather than merely a collusion of like-minded individuals any one of which could have decided they didn't agree with the other's theories. Posted by: catrina at January 21, 2006 10:00 AM | Permalink Listen, you peons. We have reams and reams of personal insults on our not-censored comment thread! We don't have to show them to you. Trust Us! We are The Washington Post! And We have 'em! But you can't see 'em! We also have reams and reams of documents proving that the Democrats are ...DIRTY.... We don't have to show them to you! Trust us, you poor little ignorant rubes! Evidence, you say? We have reams of evidence. But you can't see it, because We are The Washington Post! Posted by: Phredd at January 21, 2006 10:09 AM | Permalink Jim Brady's just like the rest of the gang over on the Washington Post conveyer belt of GOP talking points. Jay, you might want to rethink any defense of this guy. The Post company line has come down, and that is, our reporting based upon GOP spin is accurate, and we are the victims of a liberal blog smear. Just wait till Howell rams it home on Sunday. All of a sudden, he's VERY TALKATIVE about Howell's journalism, recycling all the same nonsense. One line for you, Jay, and another line for his right wing radio friend, Hugh Hewitt. You got played by this guy. What a swarmy little twit this guy is: From DailyKos [Is The Washington Post Online A Tool Of The Right Wing? Is my title fair and balanced? We report, you decide (Faux style, with my editorial comments in brackets and italics) -- the Editor of the Washington Post Online gives an interview to HUGH HEWITT about how mean the Left Blogs have been to them, via atrios:
HH: And you were the sports editor there from '95-'99, correct? JB: On the website. HH: Yup. So I think you'd have to agree that the Cleveland Indians of '97 and '99 were perhaps the best team ever not to have won the World Series? JB: Well, as a Long Island native, I'd have to go with the '86 Mets, but that's just me. [From Armando - the 1986 Mets of course WON the World Series. Here's a hint for Mr. Brady - Bill Buckner] HH: Well then, well, we hope you're a better web editor than you are a sports judge. [Well it appears neither of you know much about sports] JB: (laughing) HH: Jim Brady, you had a meltdown...A) congrats on going online today and answering your critics, and congrats for coming here. Explain to the audience what happened yesterday. JB: This actually all started on Sunday when the ombudsman of the newsman, Deborah Howell wrote a column about the Abramoff scandal, and in that column, made a reference to both Republicans and Democrats being the beneficiary of Abramoff donations. And what she should have said, and what she put up on the blog on Thursday was that he directed...he did direct contributions to Democrats, which is undeniable. [ Note from Armando - Not only is it deniable, the record is clear that Abramoff tried to direct his Native American client to NOT give money to Democrats.] There's lot of documents that show that. [Note -- there are NO documents that show that.] But when she wrote it in the column, it was phrased in a way that made it seem like he was personally giving money to the Democrats[It was a factual error that the Washington Post to this day has not corrected in proper fashion], of which there isn't proof of that at this point [Because Brady knows there WILL be proof soon. Yes, Deborah Howell wrote similar words.] . . . HH: The central fact which seemed to upset the critics of the column, is that the Post has reported that between 1999 and 2004, Jack Abramoff's Indian clients contributed to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats, tens of millions of dollars to both, correct? JB: Correct. HH: And so, why do people object to your publishing that fact? JB: Well, they...they objected originally to the fact that she...that when she stated it, she made it seem as if he personally was donating to Democrats [She did NOT make it seem, she wrote it expressly.] But what she meant to say was that he was directing money to Democrats [And this too is false], which as I said, is beyond any kind of argument [it is beyond any argument a falsehood.]. . . . There's a real...this group that has been going after Deborah all week, I don't think, would have been happy no matter what she said. But she was clear about that, we put links up that have documents that show that [ Yet again, this is simply FALSE. The documents show that some Indian tribe clients gave to Democrats, but DO NOT SHOW that Abramoff directed the contributions. Indeed, if Brady had done even a modicum of work (and I have not paid much attention to the story and I know more about it than he does), and given the appalling string of errors, it behooved him in the most compelling fashion to STOP making errors), he would know that the contributions to Dems of many of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients went down when they retained Abramoff, at Abramoff's EXPRESS URGING.] HH: Jim Brady, who do you think these people are? Because I run into them in this business, but we have a six second delay, goodness knows why. Who do you think they are? Why are they so fundamentally unhappy? JB: Well, I mean in this case, there was very much a concerted effort to...when Deborah wrote her column on Sunday, a lot of the bloggers on the left side of the spectrum really...they got together and they said let's go to the Post blog and tell them how unhappy we are with this column. HH: Was there an epicenter of that effort? JB: It looked like it was in a bunch of different blogs. I mean, it certainly was getting a lot of attention on Atrios and Daily Kos, and some other places. [From Armando -- The Deborah Howell story was NOT front paged at daily kos until the comments were shut down. Daily Kos got together with NO ONE and did nothing to the Washington Post Online and Jim Brady . . . Until now. I call Jim Brady a liar. A bald faced liar for making up this story of a concerted effort involving daily kos. That is FALSE. So I mean there did seem to be...you know, it wasn't a campaign in the sense of a really organized campaign, but it was kind of a grass roots campaign to... HH: Well, you've just named the two central islands in the fever swamps. So I'm not surprised. When you write on...in your online edition today, I think it goes to basic human decency. Are you saying protecting Deborah Howell? Or are you saying...I hope you're saying both, you're protecting your readers from it as well? JB: Yeah, and we've been clear about that, that we're not going to tolerate anybody being called these names, whether they're employees of the Washington Post or other commentors. And this was more directed at Deborah than it was at other commentors. But that was certainly part of the equation, and it's just...you know, as I said in the discussion, if you can't make your point without calling people some of the names they were being called, then you don't have a point in my opinion.
With a record like this, I think it is clear what the future holds for Jim Brady . . . he is being groomed to replace Fred Hiatt.] Say, Jay, still think that the Post is a world class newspaper, after the editor of its weblog goes onto a partisan right wing radio program to pander to its listeners for support? And, what does say about Brady ethically? Do you think anyone should have any confidence in any decisions he makes about this story? Like I said, a swarmy little twit. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 21, 2006 10:18 AM | Permalink Big picture: Roughly speaking, a five percent current ROC is the same as a five percent long term earnings growth. The print side is struggling with maintaining its share of WaPoCo's valuation whereas WPNI, relatively speaking, has shot the lights out. Herein lies Mr. Brady's strength and leverage, and he probably knows it (from the way he stood his ground in L'affaire Froomkin. As in the adage, 'there is nothing like bad publicity', Mr. Brady also realizes that there is nothing like bad website traffic, and he is taking pains not to antagonize his patrons, foul-mouthed they may be, too much. WaPoCo management, in all likelihood, are fully aligned with Mr. Brady (multiple expansion is a motive nonpareil:)) and, in as much as Ms. Howell has painted herself into a corner (notwithstanding the show of suport from Messrs Kurtz and VandeHei), the bean counters will find a way of jettisoning her at some point in the future, when Mr. Harris can do so without giving the appearance of caving in to reader pressure. Mr. Harris will no doubt resist and stall knowing that Mr. Brady is dependent on the traditional news gathering operation for content, but that will only get him so far. He too probably realizes that his side of the bread is not the one with the butter and, if pushed too far, he can easily end up losing his news gathering empire to Mr. Brady as well. And hence my prediction in a previous thread that Ms. Howell's days at the Post are numbered, one way or the other. Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 10:20 AM | Permalink M. Simon sez "I'm not talking the Abramoff stage of the investigation.", but Ms. Howell was lying about Abramoff, not about some unknown second stage. M. Simon sez "Jack A. had a nice dodge. He gave some of the the money he got to the Rs and sent explicit instructions to the tribes on who to and how much to give to Dems. Which they followed." but I have not seen any evidence of this in the Post or elsewhere. The Post wants to continually imply that this dodge was in operation, but it never provides any evidence at all. Since the Republicans control congress and the Executive, Jack would have no need to direct money to Dems, and since he was a long time REPUBLICAN and good friend of the republican elite, his motivation for bribing Dems is missing. And M. Simon sez "If you look at the outcome the tribe got what it paid for" but we have still no evidence that any Democrat was bribed - and plenty of evidence that republicans were bribed. So, M. Simon shows us that the WP propaganda works, by obscuring the massive Republican corruption and creating a storyline of generalized "politicians are corrupt". Posted by: citizen k at January 21, 2006 11:10 AM | Permalink ami, Does your statement the fact that we are focussed on Congresscritters and their relationship with Abramoff, rather than the corruption of the Executive branch via Abramoff, is indicative of how well Team Bush has managed this debacle through Sue Schmidt and the Post. mean that the WaPo has bought all rights to the story and no one else can put a reporter on it? If so I'd say that was a bigger corruption story than Abramoff. I wonder who owns the rights to that story? Otherwise I'd say that this will sort itself out over time. The Dems ought to stop screaming "we are pure as the driven snow". If it turns out they are not it will compound the damage to their party. Mark Twain said we had the best Congress money can buy. Still true. Right/Left Dino/Rino. Makes no difference. I don't think it ever can change. Human nature. If the Congress Critter can "fix" something something will get fixed. We can make it better by reducing government power. Who wants that? Only a few crazed Libertarians. Ah, for the days of the vicuna coat. Posted by: M. Simon at January 21, 2006 11:19 AM | Permalink citizen k, I'm a Republican leaning independent. I voted Bush/Obama. I got no dog in this fight. Corruption is a fact of human nature. It would be very unusual if the Democrats were immune. I thought the Rs. were just as insane during Clinton as the Ds are during Bush. Monkey politics. The other side when in power is always the devil incarnate with secret plots and schemes and the desire to drink the blood of children. Monkeys. Welcome to the monkey house. Posted by: M. Simon at January 21, 2006 11:29 AM | Permalink before I leave for the weekend, looks like Brady was shoveling it by the bucketful yesterday during his interview with you offensive comments deleted? apparently not go here: Brady piles his lies onto the pile of Howell's one can just imagine Brady getting the following: [MEMORANDUM FROM: Leonard Downie TO: Jim Brady SUBJECT: GOOD WORK! Just read your interview over at Pressthink with Jay Rosen, and saw the transcript of your subsequent appearance on Hugh Hewitt's radio program. Straddles like this are difficult, I've had to do a few over the years, but you performed very well under difficult circumstances. With Jay, you responded in a mild, low-key, non-committal fashion that plays well with moderate, professionally oriented people. They won't swallow all of it, but you did well considering the hand you have been dealt. Over at Hugh's, you shifted into high gear, and aggressively put out the Post's company line: our coverage of Abramoff and the Democrats and we are the victims of vicious, partisan bloggers who won't accept our independent, objective reporting. Naturally, you'll get trashed over in, what do they call it, the "blogosphere" (learned that one from my intern), but don't let it bother you, they are irrelevant, as everyone here knows. Forgot to mention, I'm having a little get together this Sunday for the afternoon football game with John, Deborah, Howard, Jim and some others, and Scott from the White House might even stop by. Feel free to bring your family at visit for awhile.
Posted by: Richard Estes at January 21, 2006 11:29 AM | Permalink citizen k says: Since the Republicans control congress and the Executive, Jack would have no need to direct money to Dems, and since he was a long time REPUBLICAN and good friend of the republican elite, his motivation for bribing Dems is missing. Maybe Jack could improve his profit margin by buying some cheap Democrats. Posted by: M. Simon at January 21, 2006 11:36 AM | Permalink I wanted to throw two links into the mix on allowing comments and debating the fairness/accuracy of Howell's sentence on Abramoff. Glenn Reynolds: "I GOT AN EMAIL THE OTHER DAY slamming me for not having comments on my site. I get those occasionally, and they're usually nasty enough that they're self-refuting -- yeah, I really want to give you a platform, buddy. . . ." Andy Cline: "Journalists believe that accuracy leads to fairness. In an objectivist universe, this might be the case. We would all consider the facts, understand them from an objective point of view, and then experience them as fair because our rational minds are in control of our emotions. But because fairness is, instead, an emotionally experienced political concept in a transactional universe (as opposed to objectivist or subjectivist), simply being accurate is no guarantee that readers, sources, and other interested parties will experience fairness in the journalistic product." I also wanted to ask Jay what constitutes trolling and press hate in comments at PressThink, since he's recently started using those labels against commenters on PressThink he disagrees with, and what value comments provide in citizen journalism or Bloggers v. Journalists? Posted by: Sisyphus at January 21, 2006 11:42 AM | Permalink Boy, I'm going to save this (as it seems to conflict with some of this): "There’s a danger when journalists* look at complaints about the news from people involved in a political struggle and discount them because they come from partisans...It seems to me if you’re* dismissing the complaints of the partisans you’re* reacting in exactly the wrong way; they’re your* best customers. They’re way involved in the news. You* have to find a way of hearing them, or your* sunk...Maybe it’s hard to find the signal in the noise, but that is exactly what the press* has to do." - Jay, above [emphasis and asterisks added] * and blogging press critics, too, in my opinion. As I say, there is value to be found in some bias discourse; it shouldn't be dismissed because some bias discourse becomes politicized... Posted by: Trained Auditor at January 21, 2006 11:43 AM | Permalink M. Simon: In this specific case, we have a long time republican activist funneling money to Republicans and their organizations, and we have a national newspaper that is broadly lying to give the impression that it is a bypartisan scandal. You can complain about the putative and even actual corruption of Democratic politicians all you want, but that is totally besides the point. The issue is that on a Republican corruption case, the Post is failing to meet basic standards of accuracy in the cause of minimizing Republican guilt. In the broader picture, you may be able to make the case that the two parties are equally worthless, but if the media is actively lying about the facts on the ground, further generalization becomes difficult. Posted by: citizen k at January 21, 2006 12:04 PM | Permalink Citizen K., It is my understanding that the persons of interest in the second round of investigations in the Money for Casinos Scandal include three Rs. and two Ds. I suppose that colors my view of the situation. As to media lying: get used to it. When I want to find what I believe to be a more accurate assesment of the Iraq situation I go to milblogs. I go to the Iraqi (English) blogs. I even like Spengler from Asia Times. I'm usually disappointed in press coverage. Let me put in WW2 terms: "We are having trouble at Anzio - the war is lost". I do understand your feelings. I get the same way about NYT coverage of the war. I can tell you: if you are healthy you will get over it. All I can report is what it looks like to a somewhat interested, somewhat balanced outside observer. Posted by: M. Simon at January 21, 2006 12:24 PM | Permalink I discovered a subtler side to Jane's colorful prose today, and have resolved to follow the rhetorical flourishes at firedoglake more carefully in the future. v.i., did you read the reviews that i linked to as the chicken AnonyMouse poster? Here is an example of a review of her book on the making of Natural Born Killers: The key to a really great "Behind-The-Scenes" book is an impartial perspective, and perhaps that is the one area this book falls short. Unfortunately, it isn't the only area. i admit i haven't read her book, but i've read enough reviews on amazon and from various publications and have been on fdl. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 21, 2006 12:38 PM | Permalink Egads! nothing like watching a blog's comments section deteriorate into a forum-type discussion list--compelte with some minor flames, I might add.... The problem with negative "offfensive" comments, and how to control them, isn't limited to the Post, nor to big-name, big time blogggers. Advice that's been given out (and you may remember some of it from BlogHer, Jay) is that individual develop thick skins. Yet individuals don't always have the ability to do that. Even individuals--who are supposedly in this blogging thing mostly for the conversation, not to be journalists--sometimes turn off, or restrict, comments on their blogs. (I seem to see this more on young right-winger blogs, but that's just one woman's observation). Yet when individuals--for whom blogging was supposed to have been developed for--can't figure out how to adequately deal with the nasties, how can we expect msm outlets, that have their own general difficulties understanding blogging, to be able to come up with the right response? If blogging is about conversation, we have to understand that if we're going to have public discourse--public conversation--that sometimes jerks are going to show up. If we want to be little demigogues of our own domains, we can shut off comments. If we want to remain open, we have to be asbestos. It would, though, be really great if people could simply learn to use language properly and express dissent without getting foul--then again, maybe we can get Bill O'Reilly to do a broadcast in drag... (BTW, I'm on an SXSW Interactive panel on the whole Us/Them/Civility thing...yes, I'm expecting to hear some crap...but, hey, I'm asbestos.years on the Times Film Forums helped that) Jay, if you're interested, I blogged about the Post thing (in response to Terry Heaton) here. And finally, isn't it time we get some better perspective and stoppedd equating all blogging with journalism? Not everyone who keeps a blog wants to be considered a journalist! And blogging isn't always journalism! Sometimes it isn't even writing Posted by: Tish Grier at January 21, 2006 12:45 PM | Permalink I'm an engineer. Aerospace test eqpt, black box design etc. It is my nature to look for counterfactuals. If I don't see any even alluded to I question the depth of the investigation. There are always counterfactuals. Right now I'm particularly fond of the demolition explosion theory of the fall of the WTC and that the Zapruder film was photoshopped (by the best equipment of the day). The question then is who done it. And why. I'm not your standard right wing bot. My position is we have a problem with Islamics. I see how FDR chivved us into WW2 (the oil embargo was the main reason). Despite being dishonest not to mention criminal it was the right thing to do. (I think FDR was hoping for a small attack somewhere - instead he got Pearl Harbor and the Philipines) So WW2 just as much as this war was about access to oil supplies. That is pretty much how I view the Bush Admin. I have few illusions. We are pretty much stuck with oil for transportation for the next 25 years at least. It takes a lot of time to change really huge flows that are rooted in every phase of our economy. You might want to look into the Rs vs. the Ds during WW2. Or better the Rs. vs the Ds in the Lincoln Admin. Monkeys is monkeys. Posted by: M. Simon at January 21, 2006 12:52 PM | Permalink Tish, Yep. I'm a veteran of the FIDOnet flame wars. Only the strong survive. Heck I have a posting license at LGF. A great place to go over the top if you have it in for Islamic fascism. And usenet was a thrill in its day. Now blogs. I love evolution. Well any way I pretty much treat each venue individually. That is the true essence of civility. I would never express here my views in a way I might at LGF. I try to fit in while (hopefully) raising the tone a bit. " I ask Stephen Sprueill of National Review when NRO was going to have comments at its blogs and that gives you basis to denounce my "unthinking insistence on allowing comments?" Good lord, no. You ask Stephen Sprueill of NRO (don't forget the O) for comments and that gives me basis to observe that you've never consistently mentioned this supposed failure. Nothing more. What I was denouncing was the explicit equation in your post: allowing comments=transparency. You are more evenhanded than others, but the bottom line is that allowing comments is a general good. As has been pointed out by me, Chris, and (thread's too long to hunt the name down) someone else, the issues involved in a major media site allowing unrestricted public access have been long established. This is not a new conversation. Yet in the hundreds of comments on this thread and throughout the blogosphere, no one mentions these issues, even though they are far more important to the conversation than all of the outrage. Are you aware of the issues involved? Do you know how they've played out before? If you do, then why not bring some of these factors up, show how they inevitably play out, and encourage a discussion on how--or if--a major media site could enable comments without increasing costs and offending advertisers? If you don't know the history, then isn't that a place to start? Chris--nice analysis. I disagree on one point: even the sites with substantial online communities killed their sites. CNN.com, Atlantic online, and Time.com all come to mind. I believe the only major media site with a forum is the nytimes.com, and I've wondered about the economics of that decision. The two major online magazines (Slate and Salon) have kept discussion forums--Salon is pay to play and much diminished. Slate's Fray gets a fair amount of activity. Both sites spend a good deal managing the insanity. The Fray seems to have an invitation only section as well. And it's probably worth mentioning that most days you have to know where the Fray is to find it. "but some on the Left just can't deal with the fact that some Dems got directed money" I have yet to see any evidence that proves this to any significant extent. And posting one Amazon user review seems scant evidence of the quality or lack thereof of Jane Hamsher's book. I'm new here, but if this was posted by a "journalist," I believe we have a pot engaging in name-calling. Posted by: SpinMD at January 21, 2006 1:34 PM | Permalink As long as we are discussing play for pay check this out from the comments at Just One Minute:
Wealthy businessmen Hassan Nemazee and Faraj Aalaei are associated with the American Iranian Council, a pro-regime anti-sanctions group. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Namazee has contributed $4,000 to Clinton's reelection while Aalaei has given $1,000. The press describes their lobby this way "the American-Iranian Council [AIC], a pro-regime lobbying group trying to get Congress and the Bush administration to lift the trade embargo on Iran." (Insight, 3/25/04) Hillary Clinton is also raising money from Gati Kashani, another figure linked with the Mullahs. Why wasn't the press all over this? Seems like a bigger deal than Indian Casinos. I covered the nefarious Nemazee here and here. It is not like the information is hidden. I work from open sources. Trust no one. There are agendas everywhere. Heck, I even have one of my own. Crossposted from The Sideshow: ...I was not involved in posting at the WaPo and have, like everyone else, been trying to figure out what is going on. Several sources archived the message boards. I searched the one that was archived at Democratic Underground for several of the more well-known Anglo Saxon expletives. I found a grand total of two references to excreta, one bovine and one general. There were no references to sexual intercourse, one oath having to do with sanctification, no references to common synonyms for the genitalia or the the buttocks (unless one counts a poster who was compared to a donkey), female dogs--nada. One reference to deity that met the requirements of Jewish ritual law. One possible reference to excreta that is used in conversation with four year olds. In short there wasn't much at all. I also searched for a certain term of racial disparagement that could have offended. It was not there. I searched for obscenity masked by asterisks or other symbols and didn't find it. Even the references to excreta that are inarguably profane involved substantive criticisms of the journalism, and were not characterizations of the individual. The WaPo *claims* that they removed offensive messages. Perhaps they did. What is beyond doubt is they removed messages that threw in their faces evidence that Deborah Howells and the WaPo lied in claiming that there is *any* evidence for payoffs *by* Jack Abramoff *to* Democrats. Rather than simply closing off comments-- the Post deleted hundreds of posts whose only offense was calling ombudsman Howell incompetent and a liar. If these weren't factually supported charges, then one might say they were abusive. Unfortunately, the charges were well-substantiated. The truth may hurt, but denying it is fatal. The Post tells Rosen that it will restore all those posts that meet its standards. In other words, an institution that claims to live and die by the First Amendment... doesn't. Some might call that hypocrisy. (continues) (continued from above) To return to the point at hand, Rosen says that there were posts that he "would definitely have taken...off." Brady says they have profanity filters that mysteriously sometimes don't work or that posters are more creative in cursing than their web staff are in filtering. But after all this, I have yet to see one single example of a post that qualifies as genuinely abusive. Profanity clearly directed at a piece *journalism* rather than the *journalist* does not qualify. The Post's case would be laughed out of court but for the fact that the plaintiff also called as a witness Prof. Jay Rosen, who tells us... something. What, I am not sure. He saw posts (two, fifty, a thousand?) that he would have removed (because they advertised online gambling? because they were unrelated to the topic? because they attacked other posters?) Maybe from inside the Post newsroom or Jay Rosen's head, this all makes sense. But trying to judge it fairly *from the outside,* The Post's behavior looks... well, paranoid, defensive, and dishonest. Maybe they have evidence for their point of view. If so, I wish they would make it available, perhaps as a display of posts that do not meet the WaPo's standards. As for Rosen, he's quick to attack critics of The Post's behavior, but doesn't even see fit to discuss the issue at the heart of the controversy, namely whether The Post was truthful or willfully dishonest in claiming that Abramoff gave money to the Democrats. This teacher of journalism totally missed the lede. I'm aware of Bush's Saudi connection. Just in case you think I'm overly partisan. All these connections must be uncovered. SpinMD, Posted by: bush's jaw at January 21, 2006 2:05 PM | Permalink Substance: Fun is fun but I must disclaim any marital relationship to this It's ever so obvious when you think about it. Is it not? ;-) Yours Truly, Posted by: Thurston Howell III | Jan 15, 2006 9:01:27 PM | --The Post's behavior looks... well, paranoid, defensive, and dishonest. -- I don't agree. It looks like brand protection to me (and possible liability concerns as well) The Post will put their blogs with comments back up, they are just addressing the issue. Sometimes the simple answer, "we weren't prepared" is the truth. Posted by: topsecret at January 21, 2006 2:58 PM | Permalink I also wanted to ask Jay what constitutes trolling and press hate in comments at PressThink, since he's recently started using those labels against commenters on PressThink he disagrees with, and what value comments provide in citizen journalism or Bloggers v. Journalists? Posted by: Sisyphus at January 21, 2006 11:42 AM | Permalink Good question. Posted by: Walter Duranty in the House at January 21, 2006 3:09 PM | Permalink I just want to know, where the hell is the outrage at the ENORMOUS amount of disgusting and hateful, vulgar, threatening, and down right vile comments made by Bush lovers who come after any of us who criticize this administration ? It is everywhere, they post in comments and forums, they send letters to website editors and to Journalists who post on various websites. How do i know? because these people are shocked at the nasty comments, threats and letters they get and then they post online about it. A professor posts on Wired.com and gets threatening nasty comments including those who called her a whore and told her to go back to Afghanistan. (She of course is just an avg American being smeared. ) News Hounds gets all sorts of vulgar email from the right because of their website that boasts "we watch fox news so you don't have to". I receive nasty comments on my blog, as well as reading the nastiest things you can think of in various forums. Where is the outrage ? Where is the outrage about the right referring to liberals and democrat as Osama supporters (or lovers)?. Where is the outrage about Chris Matthews comparing Michael Moore to Osama? along with other morons on tv who mispresent the left? Where is the outrage over wrong information being broadcase on our 24/7 news channels.. ex: the continual comments by these dumbasses who say democrats took my from abramoff too. It goes on daily with this missinformation.. where is the outrage?
People need to start paying attention and boycott, AOL, MSN, Yahoo (for all 3 caving so easily and giving up private user searches) and boycott WaPo for shriveling after they got caught in an incompetent post in their paper by yet another misinformed journalist. Jay, before you answer, consider this (and you too, topsecret): Suppose someone said that you were beating your wife, and you called him a liar and an expletive deleted. Then suppose that I said that there is certainly a lot of wifebeating in this sad world, but that your accuser had made the accusation out of a "wish for balance," and then turned the topic to your use of the expletive deleted... Would you call that fair? Would you think I had perhaps missed the point? Deborah Howell has accused unspecified Democrats of *crimes.* She has presented no evidence for this very serious allegation. Partisans in the GOP have attached names -- but also no evidence-- to these"crimes." I'm sure you remember Senator McCarthy and his briefcase. How is this fundamentally different? Are readers justified in suspecting that there is coordination between The Post and GOP groups? I think the evidence to suggest that there is disturbing. Jane Hamsher has put together a persuasive case that Jim Brady and the Washington Post have a confrontational attitude toward two of the largest and most vibrant news and discussion sites on the Web, in which they are more interested in discrediting their adversaries than in getting at the truth. In politics, this is called oppo. Here's some of the basic evidence: 1. The conflation of Jack Abramoff with his clients is a GOP misdirection. Finally, a good test of whether someone is telling the truth is to look at their behavior in a larger context to see if it's consistent. Examine some of the comments at William Arkin's blog. More than 12/700 of them are personally abusive, there is creative use of profanity, lots of sniping between posters, not to mention industrial-scale copyright violations not covered by Fair Use. What makes the two blogs different, if not the politics of the matter? Examples from the Arkin blog abound. Unfortunately, I am unable to post them, because PressThink regards them as "questionable content." Just search on "Lonemule" and some really good ones will pop up). The Post has a problem when material of similar content but critical of Deborah Howell is posted. They do not have a problem when material this (and far more) extreme is posted on William Arkin's blog. I don't have a problem either way. I think it would be a travesty if they started censoring reaction to William Arkin, a man who has devoted his career to the defense free speech. If Atrios and Kos are really "fever swamps," the best way to do it is to let their people post and prove it to the rest of it. But the more that emerges, the more it looks like The Post should check its own temperature. Cal, you write: As has been pointed out by me, Chris, and (thread's too long to hunt the name down) someone else, the issues involved in a major media site allowing unrestricted public access have been long established. This is not a new conversation. Yet in the hundreds of comments on this thread and throughout the blogosphere, no one mentions these issues, even though they are far more important to the conversation than all of the outrage. The only thing I can figure is that you skipped the post, and the "After" section, and just came to the comments. Because if you read the post, the After section, and clicked the links, you couldn't possibly say, "Are you aware of the issues involved? Do you know how they've played out before?" There is ample evidence in the post that I am aware and that I do know. That is why I wrote: "A commitment to having open comments means a commitment to moderating them carefully. If you don’t do that, then you can’t really say: it’s a shame a few rotten apples spoil it for everyone." If you'd like to adjust your statements after further review, cal, that would be peachy. Sisyphus (Tim) writes, "I also wanted to ask Jay what constitutes trolling and press hate in comments at PressThink, since he's recently started using those labels against commenters on PressThink he disagrees with." This is way beneath you, Tim-- sleazy, and incorrect. I used the term "press hater" in reference to a single poster, Richard Aurbrey; and I used that term because that is what he is, and that is what does. He hates the press, and he comes here to project his hate, hoping to hit someone in journalism with it. I used the term after thinking about it, and after trying to make sense of the kind of comments he was leaving. That particular poster explained in comments that there was a history to what I call his press hate-- an incident in which journalists apparently embarrassed his daughter, so we might say it has a rational basis. Your suggestion that I used the term simply to label people I disagree with is a crock of crap, and mighty insulting. So you may want to re-think that one. You don't need my definition of trolling or hate, Tim. You're quite aware of what these terms mean. Richard E. asks: "Say, Jay, still think that the Post is a world class newspaper, after the editor of its weblog goes onto a partisan right wing radio program to pander to its listeners for support?" You and I look at this differently, Richard. I have been on Hugh Hewitt's radio show several times. I don't condemn people who go on other people's radio shows. I don't practice guilt by association, either. If you want to argue with what Brady said to Hewitt, fine and totally legit. Working up your outrage because he agreed to go on Hewitt's program--and Hewitt's a right winger--just seems cheap to me. The philosophy of transparency is working quite well here. Hewitt's views and priorities are well known, Brady takes his chances, the transcript is online for all to see. What you ought to be observing is that Brady is doing the opposite of Bill Keller. He did a Q & A with Post readers, interviews with Editor & Publisher and the New York Times, wrote a post at the post.blog and updated it, gave out an e-mail address for complaints, went on Hewitt's program, and (I believe) would have gone on Air America too if anyone invited him. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 3:27 PM | Permalink I couldn't care less that the Post removed its comment section. That's not the real issue here. The issue is that the news outlet printed that Abramoff donated to Democrats and directed his clients to donate to Democrats, both of which are untrue. And the Post has failed to prove otherwise by sourcing those claims. Readers can still contact the Post by snail mail and e-mail to demand a retraction and correction, or print the truth at their own blogs, or contact the rest of the news media to point out the Post's journalistic hackery on the Abramoff issue. Everyone sems to have lost sight of what sparked tihs wildfire in the first place. Posted by: Gideon Starorzewski at January 21, 2006 3:45 PM | Permalink Charles your are obviously impassioned and thats good, but I don't think my comment was 1- addressing what you are and 2- super-challenging. If you perceived it that way I am sorry. Obviously I didn't do a good job making the distinction. And I think there is. Addressing the correction you want and managing the ombuds blog while connected are 2 separate issues and I think that is what Brady is tying to do. The point is the Post is both a news outlet and a business. There are aspects of the post that have nothing to do with the news - Sales, Janitors etc. and so therefore the Post is run like any other business addressing internal issues, such as legalities regarding work place and the such. In addition to that it is a huge site taking in a bigger chunk of hits than the average blogger. Stepping outside the box, I think Brady's action represent this business end of things rather than the "thin skinned, take my ball home" response you see it as. Look I am not going to pretend that I never get pissed at news outlets or believe there is a motive behind they're reporting, I DO. Or say you have no validity to your underlying issue, I am just saying...based on what I've read on the subject I think their big sin here was not being prepared. Thats all. Posted by: topsecretk9 at January 21, 2006 3:55 PM | Permalink To counter all the lies which the Republicans and news media put forth to confuse citizens, I'd like to suggest a "Truth Squad" which could show up, daily, at a prominent location associated with government: Capitol, White House, Supreme Court, take your pick. This Truth Squad could, to the accompaniment of TV crews and blog reporters, correct the incorrect and refute improper allegations, no matter the source. This daily feature in the news could be the counterweight to all the flack, and people could at least think about issues without being commanded to "believe," regardless of the facts. Didn't Peter Fleming have a similar idea, when he had a feature called, "your government at work?" It was immensely popular, and generated a lot of talk. But, I am afraid that, instead of a creative counterattack on lying, we will see more of the results of "situational thinking" taken to its outer limit: the lie is easier to believe for people who spend their days lying. How can anyone "trust" anything in any media, anymore? As far as firedoglake is concerned: I don't entirely trust people who are so mean-spirited in language. It means they aren't any better than the competition. Jane is too smart to act so nasty. It's a waste of her intellect. And, it's a turn-off for me. Josh Marshall is the only voice I listen to these days. Moderate, intelligent, thorough. And, his blogs have a ripple effect which makes real change possible; much more so than the shouters and abusers. Posted by: margaret at January 21, 2006 4:00 PM | Permalink digby is one of the smartest voices, if not the smartest, on the Left Posted by: bush's jaw at January 21, 2006 4:07 PM | Permalink Stephen Sprueill updated his post at National Review's media blog: UPDATE: After a day or two of thinking about this, I started to wonder if maybe this episode can help conservatives keep things in perspective the next time we challenge the media on certain issues. Honestly, it's impossible to watch liberals making fools of themselves over this (e.g. accusing WashingtonPost.com of censorship just because its editors refuse to host a comments thread filled with obscene language and ad hominem attacks) and not wonder whether we come across the same way when we're criticizing tendentious reporting or bogus editorializing. This will be a useful episode to revisit the next time we're about to fly off the handle over some perceived media slight — a good example of how not to make an argument. Or (as I would put it) victimhood and clear thinking do not go together. Count RJ Eskow at the Huff Post among those who think I got played by Jim Brady. Why? I didn't nail him for Deborah Howell's transgressions. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 4:17 PM | Permalink As far as I can tell, the Time.com boards were one of the last relics of the doomed Pathfinder. Apparently, the boards went in late 2002, after Logan took over the reins at AOL-Time Warner and started shaking things up. Moribund boards exist for some mags like Popular Science at the boards.pathfinder.com subdomain. Courtesy of the Wayback archive, I found this plea from the then moderator Dave McLemore (who I think has posted here so may be able to provide better info than me) on Time from the time of the 2000 election: "Since partisanship is the lifeblood of politics, we might not be able to discuss the election without it. So I guess they were lively enough then. From the looks of it, the boards were hidden from view after Time.com got a redesign and slowly wound down. With Logan in charge, the desire for interactivity took second place to getting revenue from readers. CNN.com is an odd one. I can't tell for sure but it looks as though it had a huge audience and was certainly keeping people on the main site up to 2001. It was one studied in a McKinsey-Jupiter report on community/forum involvement and customer loyalty (sound familiar?). But I think management decided to wind it down after an anonymous user posted the details of a person they accused of being a terrorist on its boards after 9/11. So, I'd guess the 2001-2002 Internet slump plus legal concerns about responsibility for content probably put paid to a lot of newspaper forums, even popular ones. However, in trying to look into this using the "Google method", I stumbled across the Post's own contribution to message boards. It's still going and it's got good traffic even though I can't find out how you reach it from the front page. It was cited in a 2003 OJR piece, which also cited the McKinsey research. The article fingers money as the main problem even with large-scale participation. The NYT forum has slots for ads but all the ones I could find were house ads for other sections of the paper. Posted by: Chris Edwards at January 21, 2006 4:21 PM | Permalink Topsecret, I included you in the post to Jay because you presented the very first evidence I have seen of the existence of *any* abusive posts. Since you didn't provide a URL, it fell into the category of a UFO. However, thanks to a typo in the post, I have traced it back to wapolies.blogspot.com/ There--at last!-- we start discovering the full extent of the perfidy of those posters from the fever swamps, whose awful words had to be deleted lest they bring down the might Post. My Lord, what a tempest in a teapot! Deborah Howell is said to be a "partisan" hack," a "shill," a "broad." Her name is an anagram of "labored howl." She got her job from a cousin. Is she "on the take?" She "has no shame." "She's willfully ignorant." "She should be fired"... "for incompetence" no less. Deborah Howell is a pen name for Jeff Guckert. She's a "dowager trollop." Her bosses are pimps. The very worst comment I saw was the one you posted, calling her a female dog. If this is what it takes to send The Post into a tizzy, people like Jay Rosen should not be acting as enablers. But I don't think The Post is in a tizzy. I am starting to understand what you are driving at. I am coming to the conclusion that Brady is lying, flying the false flag of "decency" *to discredit commercial rivals*. Independent blogs have indeed cut into Post business. But the bait here is too small for the hook. The ugliness of what Brady is doing shows through. I know the business end very, very well and I agree with you. This is looking more and more like a setup, a ploy. Just one more cynical bit of buckraking. Charles once again it was me that wasn't clear... ---Sales, Janitors etc. and so therefore the Post is run like any other business addressing internal issues, such as legalities regarding work place and the such.--- maybe Brady isn't being more honest about this, but tigerhawk makes a good point. Maybe Brady isn't telling us the in-house legal counsel freaked at the potential "hostile work environment" internal employee lawsuits. It is definitely a factor to consider. Posted by: topsecretk9 at January 21, 2006 5:03 PM | Permalink ... *to discredit commercial rivals*. Independent blogs have indeed cut int the Post business. Posted by: notJimBrady at January 21, 2006 5:07 PM | Permalink Jay, I did read your entire post carefully, as indeed I usually read all your posts. I'm a fairly regular reader. I saw your acknowledgement about the increased costs. What I didn't see was the awareness that there's an entire history on this subject, or any willingness to question the assumption that comments are necessary for transparency as opposed to good for traffic. However, I think you're reading my tone as harshly critical, so try substituting exasperation. I just don't understand why you all (and I mean the entire larger community discussing this issue) can be so willfully ignorant. There's a huge body of research on all aspects of online communication, as well as a great deal of history on the media's past attempts to involve its readers online. It's incredibly irritating to read post after post of bloggers "discussing" the issue without any reference to it. Chris, I'd forgotten about the Post's own forums, but I've never seen them particularly active. The Mercury News (SJ's paper) has them as well, but there's little activity. The Times is the only one I can think of that is more than an afterthought. "The article fingers money as the main problem even with large-scale participation. " Yes. I should say that I run a forum, and it does make money (through affiliate advertising), but the forum is the entire purpose--it's not an addon to a news site. I think I could run a media's discussion forum (or blog comments) and make it profitable, but the question is, why attach it to a media site? There's just no reason to. Study after study demonstrates that people who comment/join online forums/write letters to the editor are a subset of the general population, and by no means representative. Readers always outnumber commenters and the ratio is consistently 10:1 or worse. There's no particular synergy between this population and a media site. So why should the media site spend any time or money giving them a venue? Cal: the proper remedy for the exasperation you describe is not to berate people for "willful ignorance" but to provide some links and discuss them. And why don't you argue with this guy (who has a very different view) instead of telling users how ignorant they are of a history you apparently feel has ended? On another matter, I'm sorry, but none of you discussing the "saved" comments have any idea what was on those boards, or whether the various collections of comments showing up now have the evidence that Brady said compelled him to act; and to watch you claim that you do know, that you have the evidence, and that it shows almost nothing offensive is like watching people decide in stages to delude themselves, all so you can come to the conclusion you really, really want to come to, which is that the Post was trying to censor its critics, and Brady is a creep because he did it, and won't admit it. Don't expect me to take such "evidence" seriously because I don't. You are proving nothing; and the phony certainty with which you speak--in a situation that does not permit certainty--is more damning than anything you say. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 5:19 PM | Permalink Topsecret, what on earth would what bloggers say have to do with a hostile work environment? You think salesmen get to sue because the people they call hang up on them? No. If there is a commercial angle, it is in whether people spend their news/entertainment time and dollars on blogs or on The Washington Post. Jay, if there's evidence, let the Washington Post lay it out. You are very quick to use ad hominem to nip at people who are just trying to figure out what is going on. You are very slow to demand that The Post lay out its case for deleting posts with facts rather than vague generalities. Let me at make a gesture toward making it clear that I understand the full fallibity of human beings. I said above that it was Brady who called Kos and Atrios "fever swamps." He did not. It was Hugh Hewitt. As someone who cares about the truth, I regret this error, yet promise that others like it will occur again. Don’t tell me it doesn’t exist—floating hatred for The Media, (which has no address) addressed to individuals who in someone’s eyes represent “the” media—because I can find occasional evidence for it in comments here at PressThink. You can find it at a million Web pages in public view. Bipartisan evidence, too.Jay Rosen: [Richard Aubrey] hates the press, and he comes here to project his hate, hoping to hit someone in journalism with it. I used the term after thinking about it, and after trying to make sense of the kind of comments he was leaving.Then I disagree with your conclusion. I do think Richard is cynical of the press and has only the framework of the bias wars to understand/express his cynicism. I don't understand how you diagnosing him as a press hater and labeling him as such helps. ... Your suggestion that I used the term simply to label people I disagree with is a crock of crap, and mighty insulting. So you may want to re-think that one.Fair enough. Good God, Chris, how did you find that? It seems our sins do come back to haunt. Time Online sprang from the earlier Pathfinder boards which began in the early 1990s. Tom Mandel was the first host. After his death another guy and I assumed 'co-host' duties about 1995-1996 (I've tried to repress all this, so thanks loads for bringing it up.) It was an effort by Time to become part of the cyber-age and all that, to create an online community, a salon out in the ether. The Well, we weren't. But we had fun, engaged in discussions serious and frivilous. But the passion of discourse - coupled with anonymity and inadequate controls on keeping out the trouble-makers - created a monster. The conversation got meaner. Personal attacks and really cruel stuff erupted, spreading like fire. We tried, lord knows we tried, to redirect it, but the nasty drives out the good. By 2000, things were out of control. Time changed plans, shut down most of the boards and I found a lot more time to spend with my family. Which is why I find all this hoorah over Brady and Howell a little sad. Nasty drives out the good. Issues are reduced to the most simplistic and partisan possible. Issues get swamped in the personal invective. Behavior we'd never practice face-to-face becomes the standard, and then excused because, well, hell, the other side does it too! We're already seeing the issue of the Post's coverage of Abramoff and Howell's misleading (and cheerleading) report on the Post story get sidetracked. And Howell has become the latest poster child in the political wars. Something about this reminds me too much of the David Bowie song: When the kids said kill the man, I to break up the band. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 21, 2006 5:43 PM | Permalink "And why don't you argue with this guy (who has a very different view) instead of telling users how ignorant they are of a history you apparently feel has ended?" I don't feel it has ended. I merely know it exists. I don't see anything even remotely relevant in the link you provided; surely you don't think I'm asserting everyone agrees with me? "the proper remedy for the exasperation you describe is not to berate people for "willful ignorance" but to provide some links and discuss them." I'm the expert on the proper remedy to my own exasperation, and I find that the occasional harangue does wonders to improve my mood. Besides, I offered plenty of information in my posts, as has Chris. If you are interested in learning about the history, feel free to ask. But my objective was first to say "a pox upon you all!" and why, and second, to alert anyone interested that there are other, far more relevant, factors at play here than the ones everyone is steamed about. I figure your readers are smart--they can take it from there. Let me at make a gesture toward making it clear that I understand the full fallibity of human beings. I said above that it was Brady who called Kos and Atrios "fever swamps." He did not. It was Hugh Hewitt. As someone who cares about the truth, I regret this error, yet promise that others like it will occur again. this reads like newspaper correction. now why didn't you call yourself a liar, willfully ignorant or incompetent for making the error. Posted by: notJimBrady at January 21, 2006 5:53 PM | Permalink Dave, Sorry for bringing back bad memories. I basically gave the WayBackMachine at archive.org a whirl and guessed the boards would still have been active around the 2000 election. It was only the intro pages that were stored: anything inside the Pathfinder database has been lost forever by the looks of it. Posted by: Chris Edwards at January 21, 2006 5:55 PM | Permalink Jim says -- "The basic issue here is that she didn’t deliver the exact message her critics wanted her to." What a patronizing, head-in-the-sand idiot. The problem is that she either got the facts completely wrong or lied about them, and then instead of admitting it insulted her readers. This is not left-vs-right, as people at Post would like to think. I'm a centrist, and I think Howell and Jim are lying through their teeth and that the Post's coverage is beyond shameful -- it's a betrayal of the Post's heritage and a danger to our democracy. For heaven't sake, even honest people on the right have a less biased view of this story than the Post (see Rich Lowry, Dick Morris, etc. -- and my experience is that in private they pretty much ALL admit it.) As I said, I'm a centrist but I care deeply about balance in the media and the lack of it, at least in the national politics beat, greatly worries me. With the NYT moving furiously to the center (when not busy out-neo-conning the neo-cons), and the Post moving to the center-right, there's nothing left to balance the noxious output of Fox News, CNN, the Washington Times, etc. Another way in which the right's strategy of establishing one-party rule (see K Street Project...) has already succeeded. Posted by: mzw at January 21, 2006 6:03 PM | Permalink Don't expect me to take such "evidence" seriously because I don't. You are proving nothing; and the phony certainty with which you speak--in a situation that does not permit certainty--is more damning than anything you say. Jay, we do now have a collection of 42 comments that were originally in the Howell thread, and which were not included when WP.com "restored the comments" that met Post standards. It is, of course, essential to note that this collection does not preclude the possibility of more profane comments that were "immediately" deleted after they were posted by the WP.com, and thus do not appear in any of the "saved" collections. Indeed, i do remember reading comments with words like "b*tch" and "wh*re" in them -- there is absolutely no question that such comments were posted at some point in the various threads. There are two issues here.... The first is that Brady appears to be exaggerating the level of obscenity and profanity that were appearing in the comments. I say "appears" for one reason --- comments were not being reviewed prior to their being "published", and no one has seen an "overwhelming" number of obscene or profane comments. Brady's apparent exaggeration has been taken even further by the right wing blogosphere (and some aspects of the "traditional" media) who are now "reporting" that the board were "flooded" with profanity and obscenity. More crucially, however, is that when you read the "censored" comments, what you find is that people who accused Howell of lying were censored --- and that otherwise substantive comments that included accusations of "lying" were censored. Brady certainly has the right to censor whatever he wants to censor -- its his ball on his playground. But to suggest that "we" don't know what is being censored is simply not true, and any suggestion that Brady did not censor "substantial" comments is simply false. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The fact is that Howell IS lying when she links to "graphics" that, when examined in light of other evidence, CONTRADICTS her assertion that the documents found there-in support her contention that Abramoff "directed" contributions to Democrats. The "list" included two requests for $2000 in "hard money" to Democratic incumbents re-election campaign funds (Carnahan, and Cleland). According to the FEC, Carnahan got zero, and Cleland got $500. The list also included requests for hard money for the campaigns of GOP incumbents running for re-election. The tribe contributed what they were "directed" to give to the GOP. Howell made a false statement. Rather than acknowledge that the statement was false, she claimed she was merely "imprecise" and then made a second claim, including an assertion that she her revised claimed was backed up with evidence that did not, in fact, support the revised claim. Maybe Brady thinks this is just more "inartful wording" -- but to lots of people, its looks like a lie... Dave, I remember reading an article at Time when the forums were closed; did you write it? Is that what Chris is quoting from? "We tried, lord knows we tried, to redirect it, but the nasty drives out the good. " As an aside, I find that most of the problems with civility begin when the "unwritten rules" of civility are violated. In my own forum, I've said clearly that there are no unwritten rules, and that the forum is in no way responsible for its users' happiness. I don't care if feelings are hurt. In my view, when you write on a forum, you are publishing your thoughts to everyone. You have to be prepared for any criticism that comes back--politely or impolitely expressed. So if person A says "Bush shouldn't have started the war", person B says "Hey, jackass, without the war we wouldn't be safe from terrorism", I don't want to read Person A or anyone else whining in that thread about how mean person B is (and yes, of course, it gets much stronger than "jackass"). The second thing I do is provide a thread (called "Why You Annoy Me") for any arguments that don't involve substance. Person A is welcome to go to Why You Annoy Me and expound at great length on Person B's evil cruelty. All I have to do is move the occasional meltdowns when they occur in the wrong thread (and remember to go there myself when pissed off). It works very well for a forum of my size (top 150 in TLB), and I believe that with a month of hard work and ferocious monitoring it would work at a larger media outlet. I've always wanted to try. That's for a forum. If I were monitoring blogs at the Post and wanted to allow open comments, I would be utterly ruthless about topicality and ignore profanity. If the site didn't feel comfortable with that approach, I'd tell them to give up open comments. I want to get off the issue of whether Brady and the Post were or were not engaging in censorship, lying, whatever, and instead get back to the substance of the dispute. Brady: I disagree. The problem here is that there really are probably only two sides to this question: The Democratic spin: This is a Republican scandal and the media should plainly say so. The Republican spin: The Democrats are just as involved as we are, and everybody does it, nothing new, here people, lets move on. While there may be shades of gray in between, they would involve someone actually going in and attempting a detailed analysis. The outrage comes from the fact that whether she is under the control of the Republicans or not, Howell's argument is much closer to the Republican spin. And she hasn't justified her position with evidence. It's simply wrong that Howell didn't say "exactly what her critics wanted", it's that her concession was virtually meaningless, her message still spun within the GOP storyline. If she had presented solid research (by herself or by someone else) to justify that instead of continuing to parrot conventional wisdom, she wouldn't have been the object of nearly as much invective. I also want to comment on the nature of truth here. Howard Dean has said that not one Democrat took money from Abramoff, and that is apparently true. Howell now says that Abramoff directed such contributions to Democrats. I haven't seen any evidence of such and I still haven't seen where Howell has offered any, but it doesn't mean that some may not surface at some point. If it does surface, it still would not vindicate Howell's position. Indulge me for a moment and consider the following example for the realm of Sports Trivia: Q. Which brothers hold the record for most home runs hit in career by brothers?. A. Not the Alou brothers, the Boone brothers or the diMaggio brothers or any other well known sets of brothers. The record is held by On one level, this is, of course, true. But it is a trick question, not really what people want to know when asking such a question. Henry Aaron alone has more homers than any other group of brothers. Tommie Aaron's contribution was negligible. Similarly, if Jack Abramoff is found to have "directed" one or more of his clients to give a little money to Democrats, does that prove that both parties equally to blame? That's what people want to know. Who is to blame? Also relevant is what the point of the donation was? It might have been, in fact, to provide bipartisan cover in case he was ever caught. Abramoff was a Republican, he ran in Republican circles, he was involved in the K Street project to induce lobbyists to be more Republican. Democrats still find Howell's concession completely unsatisfying, not because "it's not exactly what we want to hear" but because in this polarized situation, her arguments haven't moved in any significant way toward true balance. Posted by: Steve Cohen at January 21, 2006 6:17 PM | Permalink Steve: I think that is a smart and subtle analysis. My conclusion from watching Howell is that she's a misguided balancer, out-of-touch with the environment she's operating in, a captive of craft wisdom that has broken down, and too proud, stubborn or vain to realize where she's going wrong. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 6:22 PM | Permalink Topsecret, what on earth would what bloggers say have to do with a hostile work environment? You think salesmen get to sue because the people they call hang up on them? Are you kidding? First, frivolous claims are a cottage industry. Second, frivolous claims are still very expensive ( as in you still have to spend money to defend a meritless lawsuit.) Third, regardless if you are a big news corporation or a big fast food chain the operative word is big (as in target). Fourth, if an employer allows disparaging comments about one of their employees to remain plastered on their site, there is risk to the employer. So finally 5 - whose to say that the claim will indeed be found to be merit-less. I am just saying that more often than not these concerns have drive decisions. And granted Jay is right ( to the extent of the comments extremities) I was just pointing out it may be a factor. Posted by: topsecret at January 21, 2006 6:26 PM | Permalink Steve C. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 21, 2006 6:26 PM | Permalink No. Howell is saying this is a bi-partisan scandal, and that Sue Schmitt investigated it with the same dogged determination with which she investigated Whitewater, and we don't play favorites because we're the press, and if people understood that they would be better off. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 6:30 PM | Permalink jay, i guess i'm reading the paper's position through Kurtz here. what is the official position of the Post? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 21, 2006 6:36 PM | Permalink I haven't heard Howell say that Howard Dean was substantially right. To most people, "bi-partisan scandal" means both parties are equally to blame. Posted by: Steve Cohen at January 21, 2006 6:37 PM | Permalink if Howell said bi-partisan in the original column, she didn't say that again in her response/mini correction. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 21, 2006 6:45 PM | Permalink My conclusion from watching Howell is that she's a misguided balancer, out-of-touch with the environment she's operating in, a captive of craft wisdom that has broken down, and too proud, stubborn or vain to realize where she's going wrong. I think you've tagged it right, Jay. There's something formulaic in Howell's efforts to balance out the republicans' sins by throwing in the democrats. And she initially appeared genuninely surprised that all these strangers would take offense. A simple 'oops. I messed up' would likely prevented this blow-up. But whether from vanity, arrogance, pride or stubborness, neither she nor the Post could respond quickly to the error. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 21, 2006 6:45 PM | Permalink Bush's jaw: the WaPo is not saying the Democrats are equal to blame. the paper is saying, from what i've read, that Dems are Tommie Aaron. So if that's what the Post is really saying, that is, that the Democratic contribution to the scandal is on the "negligible" level, why the dogged insistence on mentioning it? They've reduced "balance" to absurdity. Posted by: Steve Cohen at January 21, 2006 6:48 PM | Permalink that is the way balance have evolved in the press unfortunately. did you read my link to Kurtz, who says even the National Review says this is basically a Republican scandal. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 21, 2006 6:53 PM | Permalink Yeah, I did, and that's to the good. But it pales in comparison to the fuss created by their shutting down the blog, etc. Posted by: Steve Cohen at January 21, 2006 6:55 PM | Permalink I think it was Ami that said that I was “a kinder gentler troll than Jason” (Wait, I think the term is “A Benign Troll” but a troll nonetheless because…well, actually, I’m not really sure why. I guess it’s because I asked a lot of “clueless” questions of a complicated subject (which now everyone admits has been completely made clear) during a conversation that I had approached with the goal of understanding it better. So, am I a “troll”? In other words, trolling is not only being foul-mouthed and vile and disruptive, it’s also trying to understand or move forward on an issue rather than just endlessly venting in agreement with a majority. I have posted comments in very few places (and I’ve been online since the early 90s) and when I do I use my real name, like others have mentioned, because it reminds me that I’m having a conversation with someone who at the least deserves basic respect, even if I think he/she is a fool, even if he/she is “lying” (never my choice of a word), even if he/she is so far submersed in the political well they can’t see out of it, even if this person annoys me to the MAX. I mean, come on, this is kind of basic stuff, no? Middle school, maybe? When I first experimented with wanting to show how cool I was because I knew some shocking words, I was given the line, “Well…Ok….that’s fine, but just remember that people judge you by what comes out of your mouth, so you better think twice before you open it.” I guess I’m just too unsophisticated to see the point in time spent reading a Jane Hamsher, for example, when there are so many other funny, gifted writers that work harder at their craft and have similar views. This point was made earlier but I think it's worth repeating, albeit awkwardly: Isn't it all about trying to rise above, rather than stoop down to? Posted by: Kristen at January 21, 2006 7:02 PM | Permalink what is the fuss? censorship by shutting down comments? those Howell comments drive more traffic to the site. so do bloggers who bash the paper yet continue to link to WaPo stories. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 21, 2006 7:03 PM | Permalink "...a captive of craft wisdom that has broken down, and too proud, stubborn or vain to realize where she's going wrong." I think that's on the mark in every aspect, Jay. Captive, proud, stubborn and vain -- and, in this case, alas, a little too casual with the facts. (Which, among other things, should make her column tomorrow, umm, interesting, to say the least.) Shortly thereafter, Debbie cheerfully resurfaced across the river as managing editor of the St Paul Pioneer-Press, in which post she regularly beat Isaacs and the Star Tribune to stories that both papers were pursuing. So she's heard worse than anything that was posted at the comments section of post.blog this week -- and lived to tell about it. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 21, 2006 7:15 PM | Permalink WASHINGTON POST RELATIONSHIP WITH LINCOLN GROUP? NUMBER ONE EXAMPLE Thanks to all of you who helped connect Schrage with military commanders in Baghdad and CONUS, all of whom were willing to go on the record to speak out on this issue. This will be in tomorrow's Post. C(hristian Bailey - Company Head) NUMBER TWO EXAMPLE Lincoln Group's story is out on the front page of The Washington Post's Business Section today. This should help to dispel some of the recent misinformation about the firm. Thanks to those who helped make this happen. Posted by: Payola Peek at January 21, 2006 7:15 PM | Permalink Jay... Jane is reporting that you (and she, Jarvis, and Reynolds) have all been invited by Brady to a roundtable on the question of "comments" associated with "traditional" media outlets. Jane also is reporting that
They have carefully outlined that the discussion will not be about Deborah Howell; they're pretty much saying she's the Post's problem, this is the Washingtonpost.com, the online edition. If you go, I'd like to suggest that you ask Brady flat out if WP.com can issue its own corrections of erroneous information contained in "content" from the Post (either in general, or with regard to the ombudsman's column specifically) -- because I think that may be a key issue here. A point that will have to be made is that if an outlet like WP.com is going to allow comments from readers, it needs to have some control over the "content" that readers will be commenting on. The "meltdown" occurred primarily because of the lack of a correction to a demonstrably false statement made by the Post ombudsman that was put on-line by WP.com. Whether one attributes the error to "inartful wording" or whatever, it was a factual error that cried out for "correction", and not "explanation", and that the speed at which the on-line environment operates demands that an outfit like WP.com be able to respond to legitimate calls for correction in a timely fashion. if you do go, maybe you can start a new thread, and ask your readers what they think on the topic.... I don’t think Deborah Howell’s correction is going to help matters: Lobbyists, seeking influence in Congress, often advise clients on campaign contributions. While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties. What evidence does Howell or anyone have that Abramoff directed his clients to make contributions? It seems to me you should have at least something to support such an allegation. I also do not understand why his Indian tribal clients are being singled out. He has other clients, why are only his Indian clients being held up to public scorn? When you make a public mistake the only thing to do is correct it as quickly as possible and try to change the subject. Trying to justify the original mistake only exasperates your problem. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 21, 2006 7:41 PM | Permalink I did get such an invitation, ami. I haven't decided yet whether I can go, and they haven't decided whether it will work with everyone's schedules. I would like to do it; it would be an interesting thing to write about. Jane's post about it is here. She asked her readers if she should go and they overwhelmingly said yes-- give 'em hell, Jane. "Treat Glenn Reynolds like he isn't there," said one. I would have trouble with an instruction like that. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 7:52 PM | Permalink The deluge, which overwhelmed the Web site's screening efforts, began after Howell wrote in a column published Sunday that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." That is incorrect. As Howell noted on Thursday morning in a short piece on Post.blog, Abramoff did not make direct contributions to Democrats but directed his lobbying clients to do so. Deluge Shuts Down Post Blog By Paul Farhi Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 8:05 PM | Permalink .... time spent reading a Jane Hamsher, for example, when there are so many other funny, gifted writers that work harder at their craft and have similar views. I assume you are referring to Jane's language. We are adults here (for the most part, anyway:)). Can't we deal with the one-off PG-rated phrase without getting all bent out of shape? I am tickled pink (idiomatically speaking, of-course) by Jane's moniker for Kate O'Beirne. I cannot help but chuckle each time I think about it. If I were to guess, it probably hurt Kate very dearly, which is exactly how it was intended by Jane, it appears. It is very much par for the course; If Kate wants to dish it out, it is only fair that she should be willing to take it too! As for me, I find it all very entertaining. Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 8:15 PM | Permalink Jane is reporting that you (and she, Jarvis, and Reynolds) have all been invited by Brady to a roundtable on the question of "comments" associated with "traditional" media outlets. Ms. Howell's reporting on Abramoff is the elephant in the room. If that is decreed off limits, what is there to talk about? blog policing? Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 8:26 PM | Permalink I’m all for transparency... I think evidence would suggest that we’ve been working hard at being transparent. I’d say that we want to encourage discussion of Post content. How can Brady brag about transparency after shutting down the WaPo's blog during its madien voyage? You'd think, as a so-called newsman, he'd be more committed to his people telling the truth instead of artificially "balancing" this Abramoff story at the expense of the Democrats instead of defending someone who'd obviously a GOP hack. Posted by: jurassicpork at January 21, 2006 8:43 PM | Permalink Kirsten, Something to put Ms. O'Beirne in perspective: American Enterprise Online via Digby via TBogg: O’BEIRNE: When I heard that he grew up jumping rope with the girls in his neighborhood, I knew everything I needed to know about Bill Clinton. There’s no contest between Clinton and Bush on masculinity. Bill Clinton couldn’t credibly wear jogging shorts, and look at George Bush in that flight suit. What goes around comes around! Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 8:43 PM | Permalink Why has WaPo been singled out, given what the AP and Knight-Ridder have published? Scandal sullies both Republicans and Democrats Minority Leader Reid Apologizes to GOP The Abramoff investigation threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials. Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud his Indian tribe clients, has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is cooperating with prosecutors. .... and a rant against Kate O'Beirne's recent book that is easy to sympathize with. (sorry; this is somewhat tangential to the topic, so I will just provide a link and refrain from pasting the piece) Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 8:58 PM | Permalink ami: if you do go, maybe you can start a new thread, and ask your readers what they think on the topic... I like that idea, or some variation on it. If this happens, I may do that. It's sounding iffy to me, though; there is no confirmation the roundtable at WPNI offices can be pulled off on short notice. But supposing it can, and it is webcast, which it ought to be... Village: Ms. Howell's reporting on Abramoff is the elephant in the room. If that is decreed off limits, what is there to talk about? blog policing? I want you to know this would not happen. If a subject like "what Deborah Howell reported and wrote" were truly off limits, none of us would participate. I haven't asked Jane, Glenn, Jeff, but I know what their answer would be. When you have been in these situations (and some here have, maybe you have, village) what matters is not what someone says is the topic, but whether freedom of speech exists, and will you have a microphone, and will the hosts actually try to prevent you from speaking freely, if you are obeying the rules of the show, but wander into officially "discouraged" areas. (Very rare is the host who will, because they don't have a language equal to their impulse...) From the point of view of a guest, or participant in the WPNI forum, a kind of show, I don't care that much what Jim Brady or the letter I got or anyone else says the subject matter is. If you want to have a discussion about the post.blog's comment shut down, great, let's do that. We lay it all out. What happened, and what caused it to happen. The participants themselves, and their will to speak freely-- these guarantee the reality of the situation. Or they fail to, they censor themselves, and the thing is a bust. The first time someone asks me anything about the shut down, I'm going to say: "well, the events of the shutdown were triggered by what Deborah Howell did as ombudsman," and I'm going to say why that is-- exactly why. It won't be an elephant in the room. It will be a room in which at least one participant (me) points and says: let's start with that elephant. Which is the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, and her decision-making in the job. And yet there will be other elephants. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 9:05 PM | Permalink Why has WaPo been singled out, given what the AP and Knight-Ridder have published? What exactly is wrong in the articles you linked to? On the other hand, if you have followed this (and the previous) thread, Ms. Howell's mischaracterizations are well documented. Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 9:09 PM | Permalink A poster calling himself "NotJimBrady" thinks it's Oliver Stone territory to believe that blogs are financial competitors to print media. Is he trying to tell us that Jay Rosen is actually Oliver Stone? I mean, saying that blogs are not financial competitors to newspapers is really woo-woo territory. "OJR: Everyone is now arguing about the death of print newspapers due to declining readership. What is it about magazines that will allow the medium to retain readership and profit economically as ad dollars move online? How can magazines prosper economically in the digital age? I might also suggest the following links: (http://www.naa.org/Presstime/PTArtPage.cfm?AID=6308) I know it's easier to jeer rather than think, but I assure you it's possible to do both, preferably in reverse order. As for NotJimBrady calling me a liar for being so base as to actually *correct* an error, is this the sort of post that Jay Rosen calls abusive? I'm interested simply out of curiosity. Personally, I'd like the post to stand as a testament to the character of the NJB, who evidently dare not use anything other than a signature line he can discard like a used Kleenex. If he is a journalist, he might consider my response to him as just one example of a mature approach to dealing with an often-abrasive public. Topsecret, I am almost certain that you are wrong about the legal liability of an employer for disparaging comments against an employee. If you believe you are correct, please provide a citation. Topsecret, I am almost certain that you are wrong about the legal liability of an employer for disparaging comments against an employee. If you believe you are correct, please provide a citation. I do not feel like digging through the findlaw archives, but a couple of years back, the Supreme Court clarified the situations in which sexual harassment / hostile workplace lawsuits can be brought against employers, and in doing so, outlined affirmative actions that employers can take to avoid liability. Most large corporations have promptly put in place new policies and practices that are designed to benefit from the ruling and I would be surprised if WaPoCo is an exception. I would seriously doubt if that was the reason WaPo pulled the comments section, although it may very well be put out as 'a' reason in addition to repeating the 'doing the right thing by our employees' narrative. Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 9:27 PM | Permalink I love this from the comments at Jane Hamsher's "should I go?" post: Yes, go! Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 10:21 PM | Permalink WaPo is not taking responsibility for any of its many series of mistakes and I don't think your take on it is helping Jay. Mistake 1 - not paying attention to what blogging is like and about before jumping in the water. Gee - is "flaming" a newly discovered concept fergoshsakes? Mistake 2 - not having a very clear, set policy for how posters will be handled. Mistake 3 - not having profanity filters. Mistake 4 - not having a direct blog area for - of all people, the "omnbudsman". Mistake 5 - not having a clear policy on how factual mistakes will be addressed for the blog responders so that they don't go for 5 days thinking there is just no response and getting more and more upset. Mistake 6 - not having a factual content policy for their omnbudsman's statements (apparently, from her recent posts, her job it to "speak her mind" as fact -?- ("To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.") Mistake 7 - not having a clearcut job description for the omnbudsman, because if people understood that her job was to represent writers of WaPo against the bloggers of wp.c (Froomkin) or to "speak her mind" then there would very likely have been a much lesser response, however, the readers have been under a misunderstanding that Ms. Howell was supposed to represent readers' interests with respect to inaccuracies. Mistake 8 - not having anyone from WaPo early on in the responses, in realization of Mistakes 1-7, put up a definite statement in the blog about what would and what would not be allowed and that the blog would be closed if there were too many difficulties with XYZ. Mistake 9 - having identified some of what WaPo believed to be the "sources" of posts (atrio, fdl, etc.) not contacting those "sources" directly at all (does anyone at WaPo remember the concept of direct contact with identified sources) and instead going on to a very partisan radio station to give him a bullypulpit to decry and denigrate your readership 'for you'. Mistake 10. Not realizing that when you publish this: http://www.chicagohs.org/treasures/gif/10dewtru.jpg None of those get to what the biggest mistake of all is, though, and each of you has sidestepped it neatly. While who Abramoff gave money to himself is indicative, a bit, of his political leanings, neither that fact nor the fact that his clients made campaign contributions means anything much from a practical perspective. And it is an odd feel, I won't say racist, but I understand that reaction, when the Post focuses on Indian tribes as "tainted" and their particular campaign contributions as tainted. What about the Mariannas, the Guam superior court (which sure looks like an efficient laundering system was in place for some payoff) the Tan family, Unisys, etc.. The story is not who got campaign contributions and not how a lobbyist doing legitmate lobbying might work with a client on a budget for their contributions. BTW - WaPo over and over talks about the "evidence" that Abramoff "directed" monies to xyz without demonstrating any of that evidence or defining what they mean by directed. I have seen no factual comparisons between contributions before the tribes became Abramoff clients and after, but quite obviously if his "direction" is to make a smaller contribution than in prior years, that would be an important fact. If he worked with the tribe on budgeting contributions to persons such as those on Indian Affairs committees or home state representatives, etc. ---- NO ONE PLEADS TO THAT. *s* Abramoff is involved in the middle of many things, including quid pro quo allegations vis a vis legislation (and I do not think anyone argues that the tribes' full campaign contribution budgets were there for quid pro quo) he is involved with issues regarding scam charities and misdirecting funds, issues related to money laundering, investigations into the possible demotion of a US Attorney who began investigating him, illegally and unethically representing clients specifically adverse to each other at the same time (Greenberg Traurig is a law firm as well as having its partners/employees acting as a registered lobbyists), setting up lucrative private sector jobs for staffers and admin officials who helped matters along for him, etc. Is it too much to ask for factual reporting of lo these many things, with discussions of who the entities and personalities involved might be and the full picture, rather than just a basketball scoreboard of who got campaign contributions. If you keep your reporting infantile, the response will be in keeping. Abramoff is not going to jail bc clients made campaign contributions and people who received contributions from Indian tribes are not tainted bc there is something "taintlike" about Indian tribes and guess what -- there are lots of places to go to get fact based reporting on the things that are illegal. Bully for WaPo that Ms. Howell will keep "speaking her mind". The whole problem is that they think they are there as a venue for her to vent and rant, as opposed to being a venue for circulation of facts by connect the dot journalists.
Posted by: Mary at January 21, 2006 10:24 PM | Permalink She does not get it; I am afraid this looks like it is going to go on :( Posted by: village idiot at January 21, 2006 10:50 PM | Permalink "She asked her readers if she should go and they overwhelmingly said yes" No, her commenters overwhelmingly said yes. Readers outnumber commenters 10:1 or thereabouts consistently and there's no reason to assume her blog is any different. Commenters are not representive of readers. If washingtonpost.com wants to serve its readers, it should remember at all time that commenters are barely fringe. Is it necessary to physically fly to DC? Doesn't anyone do video-conferencing? I mean, I see it on TV and stuff. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 21, 2006 11:06 PM | Permalink It's so silly to see the Atriots all run off the cliff together like lemmings. All they've succeeded in doing is making themselves and their juvenile incivility the story, rather than the Washington Post's factual error. My take: It's the Post's website. They can set their own ground rules for their commenters. And the commenters are free to go start their own blogs. This is a tempest in a teapot. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at January 21, 2006 11:22 PM | Permalink There is some confusion reflected in Howell's column. I'm not sure what to make of it. There's a basic lack of clarity involving the Net and how it meshes with the Washington Post. Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down. The abusive e-mails she got were not the reason that part of the Post's website was shut down. She conflates e-mails addressed to her with comments at a weblog, and winds up with an incorrect statement. In the first sentence of her column, which is supposed to correct for the previous one. Then there's... I didn't ask washingtonpost.com to shut down an area reserved for comments about me, as it did on Thursday night. And I know the decision is being greeted with great disdain. Howell does not seem to know that the washingtonpost.com shut down comments on the entire post.blog, not the parts "reserved" for her. (Brady wrote: "As of 4:15 p.m. ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely.") Or that the discussion about her column (and the abuse she is writing about) began at a post about something entirely different, the launch of A Maryland Moment. Now you might say these are small confusions, glitches, but what are they doing there in a column that was to be so heavily scrutinized? To me it's odd. But when you put it together with one of the stranger observations from the Froomkin column... The Web is a wonderful place for The Post to put newsprint-eating texts and documents, such as presidential speeches, and other information, such as congressional votes, that readers want. ... it makes you wonder even more. Anyone on this frequency? Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2006 11:42 PM | Permalink One factor that is being forgotten in this discussion is that Howell's column followed her earlier column on Froomkin and came the same day as Kurtz' repetition of attacks on Jack Murtha's integrity by a rightist front without identifying the source of the attack as highly partisan (Kurtz presented their attack as if it came from a legitimate news source). As consumers of the MSM, many of us have been very disturbed by recent evidence of collaboration with (and outright employment by) White House disinformation programs (Lincoln Group, Gannon, etc.) We turn to media columnists like Kurtz and ombuds like Howell for some form of accountability and transparency on the part of the media. In the case of the Washington Post, we are instead seeing precisely these writers as the very ones who repeat and reinforce highly partisan misstatements of basic facts. (aka "lies"). The swarming of the Post's blog site did not occur in a vacuum - and the context for this latest swarm is important since it raises a serious question about the reliability of Post reporting. Brady's attempt to distract us with worries about civility won't work - and Howell's smirking announcement of her 2 year contract in tomorrow's column does nothing to assure us that she is representing the concerns of any readers except those at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Posted by: siun at January 21, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink I posted this comment at firedoglake on January 12th, following the "Win a Date with Kate" Hamsher post. She referenced this post by quoting another commenter's rejoinder, and vowed again that the bitch is dead meat. Read on to see what set her off. Now, awash in transparent rationalizations about trolls and so on, I still don't think she gets it. Either that or she does, and the blogger brouhaha is, as described below, mission accomplished. --------------- This is entertaining, have to admit. But at the same time I have to wonder at how easily "people" like O'Beirne are able to manipulate our best and brightest into attack mode, where they dutifully supply the controversy needed to market these noxious wares. This character O'Beirne, and Ann Coulter, John Gibson, O'Reilly and others specialize in the contrived incendiary statement, the comment that raises hackles and sets the otherwise intelligent progressives on the war path, painted and whooping like matinee Indians. It's pretty obvious these people are equivalent to "comment trolls" -- blog readers who post "outrageous" statements or vicious personal slams against fellow readers or the personages those readers esteem. It's a game, and who knows what they really think? The comment troll is only interesting in scoring, and his score is the number of outraged responses. Everyone know this, no? And yet here is the blogging elite dutifully taking pundit troll Kate O'Beirne's bait, feeding the controversy, dragging (Amazon!) censorship into the mix, ladling on the personal assaults and ambiguous threatening street oaths (the bitch is dead meat), which in turn beget more outraged reactions, this time from the other side, and with any luck the msm will pick it up and run the blogger brouhaha story and guess what. Katie Sells Books! And BloggerX Gets Mentioned on CNN or in the WaPo! Fifteen years or so ago Noam Chomsky wrote about the web of interlocking interests (access, credibility, story-flow requirements) that have the effect of 'normalizing' news, of coopting journalists to the ruling party line. In short, of breeding the kind of corrupt journalism peddled by the likes of Martin, Woodward, et al. I have marveled at the blogging community and particularly the writers here -- and the diligence and intelligence with which they, unfettered by the web of recursive self-interest of their traditional media counterparts, cut through the right wing and administration malarkey like a hot Ginsu through butter. But then, I see these same heroic writers rear up like trained bears when an attention junkie like O'Beirne or Coulter strings a few grating syllables together - in exactly the same way that a gullible commenter takes umbrage at the stink bombs lobbed by snickering, anonymous comment trolls. And I wonder...is this the functional equivalent of the tradmedia web of complicity, a web so subtle and effective (as Chomsky has observed) that even those stenographers ensnared in it believe themselves to be high-functioning professionals worthy of awards? In the new, nonTradMedia version the complicity is between right and left, and is founded on mutually assured denunciation. The reward for this complicity is controversy and its idiot half-brother, publicity. Like I said, it's entertaining. Or maybe I should say diverting. Like a dancing chicken is diverting, or better yet, like a soap operatic, shirtless domestic smackdown in a trailer park on COPS is diverting. But my two cents? This is a slippery slope... - Ron Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 22, 2006 12:30 AM | Permalink Jay, Steve Cohen, here is the bi-partisan thing again. When did Howell say it was a bi-partisan scandal? not in the column on Jan. 15 either. if she said that earlier, it was corrected on her response last Thursday. Here is is what she said in the latest column: My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 12:41 AM | Permalink Thanks for bringing that over, Ron. It's one of the most intelligent things I have read lately. No, Jaw, she didn't say the words: "it's a bipartisan scandal." She didn't say the words "it's a Republican scandal," either. Now she has. Back then she tried to avoid saying either one, and just leave the impression of a balanced account by emphasizing "Democrats too, Democrats too." But she was so eager to strike a blow for balance that she bonked herself on the head with "Democrats too" statements that were incorrect. Thus it was the impression of a both parties scandal she tried to create without saying it. My observation was not that she wrote "bipartisan scandal." It's that she wished for things to be more balanced that they were. “He had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties…” I read these mis-descriptions as a wish for balance in the facts of the scandal itself. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 12:42 AM | Permalink Thus it was the impression of a balanced scandal she tried to create without saying it. Jay, are you reading into things she didn't say? these are the final paragraphs on Jan. 15: The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money. Howell on Jan. 15 incorrectly said that Abramoff personally gave money to Dems. That was an error she admitted. She and the Post still says Abramoff directed his clients to give money to Dems, a small number of Dems. Many people in the left blogosphere dispute this, saying the WaPo has no proof. The charge that she implied that this scandal was bipartisan -- equal for both Repubs and Dems -- is totally made up. She never said or implied that this was equal. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 1:03 AM | Permalink no fair Jay (ha ha ;-), you edited your comment before i hit the post button. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 1:07 AM | Permalink Now you got her as innocent of things she's already corrected herself for. I think that's over lawyering. She corrected herself for implying that it was a bi-partisan scandal, and she most certainly did imply it by my reading. She also wished for it, and the wish is what caused the errors. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 1:17 AM | Permalink this is not a moving goal post ... Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 1:23 AM | Permalink I don't know it. It is my interpretation, based on reading the signs as well as the sentences. You are welcome to partake of it. Or not. So far no Democrats in the first tier, but stay tuned. Hear it?
Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 1:30 AM | Permalink i see your point. i just respectfully disagree. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 1:36 AM | Permalink Ron Martinez - slippery slope and all ... The community at Firedoglake hosted by Jane and Redd enjoys solid analysis and reasoned discourse - but we also like to have a little fun. And in the OBierne case, we had a grand time and the book started down a slippery slope of losing sales. Since the publication of these books by specifically conservative imprints boosted by bulk purchases by rightwing groups is an attempt to fool us into thinking that ideas like OBierne's have legitimacy - hitting back, esp with the clear good humour of folks like Jesus General - gives us a way to deflate their false influence. Some of us are comfortable enough in our own skins that we don't need to always play the intellect card. Posted by: siun at January 22, 2006 1:49 AM | Permalink Farhad Manjoo at Salon got interviews with Howell and Len Downie and he does a good job of explaining the whole deal. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 2:10 AM | Permalink I found this bit (from the Salon piece cited above) rather shocking... But asked if she'd show readers this "fuller picture," Howell says it's not her duty to delve into the substance of the debate over whether Abramoff did or did not influence Democrats. That's for reporters at the Post to do, she says. There is a great deal of substantive criticism of the Post's coverage of the Abramoff scandal that can only be addressed if Howell "delves into the substance of the debate." Chief among these criticisms is the question of whether the Post has exagerrated/distorted the significance of potential corruption of Democrats while virtually ignoring far more significant evidence of corruption on the part of Republicans (especially Republicans in the executive branch.) One rather gaping hole in the Post's coverage concerns Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton. Norton co-founded, and lead, an "astro-turf" organization called Council of Republican Environmental Advocates prior to joining the Bush admin five years ago. There is no question that Jack Abramoff specifically directed over ONE HALF MILLION DOLLARS from his tribal clients to CREA -- an organization not exactly known for its advocacy of Native American interests -- after Norton became Secretary of the Interior. Norton attended fund-raisers for CREA organized by Abramoff attended by tribal clients. And while the Post has covered the involvement of Abramoff's contact at CREA, and the Deputy Secretary of the Interior in charge of Native American Affairs, the Post has barely mentioned Norton in its coverage (e.g. both the CREA contact, and the Deputy Secretary, are listed in the Post's "who's who" on the Abramoff scandal, but Norton isn't.) And the funny thing is, there is no known prior connection between the Deputy Secretary and CREA. And Abramoff solicited (and received) donations from the tribes specifically for CREA projects that he identified as those that Norton wanted to see funded IMMEDIATELY after the fundraisers that Norton had attended with the tribal leaders. But you won't find any mention of this stuff in the Post coverage --- But you will find voluminous coverage of the fact that Senator Dorgan (a democrat) recieved money from a tribal client of Abramoff three weeks after Dorgan signed a letter concerning funding for tribal schools. (The letter was sent to Norton -- but the Post doesn't bother to tell us what Norton did about the "tribal schools" issue....) Its these kinds of contrasts in the coverage of the Abramoff issue that concern Post critics -- and there is simply no way in hell that Howell can ever understand what the critics are talking about unless she does delve DEEPLY into the Abramoff coverage.... (BTW, Damn you Jay! I was about to got to sleep when I saw your link to the Salon article...and here I am an hour later, typing away.... ) :) Lots of people have pointed to Jane Hamsher's comments on Kate O'Beirne as a way to avoid addressing what she's said re: Howell. Let's just say that each got the respect she deserved -- in Howell's case, a great deal more. Let's look at a couple of issues here: 1. Howell personally made a blatant misstatement. She was tardy and grudging in correcting it. She is the newspaper's ombudsman. To me, that's two and a half strikes. Everything she has written since taking over suggests that she still thinks she's an advocate for the newsroom, not the readers. 2. If you're going to defend the 'directing money to Democrats' line, don't do it by pointing to something knocked up by the graphics department. One of the comments not restored was Paul Lukasiak's. He pointed out that the FEC numbers for the Dems mentioned simply don't match the contribution amounts recommended in the small fragment of the list which was used to create that graphic. He also pointed out that Tom DeLay's name was curiously left off the list, though enough remained to identify him. 3. The WaPo-WPNI situation is untenable. No matter how much Howell emphasises that the WaPo is a 'local paper' and that the people running the website aren't directly employed by the paper, that distinction is one which concerns employees of both companies, not the readers. If the paper wants the site to have a separate identity, then it will need to get a new domain name. The Guardian readers' editor, Ian Mayes, has discussed at length the issues that arise from having a wide international audience that never sees a print copy of the paper. His job is driven much more by the website than the print edition. The Post hasn't learned this lesson, and is not likely to do so while the geographical and corporate wall between the Washington Post Company and WPNI is sustained. It's not 1996 any more. Visitors to WaPo.com expect the kind of synergies between website and broadcast/print that the BBC or Guardian Media Group has worked on for a decade. One can forgive Howell, perhaps, for thinking that a website should simply be a repository for static content that would take up too much space in print; but she can't continue to think that and do her job effectively. Posted by: pseudonymous in NC at January 22, 2006 3:55 AM | Permalink VillageIdiot, how can an employer have liability for the actions of a customer? This simply does not compute. As for employees having rights, trying to exercise them is an excellent learning experience, though very expensive. ________________ Mary, I like your phrase that this was a Janet Jackson-style "fact malfunction." ________________ If the WaPo has evidence of Democratic misdeeds, it should publish it. If not, it should shut up. Making vague, unsubstantiated allegations of the commission of crimes is wrong. Siun is correct in pointing to context. This incident did not occur in a vacuum. Jay: The abusive e-mails she got were not the reason that part of the Post's website was shut down. She conflates e-mails addressed to her with comments at a weblog, and winds up with an incorrect statement Many bloggers receive an email with new comments as they are posted to their blogs. Perhaps that is how her software works, as well. So far no Democrats in the first tier, but stay tuned. Hear it? I hear her saying: Look Republican critics, you are wrong that we are protecting Democrats. We are doing a thorough investigation and the facts so far show only Republicans are in the first tier. However, because we are doing a fair and honest investigation, if the facts change we will report it. Remember she has critics on both sides. I don't see her trying to make the scandal itself bi-partisan, but rather trying to get both sides to believe that the investigation and reporting has been non-partisan. She wants her readers to buy into the fairness of the process, even if the results end up looking very unfair. As she says, this scandal is nowhere near over. There is a lot of reporting yet to be done. Are people that are so vociferously criticizing her and the Washington Post at this early stage trying to control the terms of the future coverage? [if you don't implicate Democrats you will be hearing from us! If you do implicate Democrats you will be hearing from us!] Many bloggers wished for Deborah Howell to re-examine her words and actions, and apologize. Apologies do feel good. Are any of those bloggers now re-examining their own actions and wondering if they went overboard? Is anyone apologizing to Deborah Howell? Posted by: MayBee at January 22, 2006 4:21 AM | Permalink Jay - the Salon article repeats the claim that the Post was flooded with hate mail and cusswords yet there is no evidence that this is true. And when called on it, Farhad admits, in the letters, that he has not seen these supposed numerous nasty posts. As Jane has pointed out, the Post acts like it has never noticed that there are trolls on the net - which highlights their cluelessness in hosting an online presence. But more importantly, I find it troubling that Farhad - and you by your recommendation of his article - is so willing to take the Post's claims and excuses on faith. I sense an underlying dis-ease about the "masses" out here in blogland in this willingness to continue to back the Post's claims without evidence. Comments were heated - yep - and many took swipes at Howell's integrity but characterising the swarm as "hate speech" or using generalizations that suggest that the poor old Post.com was simply overwelmed by nastiness is disingenous. Posters were pissed - Howell was abdicating her role as ombudsman to repeat partisan talking points and to appease republican critics - and then using apparently doctered documents to support her claims. The comments I read, and the one I posted, expressed our outrage that Howell was refusing to do her job as ombudsman - a role that we take seriously and apparently respect more than Howell does. Perhaps that's part of the problem - we actually believe in a free press and good journalism and are just plain tired of the Judy Millers and Bob Woodwards and Deborah Howells who degrade journalism at our most important papers at a time when we desperately need a truly free and vigorous press. Posted by: siun at January 22, 2006 5:02 AM | Permalink You really don't get it. Bias, in a bogus attempt to appear nonbiased, is still bias. But this underlying scandal isn't about Abramoff suggesting that his tribal rubes make specific political contributions. This scandal is about money laundering through bogus charities to specific political causes; it's about violating the standards of the house and senate by lavish gift giving, including golf outtings to Saint Andrews and Superbowl vacations; and finally about quid pro quo. Sorry NRO, this is a Republican scandal of epic proportions. This isn't about a few kited checks. Posted by: Dick Tuck at January 22, 2006 6:09 AM | Permalink Christopher Fotos wrote, One problem is that the left is outraged by the very idea of an ombudmsman at a major newspaper that doesn't automatically dismiss the right. Huh? "The left" was outraged by Howell because we caught her repeating an RNC spin point. And not for the first time. Posted by: liberal at January 22, 2006 7:07 AM | Permalink sinsneer wrote, Then, there's always the Haloscan standard of open sewage and effluvia currently touted by Atrios, Hamsher etc., to muster largely unemployed, mostly marginalized, imaginatively limited armies of vitriolic shutins to teach "the MSM" an overdue lesson or two. But the vast majority of the comments re Howell that I read were reasonably well-written and argued. As for teaching the MSM a thing or two, the Right has been "working the ref" (as Eric Alterman says) for years. Why shouldn't the left? Posted by: liberal at January 22, 2006 7:15 AM | Permalink Abigail Beecher wrote Get a clue BC, if any of the "scandals" had any truth to them, they would have "brought down the government". You're kidding, right? That's (a) a logical fallacy, (b) incredibly naive. Posted by: liberal at January 22, 2006 7:25 AM | Permalink The more I think about this, the more the issue is an Ombudsman who keeps making news herself by saying things that are, well, irrational. Why was she airing her paper's inside ego-pumps about Froomkin instead of responding to real reader complaints? Why did she claim that Democrats received money from Abramoff without checking? Why does she keep repeating the "or his clients" phrase when it has nothing to do with the bribery and corruption the Republicans are charged with, but is clearly meant to drag Democrats into a scandal they are not involved in? Contract or no, the Post has options for dealing with this and they should give her a strong talking to and warn her that if she doesn't start behaving professionally, there will be a disclaimer/fact-check attached to every article she writes. I think this is a put up or shut up situation. If the Washington Post has evidence that Abramoff's clients gave campaign contributions at his direction, they need to post that evidence. They should not be makiing unsupported allegations. Also, they need to quit singling out Abramoff's Inidan clients. We need to look at all or none of Abramoff's clients. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 22, 2006 8:27 AM | Permalink Howell doesn't get it. Or whoever is handling her stuff doesn't get it. You make a mistake, you fix it fast on the web. She didn't. You get a bunch of flaming, nasty comments (and you have a policy that supposedly forbids these), you take them down and note that you did. What you don't do is shut down the whole machine. What I find weird is her bragging about her contract at the end of the piece. It strikes me as a little inappropriate. And silly. After all, the Post, the web, and all of us will probably be here long after the contract is up. A suggestion for moderating the comments: The conservative website Free Republic has an "abuse" feature which encourages users to point out posts that cross the line. You see something crude and vulgar, you click the abuse button, and the sysop is notified. If he or she agrees, the post gets pulled. It's not a perfect solution, but it might help here. Posted by: Hiawatha Bray at January 22, 2006 10:18 AM | Permalink The excellent post by ami leads to something more fundamental. The Washington Post is focusing on activity that is legal: there is nothing illegal about making political contributions, and there is nothing illegal, per se, about a lobbyist suggesting contributions that a client might make to advance its interest. By focusing on the probably legal contributions and its insistence on using the word "directed," the Washington Post is actually misinforming its readers, similar to conflating the Iraq-911 nonsense. It serves Republican's interests to conflate Tribal contributions with Abramoff's crimes, which are bribery of public officials, tax evasion, money laundering and mail fraud. Is anybody here, on the basis of what they have read in the Washington Post, clear on what role the political contributions, available at Open Secrets, play in this massive scandal? (I know a lot of people have done independent research and so are quite knowledgable. But I myself had to go to outside sources, because the Washington Post was telling a muddy and carefully parsed story.) The answer to that is actually none. Those political contributions are irrelevant to Abramoffs crimes, which are bribery of public officials, mail fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering. The so-called "directing" of political contributions are the only behavior in this scandal that is (most likely) legal and docuemnted. Why is the Washington Post concentrating their coverage on legal aspects of the story? Based on their past performance, I have the opinion that they are doing it purposefully, to provide cover for Republicans. Others think differently, I am sure. Posted by: Phredd at January 22, 2006 10:32 AM | Permalink I think this is a put up or shut up situation. If the Washington Post has evidence that Abramoff's clients gave campaign contributions at his direction, they need to post that evidence. They should not be makiing unsupported allegations. So far, what the Post has provided falls under the category "fake but accurate". Testimony and other evidence strongly suggests that "Team Abramoff" did create 'wish lists' of politicians and PACs to contribute to, that there were some Democrats on these lists, and that some Democrats received checks as a result of being on these lists. But a comparison of the excerpt from the Coushatta list cited by Howell as "evidence" of Abramoff directing contributions to Democrats demonstrates quite conclusively that these lists were merely "suggestions", and did not direct contributions -- especially to Democrats. And it is the use of this particular excerpt that strongly suggests that the Post has an agenda to make the Abramoff scandal look "bipartisan". Although the list is not dated, other evidence points to it being created in March 2002 -- and there is a flurry of contributions from the tribe in March and April 2002 that is consistent with what is on the list with regard to Republicans. But the includes the names of three Democrats -- Tom Daschle's PAC did get $5000, but that contribution is dated 6/30/2002 -- and thus does not appear to be related to the list cited by Howell. Max Cleland got $500 -- but that contribution is dated July 17, 2002, and appears to be related to a joint fundraiser held to benefit both Mary Landrieu and Max Cleland. Landrieu, of course, is the Senator from Louisiana who represents the Coushatta Tribe of LA -- $1000 was contributed to the "Friends of Mary and Max" and Cleland is credited with recieving half of that. In other words, its difficult to see how Abramoff "directed" the $500 contribution to Cleland given these facts. The FEC records show that contributions that were actually likely to have been generated by this list went overwhelmingly (in both the number of checks written, and the total dollar amount) to the GOP. So while the excerpt itself makes it look like 1/3 of the recipients were Democrats, that was not the case -- and in fact the evidence is that NONE of the Democrats on the excerpt got a penny as a result of being on that list. Comparing the Post's coverage of the Abramoff scandal to the actual fact concerning the scandal leads to the conclusion that the coverage is driven by an agenda to keep the focus on Congress and the Tribes, and away from Abramoff's corporate clients and the Executive branch. The only question is "whose agenda is it?" It may well be that the "bias" in the Post's coverage is the result of who is leaking information to the Post. (these "lists" that Post reporters have supposedly seen have not been released to the public.) "Unbiased" reporting of "seletive" leaking can lead to coverage whose net result is "bias". Or, the bias could be the result of Post personnel wanting to maintain/enhance their relationship with their sources, or is "ideological" in nature. Or, as is most likely, it could be a combination of these factors. Its Howell's job to sort this all out, and to help the Post find ways to prevent any of these factors from giving Post readers an incorrect impression of the nature and extent of the Abramoff scandal. And she's simply not doing her job. while you are so busy beating up the Post over Howell, you forget one crucial point that executive editor Len Downie brought up in that Salon article: Downie also says he doesn't understand why people on the left are criticizing the Post, since, in his view, the paper's reporting brought this whole scandal into being. "I'm kind of baffled by people who say that we're protecting Republicans, when it's our reporting that brought this to light. If it wasn't for Sue Schmidt" -- the Post's lead reporter on the Abramoff story -- "nobody would have heard of Abramoff and he wouldn't have pleaded guilty to anything. It's like Watergate. For a year we were the only ones reporting on this. The entire scandal is due to the Washington Post's reporting." If Downie is correct that the Post broke this story and was far ahead of other papers. So if the Post cared so much about protecting Repubs, the paper would never have pursued this story. Beating up the Post over the Dem thing, is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 11:38 AM | Permalink Testimony and other evidence strongly suggests that "Team Abramoff" did create 'wish lists' of politicians and PACs to contribute to, that there were some Democrats on these lists, and that some Democrats received checks as a result of being on these lists. Quite possibly, but while I seen many references to these lists, I have not seen the lists themselves. Judging from you close analysis, you must have specific information. I agree with your view that it is unfair to conflate legal campaign contributions with bribery and money laundering. It takes the focus off the criminal activity and confuses readers. If all politics is dirty and it does not matter who gets elected there is no need for readers to follow political news and no need for a news industry. It is certainly unfair and not a sustainable business model. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 22, 2006 11:38 AM | Permalink Brad Delong--Berkeley economist, former Clinton Administration official, "why oh why can't we have a better press corps?" blogger--e-mails: Dear Jay-- Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 11:45 AM | Permalink bush's jaw: Beating up the Post over the Dem thing, is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. Yes, but that doesn't fit the "Steno Sue" bias war culture. The Abramhoff story goes back to 2001 ... Posted by: Sisyphus at January 22, 2006 12:32 PM | Permalink sinsneer (1/20, 7:12 p.m.), to me: No, you are misquoting Marshall and revising his thrust. I will leave it to people who can read to determine whether it was you or I who misquoted Marshall and/or revised his thrust. In fact, let's let an impartial observer tell us whether Marshall agrees with you or me re: Howell's statements: I haven't watched every new development in the firestorm over Post ombudsman Deborah Howell and her remarks about whether Jack Abramoff gave political money to Democrats. But just to recap: She made some sloppy and inaccurate remarks, which dovetailed, accidentally or not, with Republican spin. Then, instead of just correcting herself, she hedged, claimed it was a distinction without a difference and then tried to hide behind claims that it was simply a matter of poor phrasing. It's hard to be surprised, given the first episode with Howell last month. But the whole blow-up has created this subdiscussion about whether honorable press types like Howell and others are being mauled and knocked around and generally abused by cyber-ruffians who have been on her case over the last few days. This stuff isn't always pretty. But, really, thank God those folks are on her tail because shoddy reporting isn't pretty either. ... This is evening the balance, creating a better press. I couldn't have said it better myself. Posted by: Roger Ailes at January 22, 2006 12:44 PM | Permalink Quite possibly, but while I seen many references to these lists, I have not seen the lists themselves. Judging from you close analysis, you must have specific information. the lists have not been released publicly -- my analysis is based on a comparison of the excerpt cited by Howell to FEC records available online from a couple of different sources. Its obvious from a close analysis of the available records that these lists "generated" or "resulted in" contributions being made to some Democrats --- but to describe the process as Abramoff "directing" contributions to Democrats with these lists is imprecise to the point of being all but completely false. **************************** If Downie is correct that the Post broke this story and was far ahead of other papers. So if the Post cared so much about protecting Repubs, the paper would never have pursued this story. Beating up the Post over the Dem thing, is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. The Post was the first to publish about what eventually became known as "the Abramoff scandal", but Downie is lying when he says that "nobody would have heard of Abramoff and he wouldn't have pleaded guilty to anything. It's like Watergate." Abramoff was under Federal investigation well before the Post started writing about him in February 2004, thanks to the gangland style murder in February 2001 of the guy Abramoff had bought the Sun Cruz casinos from. The investigation of that murder brought all sorts of financial irregularities to light that were referred to the Justice Department -- and because there was a murder involved, Ashcroft couldn't sweep an investigation of Abramoff under the rug. In fact, the Times beat the Post by nearly two years in breaking the "Abramoff" story... In the last six months of 2001, the Coushatta Indians, a tribe with 800 members and a large casino in southwest Louisiana, paid $1.76 million to the law firm of Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist here. Last month, the Bush administration handed the tribe a big victory by blocking... What is signficant is that, although Congressional hearings were held that laid out a HUGE part of this scandal in the fall of 2004, what was revealed in those hearing received almost no media attention at all. Basically, Abramoff and Scanlon BOUGHT tribal council elections, and the with their guys in charge of the tribes, the tribes started funnelling massive contracts to Abramoff and especially Scanlon (who was kicking money back to Abramoff). The Post did one article on the subject -- basically reporting what was revealed at the hearings-- and then dropped it. (so did the Times....) The Watergate comparison made be apt in one respect -- Sue Schmidt, like Woodward before her, has a source who is promoting his own agenda, rather than "whistleblowing" as such. But that's about as close to Watergate as the Post can take credit for on this whole scandal... If Downie is correct that the Post broke this story and was far ahead of other papers. So if the Post cared so much about protecting Repubs, the paper would never have pursued this story. Beating up the Post over the Dem thing, is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. Posted by: bush's jaw I grant that WaPo has generally been out in front on this story. (I notice Downie escalates the description of the comment thread to "violent," up from "reams and reams of personal attacks." It's playing well to other journalists isn't it?) I'd like to remind you that the national political editor, John Harris, is very committed to protecting Republicans. It was, after all, complaints from Harris' Republican best-buds that precipitated the Froomkin melt-down. Is there a vast Washington Post conspiracy to protect Republicans? I'm not saying that; it would be absurd. But the Republican strategy to contain this scandal is to confuse the public's perception of it and to paint the Democrats as equally culpable. And the Washington Post political desk is doing one damn fine job of pushing it. Aren't they? Posted by: Phredd at January 22, 2006 1:04 PM | Permalink Dear jaw Your offer to eat crow is very kind, but what is at issue here is a workable definition of "implicated." Democrats have already been "implicated" by Deborah Howell. In fact, the Post went to some lengths to back that implication, before finally, grudgingly, publishing the three little words that mattered. By that time of course the vague accusations that had previously been introduced into the news-o-sphere by the RNC had been reintroduced, only this time with the imprimatur of the Washington Post... Are you familiar with the Twain quote about a lie getting halfway around the world before the truth even gets its boots on? The problem that many of us had with this whole episode is the very problem you are suggesting has yet to occur, so let's see how many Dems are indicted, and how many of those are convicted, and then we can talk about who should eat crow. In the meantime, we've at least learned that at the WaPo, "balance" takes precedence over accuracy. And that at the WaPo.com this form of balance is defensible rather than contemptible. Howell, Harris, Morin... We get the picture... Posted by: radish at January 22, 2006 1:14 PM | Permalink Phredd, trying to paint the Democrats as equally culpable (and I'm not saying the Post did that, and I didn't see that in Howell's Jan. 15 column either) doesn't change the investigation or the results. this is similar to people on the Right saying Plame had a desk job and not covert (before Libby's indictment, and some are still saying that now). Saying that Plame is not covert doesn't have any impact on Fitzgerald's investigation. i didn't see the big deal in the Harris/Froomkin flap either. i read Kurtz, Froomkin and the WaPo's political coverage (as well as other papers WSJ various blogs.) it's not either Harris or Froomkin to me. like i've mentioned before, i have more sympathy for journos. after watching fdl call reporters all kinds of names or perceived bias, i've suggested to Jane Hamsher (or maybe i wrote a comment and never posted) that she spent some time at WaPo or NYT newsroom (or any newspaper) to see how newrooms operate. (i'd think newsrooms would be open to have bloggers observe). then she would have a better understanding of the people she criticizes. police reporters ride on the beat with cops; it's the same idea. hopefully, the meeting with bloggers and Jay and the Post will happen and be mutually beneficial for the paper, bloggers on the Left and Right. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 1:31 PM | Permalink radish, i just think the paper would not stand by "Abramoff directed money to Dems" unless it has the goods. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 1:37 PM | Permalink radish, yes implicated is an "inartful" word choice. haha Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 1:42 PM | Permalink bush's jaw, I always appreciate your posts and your unique POV, even though I disagree. I hope the blogger-Post meeting will happen as well. I'm not sure, though, how it will help the fundamental problem, i.e., the Washington Post purposefully or accidently misinforming its readers about the Abramoff scandal. I wonder if you have any ideas about why the Post doesn't produce the "goods" in full. Seriously, many people have requested documentation of the purported "direction" of funds to Democrats, even though it probably wasn't illegal to do that. The shred of evidence in their graphic generates more suspicion than it alleviates by choosing to show a portion of an alphabetical list between, but not including, "Blount" and "DeLay." Posted by: Phredd at January 22, 2006 1:51 PM | Permalink If Downie is correct that the Post broke this story and was far ahead of other papers. So if the Post cared so much about protecting Repubs, the paper would never have pursued this story. Beating up the Post over the Dem thing, is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. Institutions like the Post and the Times are very much a part of the establishment. They have an entrenched interest in preserving the status quo. They will nibble at the edges of a scandal every once in a while because this cements their position in the power hierarchy. The ideal situation for the media estalishment is to sustain their subjects' attention for brief periods and move on before any real change can take hold. They want controlled explosions with predictable results, and get very uncomfortable when the heat rises beyond a point. The chaotic blogger universe threatens to take away this control making the engagement equation infinitely more complex, and therefore opens up a few tail outcomes that give birth to insurgent movements, which can seriously shake up the establishment. I think Mr. Downie's lamentations about the blogospheric angst is a product of this dynamic. Posted by: village idiot at January 22, 2006 1:57 PM | Permalink i just think the paper would not stand by "Abramoff directed money to Dems" unless it has the goods. the question isn't whether they "have the goods", the question is the use of the word "directed" when the person doing the directing has become the posterboy for political corruption. The word "Abramoff directed" thus implies an unspoken "in exchange for" .... the reality is that Abramoff's clients contributed to over 250 different politicians -- and there is no evidence that these contributions -- to politicians from either party -- represented anything that was illegal in the overwhelming majority of cases. But while the focus has been on all of these congresscritters and Abramoff's efforts to "lobby" them, there has been almost no focus on the other half of a "lobbyists" job --- lobbying the executive branch. Native American tribal councils that Abramoff/Scanlon bought elections for didn't contribute half a million dollars to Gail Norton's CREA because they support the GOP agenda on global warming... They cotributed that money because she's in charge of the Cabinet Department that overseas the federal bureaucracy that concerns Native Americans -- and they didn't give away that kind of money without some kind of guaranteed return.... speculation here: the paper could be working on a longer, bigger more-in-depth story involving that info so the paper will not show that information ahead of its story. the kind that Steve Lovelady's Philly Inquirer often did. or the paper could be saying trust us, like when we used unnamed sources. and it's a newspaper not a court. i don't think it's obligated to provide documents to readers outside of its reporting. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 2:01 PM | Permalink They have an entrenched interest in preserving the status quo. They will nibble at the edges of a scandal every once in a while because this cements their position in the power hierarchy. i bet Bubba (read:term of endearment) might quibble with this notion. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 2:09 PM | Permalink and it's a newspaper not a court. i don't think it's obligated to provide documents to readers outside of its reporting. No, you are correct. Only if it is concerned about preserving any of it's tattered credibility. Posted by: Phredd at January 22, 2006 2:19 PM | Permalink Arguments like "the Post is a shill for the GOP" are attempts to make sense of a confusing situation. If written out in full they would be "the only thing I can think of to explain what I have observed is that the Post must be a shill for the GOP." Josh Marshall, however, is a more careful observer. He doesn't see "shill" behavior, but a form of routinized risk-aversion and hassle-avoidance: Indeed, when you actually watch -- from the inside -- how mainstream newsrooms work, it is really not too much to say that they operate on two guiding principles: reporting the facts and avoiding impressions of 'liberal bias'. It's the "avoiding impressions of..." part that tends to get overlooked when a controversy like this one erupts. Howell wants to avoid the impression of being on anyone's "side," and she wants the Post to avoid that impression as well. So does Len Downie, and so does John Harris. That is the only way they can think of for journalism to maintain non-combatant and "observer" status amid the culture war and political divide. It must continually point to itself and say, "See? we got the other side in there." Thus: "The Democrats had a response to Bush's weekly radio show and here's a snippet of it..." Thus: "Did you see that? We called up the RNC and got their fax blast points about Gore's speech, and here they are. You saw that, right?..." Problem is that impression management of this kind is actually a kind of propaganda skill, incompatible with another top commandment in journalism-- maintaining a high standard for factuality, accuracy, and call-em-as-we-see-em candor. So if you're a responsible reporter and you call up the RNC spokesman and get the response to Gore's speech, you're just going to have to accept that when the spokesman tells you something kinda sorta plausible but fundamentally untrue you're going to attribute it, quote it accurately, and run it. Now you're involved in the propaganda machine yourself, but it happened as a result of trying to be balanced and responsible and "avoid the impression of..." I believe that's the contradiction Howell, and John Harris, and Leonard Downie and even Jim Brady don't grasp, or don't want to face because there are no answers to it within the ancient wisdom of mainstream newsrooms. Howell was engaged in impression management in her Jan. 15 column, and it distorted her descriptions. "See? Sue Schmidt was tough on Clinton during the Watergate scandal, but now she's being tough on the Republicans. What a pro!" I was trying to write a post about this part of the story--complicated, twisty, like a mobius strip--when I veered from it and decided I should interview Brady. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 2:33 PM | Permalink Village…. Followed your links, read the articles. Ok… they’re examples of the dime a dozen sites out there that serve their audience entertainment. It’s as if everyone’s at a party and discussing the “state of the country” with a few drinks and having a blast lambasting the latest politicians and scandals. I do it in person so believe me I follow the principle. But would I pay homage to their authors by citing them as respected analysts of truly serious subjects? The equivalent is thinking an Al Franken is such a learned man that what he perceives just must be the truth. Huh? That’s why most Americans thinks it’s funny when they see Hollywood people banding together to make some political statement. Now of course that’s not to say that this style of thinking and discourse doesn’t have influence or effect. My goodness, it’s just the opposite. Posted by: Kristen at January 22, 2006 2:44 PM | Permalink I believe that's the contradiction Howell, and John Harris, and Leonard Downie and even Jim Brady don't grasp, or don't want to face because there are no answers to it within the ancient wisdom of mainstream newsrooms. Howell was engaged in impression management in her Jan. 15 column, and it distorted her descriptions. "See? Sue Schmidt was tough on Clinton during the Watergate scandal, but now she's being tough on the Republicans. What a pro!" So what's next? Howell basically ends her column by saying "no matter what you think of me or the job I'm doing, I have a contract and I'm going to be here for two years." Its almost like she's going to have to learn about this contraction you speak of AND learn about netiquette over the next two years. Will she? I don't know. I wonder what lessons she has learned from these events. Does Howell even matter really if the ombudsman is so out-of-touch with many of the modern aspects of media criticism. What is the 'damage' of this incident? What is the outcome? Its hard not to get over my frustration that Downie and Harris don't seem to see the contractions in their job descriptions, but I don't know if there's anything that can be "done" about it. Ten more years, Downie will be gone and maybe someone will be running the Post differently. But what the Post's is going to look like in 10 years is anybody's guess. Posted by: catrina at January 22, 2006 3:19 PM | Permalink But would I pay homage to their authors by citing them as respected analysts of truly serious subjects? Enjoy the show, Kristen. 100 years from now, very little of what is going on now will survive as respected analysis of serious subjects. Bernard Lewis is a very respected analyst; look where he got us. Ayn Rand is an icon; look where she ended up. The need of the hour is irreverence, not respect:). Take it easy now. Posted by: village idiot at January 22, 2006 3:49 PM | Permalink cat: It's almost like she's going to have to learn about this contraction you speak of AND learn about netiquette over the next two years. Will she? I'm pessmistic about the learning part, cat. That the ancient wisdom of the newsroom doesn't have the answers in a political era like our own is not a conclusion I see Leonard Downie coming to soon-- well, ever. I think Deborah Howell will retire without reaching it, as well. If balance is broken I expect them to go right on using it, and there will be more blow-ups as a result. There's too much innocence at stake. What if you can have your innocence (the impression that you're not on anyone's side) or you can be a truthteller, but not both? The ancient wisdom of the newsroom says that such a dilemma is impossible, so let's not think about it. And that is exactly what some are doing-- they're not thinking about it. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 3:54 PM | Permalink Siun: "Some of us are comfortable enough in our own skins that we don't need to always play the intellect card." In the aftermath of this episode, once-beloved firedoglake has itself become a fount of malarkey. This wasn't about a little harmless hijinks. Jane herself, slapping down criticism of her tactics, lectured me and other readers about the seriousness of her intent: "politics, down and dirty." (You could look it up.) And I particularly remember Jane's approving quoting of commenters at C&L that were among the cheesiest ad hominem attacks I've seen - just as foolish as anything you'd find on Atlas Shrugs. No, this wasn't a high-minded crowd kicking back with a little late night shenanigans. This was a self-righteous smiting of enemies - in fact, the FDL comment/review mob was, to read the rationalizations, all that stood between us and the emergence of a Nazi-like fascism. (Seriously!). Now that people of conscience and intelligence are critical of your actions, you and others at FDL seek to minimize it, or to engage in a bit of sleight of hand, substituting the troll boogeyman when it was the FDL-incited mob of ad hominem attackers who did the deed. Siun, if you believed in the righteousness of what you were doing then, and don't believe in it now, then just say so. But please don't try to pass it all off as just the kids having some fun. Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 22, 2006 4:03 PM | Permalink Jay - your point about the "avoiding the impression of liberal bias" is important and I hope you write that mobius essay. Those of us who call FDL home see this as important too - and many of us have decided that it's time to push back from our side. Would we like a more reasoned political discourse - sure - but given where we are and the marginalization of truth and decency demonstrated by recent Post coverage and Bush policies, we're not about to wait around for "civility" to return. Pushing back on Howell did get her to say "this is a Republican scandal" - and that's a form of victory, small, but a victory. We've watched the right swing the "center" towards Fascism and we're going to fight back with the tools we've got. Posted by: siun at January 22, 2006 4:05 PM | Permalink I understand the push back. I even sympathize with some of it. When you say "fascism" you lose all credibility with me, sorry. I know what fascism is. I've studied it. You're engaging in propaganda when you use that term; that you feel you "have to" doesn't change things for me. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 4:12 PM | Permalink Ron is the player that refuses to take steroids. Jane says she cannot play the game at the same level without having the benefits of the same substances that the opposing team is taking. And the audience do not seem to care as long as the home runs keep coming and the records keep tumbling! Interesting dilemma! Posted by: village idiot at January 22, 2006 4:15 PM | Permalink Molly Ivins, in AZ Star via Digby: Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds because they were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The minute someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news." Given Ron's consternation in the above post, this sounded particularly relevant. Posted by: village idiot at January 22, 2006 4:30 PM | Permalink Village, Good observation. But to follow through on the analogy, why should the steroid-takers stop there? Once you've dispensed with principle, it's a short hop to Tonya Harding. Hard to see where or why you'd draw the line. Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 22, 2006 4:39 PM | Permalink There's a difference, v.i., between fighting back hard and taking on the worst attributes of your enemy. The 'road toward fascism' argument is crap. The political center is still there, still the center. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 22, 2006 4:45 PM | Permalink But to follow through on the analogy, why should the steroid-takers stop there? Once you've dispensed with principle, it's a short hop to Tonya Harding. Hard to see where or why you'd draw the line. when the refs stop rewarding steroid abuse, the line will be drawn.
Village, yes to the Ivins quote, particularly answering bullying with a snarling statement of principle, with wit, or with a recitation of the bad news. No recommendation of ad hominem attack, there. The resolution of the McCarthy era was not that the good guys played McCarthy's game better than Joe did. It ended with the forceful reassertion of principles worth defending. Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 22, 2006 4:50 PM | Permalink The 'road toward fascism' argument is crap. The political center is still there, still the center. Jay! Please start a new thread Quick, before I go all moonbat on McLemore's ass! Village, yes to the Ivins quote, particularly answering bullying with a snarling statement of principle, with wit, or with a recitation of the bad news. No recommendation of ad hominem attack, there. I think you missed the point --- the bullies didn't kick the German Shepherds, because they were afraid of those dogs -- and the response of a German Shepherd that is kicked by a bully is not going to be "a snarling statement of principle", that dog is gonna rip out your throat. Maybe I should change my alias to Rin Tin Tin...
We've watched the right swing the "center" towards Fascism and we're going to fight back with the tools we've got. is that a telling statement about fdl or just siun? then again, i'd question the perspective of anyone who calls Quentin Tarantino a one-trick pony. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 5:01 PM | Permalink Ron: No, this wasn't a high-minded crowd kicking back with a little late night shenanigans. This was a self-righteous smiting of enemies - in fact, the FDL comment/review mob was, to read the rationalizations, all that stood between us and the emergence of a Nazi-like fascism. (Seriously!). siun: We've watched the right swing the "center" towards Fascism and we're going to fight back with the tools we've got. Whose fascism are we talking about? :) Posted by: village idiot at January 22, 2006 5:13 PM | Permalink Jay - you're not the only one here who's studied fascism just as Ron is not the annointed spokesperson for "people of conscience and intelligence." There's an arrogance to these statements that precludes genuine dialogue. Posted by: siun at January 22, 2006 5:14 PM | Permalink "Ron is the player that refuses to take steroids. Jane says she cannot play the game at the same level without having the benefits of the same substances that the opposing team is taking." Here's another: Jane is acting like a politician, throwing red meat to her ravenous base and calculating that she can get away with it without alienating the rest of the world. It's a gamble. If it fails -- if Ron is right, if enough readers decide that "the once-beloved firedoglake has itself become a fount of malarkey" --then nothing is left but a handful of true believers who are perfectly happy that the site has degenerated into just one long undifferentiated snarl, because it's the snarling that attracted them in the first place. (See FreeRepublic, for an example on the right.) And that would be too bad. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 22, 2006 5:16 PM | Permalink Yeah, chill out, all you tinfoil hatters. That "road toward fascism" argument is crap. Always has been, always will be, from ancient Rome to Taisho Japan. Real fascism is easily identifiable, particularly if, like Jay, you've actually studied it. And in any event it's incompatible with the sort of sophisticated, open, participatory political culture we have here in the US. Fascism is a historical anomaly (hey, even the famously paranoid people who wrote the Constitution weren't worried about it). Fascism is nothing to worry about, folks. If you don't believe me you can take it from Jay and Dave... Posted by: radish at January 22, 2006 5:23 PM | Permalink "There's an arrogance to these statements that precludes genuine dialogue." Siun, think it would be more interesting if you'd engage on the issues and leave that little ad hominem rattle in the toybox. This is the point. Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 22, 2006 5:25 PM | Permalink Ami, In fact I think it's you who's missed the point. Ivins didn't recommend calling the bully a traitor, or portraying him/her as an idiot, or making vague "dead meat" threats. She counsels forceful response as opposed to go-along-to-get-along Republican lite-ism, and offers example responses founded on principle, wit, and facts. For example, when she says tell them what loving your country really means, I'm guessing it would be devotion to this country's founding principles for most people. She's right. But what do you think she're recommending? Biting the other guy's head off with a venomous personal attack? Might want to take a second look at the Ivins quote and Twain's remarks. I haven't seen much support anywhere on the progressive blogs for the FDL tactics. And looking for it in the Ivins quote is a beyond a stretch. Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 22, 2006 5:51 PM | Permalink Ron - I don't see any "ad hominem" there though I'm glad you enjoy tossing a little latin into the conversation. If you don't see your comment as arrogant, well perhaps you should go back to Rhetoric 101. I'm planning on responding to Jay's comment more fully but I have dinner to make and a few other real life things to do first. I would like to note that I do not presume to speak for Jane or for Firedoglake (since someone asked) - Jane and our community all speak very well for themselves. I merely comment as one participant and thought it would be useful to provide some thoughts as one of the participants in the Howell swarm since you are discussing our activities. Posted by: siun at January 22, 2006 6:02 PM | Permalink Game theory will have some answers, but for the current predicament we have ample baseball history to draw conclusions from. If I were Jane, I would certainly not be helping my cause if I failed to notice that, in today's game, almost every noteworthy slugger is suspected of using steroids. If the evidence is that, while a few of the players who did the right thing were popular, to compete in the home run race and be an MVP, one is all but ruled out without the benefit of performance enhancing drugs, it then becomes a choice between being an 'also ran', or 'play the game' as it is now played. I am no stranger to being called pig-headed about principles and I have some sympathy for Ron's argument, but ultimately my stance will have to serve my objective. If I am happy being a principled intellectual, I can afford to be clean and proper, but on the other hand, if I want to play in the arena and go head-to-head with a Mark McGuire, the reality dictates that I be a Barry Bonds. Posted by: village idiot at January 22, 2006 6:05 PM | Permalink First: I'd like to thank you Jay for linking to my humble little blog. :) Second: I am trying hard to be objective about that, and also looking at the broader picture here. There are so man levels and subleties, and I simply don't have the time for an indepth analysis. I have seen Deborah Howell's attemts at an explanation (I cannot call them an apology). She simply does *NOT* get it! It seems to me that what the readers perceive as her roe as an onbudswoman, and what she thinks her job is, are worlds apart. She seems to believe that she can just *speak her mind* as if she were writing an OpEd! The readers don't see it that way at all! They feel that her job is to write about inaccuracies and moral/ethic's issues at WaPo. They don't want or care for her *opinions*. If she wants to "speak her mind", she can do so as an opinion columnist, not as Ombudswoman. As an OpEd columnist, she can pretty well say what she likes (within reason), and people can decide if her opinion is worth anything to them. As Ombudswoman, she has a certain duty of care to her readers. She failed in that duty of care as far as some of the WaPo readers are concerned. The feeling I got from the hundreds of comments I have seen by WaPo readers is that they feel betrayed. And Wapo has done nothing to correct that growing sentiment. All Howell has done with her attempts at clarification, is made readers even more disgusted. It would have been batter if she had kept her opinions to herself. Either she writes her opinions in her Weekly column (as Deborah Howell, NOT as Ombudswoman), or she is an Ombudswoman. That piece about Abramoff was written as Ombudswoman. That was wrong. WaPo needs a real Ombudsman/woman, or for Howell to actually do her job. But she has lost a lot of credibility, it will take a long time to get it back. I may not agree with everything you write Jay, and I am certain you disagree with me (at least on some points), but at least we know that these are opinions, and we can agree to differ. I have lot of respect for you (and many others). why? because when you DO state *facts* you back them up and prove they are facts! I try very hard to do the same. Howell does not. That is the difference. So, the question is: Is Howell an opinion columnist, or is she an Ombudswoman? She can't have it both ways. IMHO, of course! ;) :) is it steroids or a boxing analogy, hitting below the belt. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 22, 2006 6:10 PM | Permalink The political center is still there, still the center. Dave, It's the patent surreality of your remark and the link above that are leading to the charge on the Washington Post. Bush has committed a couple dozen impeachable offenses, he's formally declared that a law means whatever the hell he says it means, the Democrats can't even get a room in the capitol building to have a press conference, and you want to tell me the political center is still here? Dream on if you want to, but don't you dare demand that the rest of us whistle along with you. Jay, That doesn't mean they're the same policies, but it means BushCO has blown off democracy in deeply similar ways. When you make statements dismissing the seriousness of BushCO organized crime and conspiracy to gut the constitution, as if the comparison to fascism is nonsense, you lose credibility with me. How many hundreds of Arabs and Arab Americans have to be thrown into jail for months without charges or family notification or legal process for you to notice the similarities? Posted by: Mark Anderson at January 22, 2006 6:12 PM | Permalink In my view the comparison to fascism is nonsense and too stupid to argue about, so subtract whatever credibility points you want and proceed through PressThink accordingly. I won't be joining in that discussion-- period. And while it is even dumber to have to say it, if I tell you I have studied something it does not mean or imply you haven't. It means that while currency fluctuations and Mayan history are not things I have studied closely, fascism is. Geez-a-roni. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 6:29 PM | Permalink When the system is defined by propaganda, a "Dave-like" head-in-the-sand personal attitude doesn't get you out of the FOX/MSNBC/Washington Times/WoPo swamp. It means you're talking to yourself and no one will hear you. Because propaganda is defining reality. We're all screwed until the system is pushed back to some minimal, remotely consistent reality feedback as opposed to self-righteously enforcing RNC fantasy (like Hugh Hewitt) or self-righteously defending your paper's God-given privilege to ignore non-RNC approved reality (like Deborah Howell). Either way, as long as facts are only "facts" unless and until the RNC gives the OK, Dave-like disconnection is dreamland. Of course we need facts, but facts don't magically mean anyone will hear you or believe you until we force the screaming shills at FOX/Wall Street Journal/WaPo/New York Times to take more regular kow-tow breaks. Josh Marshall, speaking of Jane Hamsher, says: Indeed, when you actually watch -- from the inside -- how mainstream newsrooms work, it is really not too much to say that they operate on two guiding principles: reporting the facts and avoiding impressions of 'liberal bias'...This is evening the balance, creating a better press. Josh is on the right track. Posted by: Mark Anderson at January 22, 2006 6:29 PM | Permalink *sigh* Sorry for the typo's in my previous comment: http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/01/20/jmb_qa.html#comment23917 I was in a rush. Apologies. Siun, I say ad hominem because you keep trying to focus attention on me and my arrogance and education, etc. Knock it off! ; ) Ron Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 22, 2006 6:38 PM | Permalink Jay, Pretending that the comparison is beneath you or comic is either refusing to read "that doesn't mean they are the same policies" or simply anti-intellectual. When it comes to foreign policy, in fact the Bush administration is following its beloved hero, Theodore Roosevelt's unilateral interventionist policy, a policy most succinctly defined by the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. That corollary says that the US can invade any country in the Western hemisphere anytime, for any reason, at the sole discretion of the executive branch of the US government because their busines is our business. As a matter of historical fact, the Roosevelt corollary of the Monroe Doctrine was the legal model upon which Carl Schmitt and the Nazis built their model of Grossraum and upon which the Japanese built their model of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. In other words, to say that comparison of Bush administration foreign policy to fascism is "nonsense" is to say comparison of Bush administration foreign policy to their avowed model and hero Theodore Roosevelt is "nonsense." Is Max Boot spouting nonsense when he celebrates the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war as the too-long awaited return to the Roosevelt Corollary to Monroe Doctrine? Are the neo-cons lying to themselves? American intervention went up another notch, of course, in 1898. No longer were we landing forces for a few days at a time. Now the U.S. was staying longer in places like the Philippines, Cuba, and Panama, in order to shape the security environment more to our liking. In fact, in 1904 Teddy Roosevelt proclaimed the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine...and I’m sure you will see my weakness for Teddy Roosevelt when I quote his words here. I think the Roosevelt Corollary is an important document. Roosevelt declared that “chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence that results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation. And in the western hemisphere, the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.” That’s exactly what I’m talking about tonight. Posted by: Mark Anderson at January 22, 2006 6:44 PM | Permalink Jay, By any account Fox News does not worry about balance. They do pay some lip service (some might say window dressing) to it, but there's no way they are concerned about being perceived as "balanced" in the way Len Downie is. Is Fox News (or maybe Mother Jones Magazine) essentially the only way places like Wash Post and NY Times can solve this contradiction? NPR and PBS has the same problems which are only compounded by the fact that a tiny portion of their budgets are tax dollars. Posted by: catrina at January 22, 2006 6:50 PM | Permalink As Ombudswoman, she has a certain duty of care to her readers. She failed in that duty of care as far as some of the WaPo readers are concerned. precisely. As ombudsman, especially when dealing with "controversial" issue, it is absolutely required that your statement of facts be correct and precise. "This is what I meant, sorry if it wasn't properly worded" doesn't cut it from a reporter, and it certainly doesn't cut it for an ombudsman. One thing Brady doesn't apparently get is that its a really bad idea to treat the reader as if they are stupid for thinking that a factual assertion is meaningful, and isn't just an approximation of some other factual assertion. ********************* Oh, and it should be noted that there is still no "correction" to her original column. Absent this controversy, the odds that Deborah Howell's column would be being cited as "proof" that Abramoff gave money to Democrats right now are pretty high. Absent this controversy -- absent the supposed "deluge" of profanity -- the odds are pretty high that the Post would not have published an article noting that Howell's assertion was "incorrect", or that Howell would have responded TODAY to her critics by acknowledging that it is a Republican scandal." In other words, absent a whole lot of people calling Deborah Howell a "bitch", every wingnut in creation would be citing Deborah Howell, and it really wouldn't matter TO THEM that if you linked to the actual records to prove she was wrong, because SHE is the ombudsman, and must have checked her facts first. Say what you want about the "deluge of profanity", the simple and sad fact is that WITHOUT IT, Howell's "inartful" phrasing would be considered authoritative today.... and that unless the Post puts up a correction on the original column, in two years it will be cited as FACT again.... BANNED POSTER-- Site Administrator. Just trying different options out. We'll use them or not use them as we see fit. ami -- As long as we're on the topic of German canines ... I once watched a 20-lb Schnauzer take an 80-lb German Shepherd who was giving him grief to the cleaners. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 22, 2006 7:16 PM | Permalink [Richard E. asks: "Say, Jay, still think that the Post is a world class newspaper, after the editor of its weblog goes onto a partisan right wing radio program to pander to its listeners for support?" You and I look at this differently, Richard. I have been on Hugh Hewitt's radio show several times. I don't condemn people who go on other people's radio shows. I don't practice guilt by association, either. If you want to argue with what Brady said to Hewitt, fine and totally legit. Working up your outrage because he agreed to go on Hewitt's program--and Hewitt's a right winger--just seems cheap to me. The philosophy of transparency is working quite well here. Hewitt's views and priorities are well known, Brady takes his chances, the transcript is online for all to see.] We are not so far apart on this. I had no problem with Brady going onto Hewitt's program, and that really wasn't the central point about my posts on the subject. Instead, the problem was the content, and what it revealed about him and the Post. Brady got caught out playing a spin game, and that would have been a problem regardless of whether he made the remarks on Hewitt's program, Charlie Rose's or Democracy Now! Along with the fact that he was saying one thing to you and the readers here, and something different for Hewitt's listenership, which suggests that, maybe, Brady missed his calling. It has all the hallmarks of a typical day in the life of Willie Brown, back when he was mayor of San Francisco back in the mid-1990s. I especially enjoyed the dry humor of your response: "Hewitt's views and priorities are well known, Brady takes his chances, the transcript is online for all to see." Indeed. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 22, 2006 7:18 PM | Permalink So if you're a responsible reporter and you call up the RNC spokesman and get the response to Gore's speech, you're just going to have to accept that when the spokesman tells you something kinda sorta plausible but fundamentally untrue you're going to attribute it, quote it accurately, and run it. Now you're involved in the propaganda machine yourself, but it happened as a result of trying to be balanced and responsible and 'avoid the impression of...' -- Jay, earlier. Unless, of course, you write the follow-up paragraph, based on a little research easily accessed in these days of digital databanks, which says, basically, "The RNC response is fundamentally untrue." Now, I grant you, nine out of 10 reporters don't do that -- even though it is not that hard to take that extra step. I learned that woeful fact in 2004, running Campaign Desk, the predecessor to CJR Daily. And every time we saw it, we called them on it -- usually to no avail.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 22, 2006 7:40 PM | Permalink Since we have a two party system, and since the two parties are at odds, it would be realistic to see what Abramoffstuff stuck to dems. Good journalism. We find, so far, that no direct contributions went to dems, but there are allegations of "directed contributions". While the allegations may outrage those who wanted the dems to skate clean and pure on this one, they are not insignificant. If true, they are merely a different way to approach political corruption, and the difference in the method of reward is not particularly important. It would not be the first time uninvestigated allegations have been reported. I get the feeling that those whose ox wasn't supposed to be gored have glommed onto Howell's mispeaking about the method of reward in order to smoke up the real issue. From which I deduce it is probably true. If it were not true, nobody would be crying about Howell's mistake. They'd be showing how it's not true. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 22, 2006 7:55 PM | Permalink I agree, Steve. But "that way out" has been known for so long, and is so clear, that all we can say is that political reporters and their editors have chosen against it. It's not head-scratchingly hard to take the extra step, but it defeats the purpose with which you phoned the RNC spokesman in the first place-- to get a little protection against the anticipated charges of favoritism, to manage impressions, to grab some innocence, some "balance" for yourself. Yes, they could write the follow-up paragraph that says "we called for the the response, and the response is fundamentally untrue," but they want that impression of a balanced account more than they want to be tackling strategic untruths. It is not so surprising that this system produces rage in those who see through it. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 7:57 PM | Permalink The point of Ms Howell's 2-year contract is to enable her to - - correct her organisation's faults, not her readership's faults - correct her organisation's faults, not trumpet its achievements - be an ombudsman not an opinion columnist - exhibit a hide that matches that in her job decription - run to her contract for protection, not to her co-workers and bosses Otherwise there is no point to the 2-year tenure she nyah-nyahs about to her readers. Posted by: AlanDownunder at January 22, 2006 8:18 PM | Permalink Well. I'm always so happy to have people define my beliefs and values. Makes life much simpler. Mark, I've read your stuff here for some time and agree with you more often than not. But, and I mean this in the kindest way possible, your analysis of me is bullshit. I find the left's concern about the US being taken over by fascists is as pointless an argument as the right's fears of creeping communism. It is, in Jay's apt phrase 'stupid.' The political center I spoke of is not some creation of the RNC or DNC or filtered through some ideological matrix. Like Jay, I can grasp the concept that someone might appear on a right-wing radio show without being right-wing. The center I see still viable is in the American people. Half the people didn't support Bush in 2000 and about that number still don't like his policies in Iraq. A growing number of his own party has grown concerned about his views on the war, national security and privacy violations - not to mention the apparent abandonment of bedrock conservative values. The American people have a genius for forcing the parties back to a middle course. It may not be as fast as we'd like and it may not always meet your particular ideological litmus test. But it's there. Yet you see us, apparently, driving head-on into fascism. And anyone who doesn't subscribe to your particular worldview is either a Republican fascist, some hopeless drone or - in my case - a naif who can't see the real danger. I'm sure you're convinced you have the true picture and that's all well and good. And so I saya, thanks for your evalution, Mark, but I'll take my chances with the people. They've kept this country alive despite the politicians and their ideologies. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 22, 2006 8:22 PM | Permalink While the allegations may outrage those who wanted the dems to skate clean and pure on this one, they are not insignificant. If true, they are merely a different way to approach political corruption, and the difference in the method of reward is not particularly important. The problem, Richard, is that the "allegations" are insignificant. At this point, the only evidence of money actually being directed by Abramoff to a Democrat is some money sent to Dorgan -- and was apparently the result of Dorgan signing a letter written by Burns to Gail Norton urging funding for tribal schools. But there is absolutely nothing which suggests that there was any "corruption" involving Dorgan. Seriously, that's IT in term of actual evidence of directed contributions to Democrats. There is also a lot of talk about "lists", but FEC records show that while these lists probably generated lots of contributions, including to some Democrats, not everyone on the lists got contributions, and many of the contributions given to those on the lists do not appear to be related to the lists themselves (i.e. the list cited by Howell was probably compiled in March 2002, and resulted in a slew of checks being written soon after. The contribution to Daschle's PAC did not come until much later, and was unrelated to the list cited by Howell.) In other words, based on the available evidence, its far more accurate to say that Abramoff suggested contributions to Democrats (and Republicans) via lists, those lists did not direct contributions to anyone. Now, maybe you trust Howell, and think she has access to stuff that has not yet become public. But the fact that she cited as "evidence" stuff that contradicts her point says to me that she really doesn't know what she is talking about, and is only repeating "what she reads in the paper".....without actually looking into the reporting to see if it is fully consistent with the facts. But Jay, as you and Steve know, it's not just the reporter who should have written that one sentence. There's at least two editors and a layout editor who see the copy next who could have suggested that extra sentence, with some supporting examples. No one I know likes he said/she said journalism. But it's it's a hard habit to give up. Why that is so is the part that stumps me. I was trained not to appeal to the powerful or the politicians of any persuasion, but to write for the reader, to be their eyes and ears, even if it means telling them what they don't want to hear. But in the age of focus groups and 'community journalism' (defined as making the community happy about it self) that's becoming a hard argument to make. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 22, 2006 8:36 PM | Permalink
Dave... At what point prior to WWII do you think a German who was willing to "take [his] chances with the people...[who] kept this country alive despite the politicians and their ideologies" should have realized that fascism was a threat to Germany, and raised an alarm? jay rosen: you know what's missing in your questions and comments and wapo.com's james brady's responses? any discussion of the first ammendment. yeah, that one, the first ammendment to the u.s. constitution, the rock newspapers run to for shelter when they are in trouble - like claiming "reporter"s privilege" when refusing to testify in a possible crime. does that ammendment apply here? how? are all the commenters comments about omnsbudsman deborah howell "protected" under the first ammendment? are the "nice" ones protected? are the "naughty" ones protected? what's "nice" and what's "naughty"? will we know "it" when we read it? does jim brady know "it" when he reads it? what does "protected" mean in this context? does "protected" imply any obligation on the part of wapo.com to publish comments? if not, why not? do you connect the first ammendment in any way with the wapo.com's -- refusal to prints some readers' criticisms of howell (if that's what wapo did) --removing some commenters' comments wapo had already published (if that's what wapo did) if you do make a connection with the first ammendment, what is it? how does it apply here? a second major matter: you're a scholar, where's the data? have you read the objectionable comments? in their original? or by brady's re-telling? i.e., how much of your commentary above is based on annecdote alone? -- quantitiative data: do you know how many responses were sent to wapo.com? do you know how many of that total were judged unfit to publish and not published? (if any) do you know how many were published and then deleted (if any)? what was the proportion of "unacceptable" comments (by wapo.com's standards) to the total of comments made. -- qualitative data do you know the "critieria" wapo.com used for "rendering" comments? was it a "common sense" criterion? were the deleted commennts made available to you? did you read the deleted comments? did you read the comments the post published and then removed. a third major matter: james brady says "I'm all for -------, but....". where have we heard that one before? finally, if journalism professionals -- rosen, brady, howell, john harris, et al -- could only see how evasive of truth the kabuki dance they routinely engage in when criticized really is and how foolish they appear when performing it. where is "brill's content" when we need it? Posted by: orionATL at January 22, 2006 8:40 PM | Permalink Well, ami, this isn't the Weimar Republic, we're not enmeshed in a cataclysmic economic failure, the Republican Party, for all it's sins, is not the Nazi Party and George Bush is hardly Hitler. Other than that, great question. My point - and I am so appreciative you've shown restraint and not gone moonbat on my ass - is that the American people are the regulating force for political extremes. If I'm wrong, you can point and jeer at me in the gulag. But I don't think I'm wrong. And I really thing allusions to a fascist future in this country - imminent or otherwise - is silly. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 22, 2006 8:57 PM | Permalink ami. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 22, 2006 9:00 PM | Permalink Dave, As for the absurdity of characterizing Bush administration policies, in particular foreign policy, as dismissing democracy in ways deeply similar to fascism, what part of my discussion of the Monroe Doctrine, Grossraum, and the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere do you dispute? This is a question of historical fact. Your subjective feelings about the goodness of the American people don't change the facts of Bush administration policy from the perspective of international law. Am I right or not? If you dispute my characterization, you could at least have the courtesy to point toward the flaw in the argument. Nuremburg and the Tokyo War Crimes Trials were in large part about Wars of Agression. I defy you to distinguish between the US invasion of Iraq, the German invasion of Poland, or the Japanese invasion of Manchuria from the perspective of international law. As a fact-based journalist I expect you will appreciate that this is not something we can just agree to disagree on. I agree with your list of facts and disagree with your conclusions. We don't know who won the last two presidential elections because there is no federal oversight authority with subpoena power or legislative body with the will to ensure that voting machines actually record the votes that are cast or get distributed to the places where they are needed. Trusting the people doesn't help rigged elections get unrigged. A majority of them can vote the bastards out and we'll never know. Trusting the people doesn't deprogram the millions of Americans who have been fed RNC "facts" for twenty years now and refuse to believe anything journalists like yourself actually have evidence to support. It will take more than facts to get the very facts you discover out. I see myself as on the same side, but we disagree on strategy. To say that fascism wasn't necessary to stop McCarthy is not incompatible with seeing incipient fascism in the McCarthy agenda. Coulter and company are busy rehabilitating McCarthy as the definition of patriotism. This is not my reading, this is what the Repubs explicitly say about themselves. If we are opposing those who hold up McCarthy as a hero to be admired and emulated, and they are setting the agenda in the media, how will we know if the "center" is still there or not? It's exactly as Ami said, we'll know as soon as the ref stops rewarding steroid use, as soon as the Coulter-type proud McCarthyites lose legitimacy as party leaders and spokesmen and women, as serious Americans in the political arena. I have faith in the American people too. That's one of the reasons I know our media system is such a cesspool of fact-free distortion. The "liberal" Chris Matthews was just comparing Michael Moore to Osama bin Laden the other day. I think you'll have to agree that means we have a problem. Is that liberal? Is that centrist? He is commonly considered a source of balance against the RNC in the Washington media! Millions evidently continue to think so. You will note that in the Coulter quote linked above she is agreeing with George W. Bush who routinely plays these same McCarthyite/political cleansing games. But nothing serious going on there, right? THIS IS THE AUTHORITY THAT DEBORAH HOWELL AND HER ILK ARE DESPERATELY AND CRAVENLY TRYING TO APPEASE! Deborah Howell doesn't take calls from Joe Friday. If Joe Friday disagrees with the White House's McCarthyite spin, he's a partisan critic who can't be taken seriously. Facts do not address this problem. Posted by: Mark Anderson at January 22, 2006 9:07 PM | Permalink Ami - I suspect that they are only fascists when they arrive at your own front door - up till then, it's all just a fun intellectual debate. Jay - I think Orion and Mark said what I wanted to say - and better than I would have. I'd only add that it's fascinating to see the perception and depiction of the FDL community here. While I know that Jay has occasionally visited and I think I see a few other familiar names, the general tenor of this discussion pits Brady and Howell against Jane and the unwashed hordes, spouting naughty words and ad hominem bombs. What you miss, and what I value, about FDL is that a genuine community of concern has grown there - not a "politician" and her "ravenous base" but a community that shares indepth analyis of Youngstown by a constitution law professor with recipes and concern for real life experiences and toddlers who won't take naps and worries about the state of our nation and our world. It's all rolled into one genuine conversation - sometimes brilliant, sometimes silly - but never lacking in real engagement with making life better - not just for some intellectual elite but for real people living real lives - in chicago and villages in Pakistan and even, sometimes, for journalists. Our average age is probably considerably older than here or most online locations, our range of professions is also wonderfully diverse. We've been watching ... carefully ... both the political classes and the press. Now we're speaking up. If you don't like our language - too bad. We don't like torture, war crimes and corruption and find those actions much more profane than anything said to the so-called ombudsman at the Washington Post. No steroids, no rovians - just citizens engaged in that wacky thing called democracy before it's too late. Posted by: siun at January 22, 2006 9:17 PM | Permalink I read FDL pretty regularly, and I laugh, I nod my head, I scowl, I wince. I admire, and I want to warn. That's the sign of a good blog. Firedoglake: People of passionate belief and wide learning read the newspaper with you, and say what they think; and they're funny, frequently dead on, excessive the way real people who get angry are excessive. Responding to the news with raw emotion and hot fact is not an art professional journalism ever tried to develop. If it's real, there's going to be ugliness in there, too. And the risk of wild distortion. There's darkness--and brilliance for sure--in those comment threads. I wouldn't try to prettify it. Is it possible the ugliness might win out one day? I would say yes, it's possible. To me that's the sign of something real going on. If people point these things out, I think Jane and company should listen, strain for sense, and keep doing what they are doing, modifying as they see fit. Ten years ago I would have been calling for more civility in this situation. I don't do that anymore. I'm not sure civility should win. Hamsher's is an important site, and it engages smart people who are news-savvy and politically engaged. What's great about it is that there are no borders around subjects. I especially recommend reading Firedoglake and Tom Maguire's JustOneMinute together on matters Plame, Libby, and planet Bush. They correct for each other, and push each other. Together, they light the fuse. Oh, and I loved reading the comments as her readers push her to go to DC for the Brady thing. That was communication and a half. I haven't received any confirmation that the event is happening. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 10:12 PM | Permalink I get the feeling that those whose ox wasn't supposed to be gored have glommed onto Howell's mispeaking about the method of reward in order to smoke up the real issue. Of course Richard Aubrey "get the feeling"; it's easier to "get a feeling" and blame everyone than to do any research. It's content free and valueless as well. You could look at this: Did the tribes Abramoff "directed" to give money to Dems give more or less money to Dems in the period in which he was "directing" the contributions, or did they give more immediately before Abramoff began "directing" contributions to Dems. Richard Aubrey might be able to "feel" the answer to this coming. They gave, surprise, less. They also appear to be the only tribes of their size to give more to Republicans than Democrats; which is really curious. Back to the Washington Post, Jay, I don't really think that WaPo acting as a shill. I don't really like the characterization, it is too cartoonish and dismissive. I think that the Washington Post has some very fine reporters and I generally admire their work. I reference it regularly. I'm not very impressed with the OpEd section, but that is neither here nor there. I do believe, however, that some of the staff on the political "desk" have gone over to the other "side" in the sense that Judy Miller and Robert Woodward went over to the other side. By that I mean that they have ceased being reporters and now view their function as presenting the Establishment, the Bush Administration, point of view. I think this is particularly true of John Harris. Besides his transparancy regarding the Froomkin issue, his euphoria over a two- or three- point bump in Bush's approval ratings was evident, when he appeared a few weeks later on CNN to talk about the poll numbers. VandeHei, I'm not sure if he has gone over or not, but he produces soft little fluff jobs on Bush all the time. Maybe Harris assigns that or edits him that way, I don't know. Susan Schmidt has carried the nickname Steno Sue for very good reason for a number of years. That these two journalists produce genuine news when paired with better reporters is pretty noticeable. I don't really think there is anything for me to do about that, except complain in writing when their work is really egregious. But it's a cryin' shame that the entire paper suffers a loss in credibility when they do this. Any more, I view their political coverage as the Administration view. Maybe that's as it should be. But to really know and understand what is happening, I must go elsewhere to find out. I don't think that the Washington Post wants to be seen that way. Or maybe they don't care about whether they have credibility with people like me. Posted by: Phredd at January 22, 2006 10:23 PM | Permalink ami. richard, if you don't already know the answer to that question, there really is no point in attempting to explain to you. Dave McLemore: You are trying to reason with the Left's adoption of a paranoid style ... In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant. Posted by: Sisyphus at January 22, 2006 10:37 PM | Permalink Mark, I was all prepared to take up your offer to debate. Then I remembered I know absolutely squat about international law. Not to mention the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere Whether Bush is a war criminal or whether the invasion of Iraq should is equivalent to the invasion of Poland strikes me as being a wee bereft of perspective. I mean, all wars are at heart wars of aggresion. Not just Hitler's. Not just Bush's. But again, I'm not expert. But I'm very sure I never said you called me a Republican fascist. I said I believed you thought me a naif, a muddle-headed ostrich who obviously doesn't see the wolf at the door. And though I do certainly believe in the power of facts, in no way to I believe those facts must only be expressed in a dispassionate and polite voice. An Irish writer, whose name escapes me, justed that we should never let bastards go unaware. I believe that's what Molly Ivins meant. Speak up. But as I said in an earlier note, there's a difference in fighting back hard and taking on your enemy's tactics. If you're both taking steroids, the message starts sounding the same. Take Ann Coulter. I really don't know anyone who has changed their mind my the power of her invective and falsehoods. Nor can I say the entirety of American conservatives, as you seem to suggest, believe her or subscribe to her worldview. But even if the foul crap she spews goes from her lips to Bush's ear, is that the kind of political change you want to emulate? A political troika of lies, invective and self-righteousness? Is that whom you want to share steroids with? Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 22, 2006 10:38 PM | Permalink ami. I confess. I already know. It was just designed to get a reaction. Which you fulfilled so as to make me wonder why I bother, when I can be right just by thinking. But thanks for being a confirmation. Posted by: RIchard Aubrey at January 22, 2006 10:39 PM | Permalink I don't know, Tim. It strikes me these folks are more passionate than paranoid. But I have to say, it's refreshing to have the left side of the spectrum jump my ass for not thinking correctly. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 22, 2006 10:43 PM | Permalink I confess. I already know. the fact that you are smug about your knowledge betrays your ignorance, Richard. Thanks for playing.... .... oh, and I understand there is an opening in the LGF league for someone of your talents. Go for it. Be all that you can be. Dave McLemore: The paranoid style is nothing sans passion. I'm glad you find this refreshing. Chris Allbritton had a different experience. Posted by: Sisyphus at January 22, 2006 10:55 PM | Permalink Dave wrote: "No one I know likes he said/she said journalism. But it's it's a hard habit to give up. Why that is so is the part that stumps me." It's a hard habit to give up because it's a habit of protection. It's hard to give up protection; that increases your exposure, your risk. See my He said, she said, we said. When you get to "we said" there is more risk. It shouldn't be a suprise that news organizations don't go there. You know what the professional copy editor's opinion of the wrong headlines from Sago, WV was? "They should have hedged." In other words reduced their risk. The word hedge tells you something about the calculations that underlie he said, she said journalism. What's so confusing, Dave, is that he said, she said journalism starts out as "get the other side" journalism. There's always another side, right? And thus a protection ritual is associated with truth-seeking, when in the end it's about protection. I had just enough experience as a rookie reporter to remember that the central fact of my experience when I began writing news stories for the local daily was fear: what if I write something that is wrong, materially incorrect, and it gets printed? Fear led me to check. And so when I say protection, it's protection against something real. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 11:00 PM | Permalink That fear of getting it wrong is very real, Jay. And stays with you a long, long time. But there's also the concern of getting it right. Which sometimes helps keep the fear from getting in the way. To this day, editors ask, "What's the story about, what's it going to say?" And I have to reply, "I don't know. I haven't found out yet." Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 22, 2006 11:23 PM | Permalink Well, Tim, a sudden fall in an icy stream can be refreshing too. Nothing here comes close to the kind of attacks Allbritton had. But I've had some pretty hairy moments elsewhere. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 22, 2006 11:32 PM | Permalink The whole "we pulled the comments because they were nothing but insults" line is a big fat dodge, and unfortunately the proprietor of PressThink has fallen for it. Several blogs have archived the comments that were censored; the best archives, complete with the best synopsis of the history of this affair, can be found here. Even a cursory glance shows that the vast majority of them were factually-based criticism that pointed out, in embarrassing detail for Howell, just where she was wrong. It's so very interesting that the paper which employs people like Howard "I Love Rush 'Bone in her nose' Limbaugh" Kurtz, Susan "I don't care how filthy or improbable it is, if Ken Starr says it I'll print it" Schmidt, or Michael "Lucianne Goldberg's enabler" Isikoff, the paper which didn't shrink from printing the wildest RNC-hatched suppositions about Bill Clinton, suddenly goes all moralistic when a few four-letter words are dropped. Posted by: Phoenix Woman at January 22, 2006 11:41 PM | Permalink That the vast majority of them were fair game is a fact admitted by everyone, Phoenix person, including Brady and me, so cool it. "We pulled the comments because they were nothing but insults" is something you came up with. Brady never said that. He would agree with you: we're talking about a small minority of posters. If you think he was wrong to pull them, that's fine, and many fine people quoted in the "After Matter" section agree with you. By the way, as Phoenix woman knows but others may not, "Rosen got played by Brady" is an interpretation circulating at left blogs-- Huff Post and FDL among them. Meanwhile, driftglass puts it this way in a column addressed to Deborah Howell: Speaking only for myself, I accept your apology as genuine and in that spirit, let me offer you a bit of advice: Howell has received a lot of criticism here. But how much do we really know about her, as a person? For those interested, here is a massive interview online, done by the Washington Journalism Foundation, in six parts, about her entire life and career. And it is a pretty amazing American life. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2006 11:54 PM | Permalink Jay: I don't think you got played at all. The guy said what he said to you. And you properly took him at his word. The problem of his outrageous interview with Hewitt, and not primarily because it was with Hewitt, but because he was inaccurate (a less kind person writing at his home blog, namely me at daily kos, would call him mendacious as I did) in so many respects. And stood by while Hewitt engaged in name calling scurrilous attacks on the Left blogs - daily kos and atrios in particular. It was hypocrisy of the highest order as well as simply the spread of falsehoods. But that reflects on you not at all. Your interview was, in fact, an excellent one. And Jay, you know I will let you know when I think you are wrong - as I have in the past with Okrent. Here, you have been quite good in my view. Posted by: Armando at January 23, 2006 12:05 AM | Permalink Well, thanks, Armando. My post praising Okrent was criticized by you, memorably, and many others. As you know I think criticizing Brady for what he said or didn't say to Hewitt is totally fair. Criticizing Brady for being willing to go on Hewitt's show? I don't buy that. Hewitt is actually very good at radio. He lets you answer, and that means you can speak freely. You have to be careful, though, and dispute him where his descriptions injure the facts. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 23, 2006 12:23 AM | Permalink Atrios does a post about one of Steve Lovelady's comments here: "Unless, of course, you write the follow-up paragraph, based on a little research easily accessed in these days of digital databanks, which says, basically, 'The RNC response is fundamentally untrue.'" Atrios (Duncan Black) writes: It's weird that they don't get it because in the mind of readers it essentially makes the reporters liars. Despite how some like to think of themselves, reporters are not passive conduits of information. They choose their sources. They choose the quotes. They decide when a source has been full of shit so many times that, if they care, they stop going to them for information. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 23, 2006 12:29 AM | Permalink Dave, I'm saying there's another step we need to take to restrain RNC organized crime activity. Unless and until that happens, good journalism will be a discredited, delegitimated voice howling in the media wilderness, one more story that Chris Matthews compares to Osama bin Laden. You're correct that all of the right is not as extreme as Ann Coulter and Karl Rove. Matthews isn't even supposed to be a Republican AND YET HE TOO COMMUNICATES A MESSAGE OF POLITICAL CLEANSING (the manly, patriotic Bush vs. his traitorous pinko opponents) WORTHY OF COULTER/ROVE ON ISSUE AFTER ISSUE. What does that tell us? Coulter and Matthews individually are only symptoms of a systemic problem--the RNC "protection" racket. We need a change in media attitude. Maybe then facts will start to mean something. That's all I want--for facts to start to mean something. For a government agency with subpoena power to find out what the hell has been going on in the executive branch the last five years and to print a story about it that wasn't written by the White House (like Washington Post coverage of Jack Abramoff), for a "leading" paper like the Washington Post to have an ombudsman that actually adjudicates rather than one that rationalizes and prevaricates in craven submission to ensure RNC "protection." Posted by: Mark Anderson at January 23, 2006 12:59 AM | Permalink Jay Rosen-- Your comments about FDL are appreciated by its readers. The regulars there are people who care at every level, so the discourse is not always regular or on-topic or even reasoned. Nevertheless, even hard-logic types can find the atmosphere there warm and inviting. As an expatriate (but not ex-patriot) with no other source of discourse, I find it much more inclusive than sites such as KOS, where responders are often in your face. And, like many others who visit FDL regularly, I have an advanced degree and am gainfully employed. Early in the Watergate investigations, as the media tried to come to grips with the story by being "fair and balanced," i.e., by refusing to distinguish between spin (called, I believe, at that time, "dissembling" by those other eminent former Young Republicans, Haldemann and Erlichmann) and the facts, many of us were left gnashing our teeth with anger at the collusion of the media and our own impotence to counter it. Today, we feel the same way. We want the net to help us get the truth told, but we realize that the net alone is not enough; thus we vent out anger among ourselves. Jane and Reddhedd at FDL, with their passion for both fact and justice, have provided a community of people who care. That in itself is an accomplishment that many other sites would do well to emulate. Posted by: notjonathon at January 23, 2006 1:07 AM | Permalink To those criticizing Brady for appearing on Hewitt's show, I am curious how you would feel if he appeared on Randi Rhodes. I also asked earlier, and nobody responded- have any of the bloggers encouraged their commenters to apologize to Deborah Howell? Posted by: MayBee at January 23, 2006 5:04 AM | Permalink Who considers it a neutral supposition that 'one side uses steroids and the other doesn't'? Do blogs work better- get more traffic and more community- if they keep people angry? Finally, has any administration or political person ever not attempted to use the press to its advantange? Wouldn't any smart administration use its influence to-- influence? Posted by: MayBee at January 23, 2006 5:44 AM | Permalink I also asked earlier, and nobody responded- have any of the bloggers encouraged their commenters to apologize to Deborah Howell? For what, precisely? Posted by: pseudonymous in nc at January 23, 2006 7:51 AM | Permalink Hello Jay, :) I too feel that your interview with Mr. Brady was good in the sense that I liked your questions, I disliked his answers. And that is hardly any fault of yours. :) I must say, I admire the way you reply to commenters in this blog, and I find your comments thoughtful and reasoned (and please believe I am sincere). I even understand what you say about Jane Hamsher! I must admit that even I have to wince when I read her comments at times (and if you have been to Loaded Mouth, will know that takes some doing!) :) Nonetheless, I admire the work Jane and the other bloggers at FDL do, I think of her as a spirited bantam rooster (with apologies to Jane! I am not implying you are masculine in any way, it simply an allusion to the spirit of said bantam.) :) And I believe what FDL does (and C&L, TP, and many other blogs including this one) is vitally important. I really do believe that the issue regarding this WaPo scandal, is one of credibility. As I have said before, either Howell is an OpEd writer or an Ombudsman with all that implies. The only reason (I believe) that the comments by the readers became so heated is simply because she published that erroneous piece as Ombudsman. If she had published it as OpEd, I doubt people would have taken her so seriously. And perhaps she knew this. I have read that interview of Howell at the Washington Journalism Foundation a week ago (when searching for info on her), and as you say, she has had an amazing career. Which makes her betrayal of the WaPo's readers trust even more striking. It makes me believe all the more that what she published was quite deliberate. She has had a long career, she is no newbie Journalist! She can't use that excuse. As for Brady... well, he has his own agenda, and axe to grind. He sounds to me like he was looking for an excuse to close the blog and blame the leftwing bloggers and call them (and the WaPo readers) trolls. I doubt he can claim he knew nothing about Howell’s story. I doubt anyone would believe him. His actions to date simply make me think that his decisions are politically motivated rather than motivated by the best interests of WaPo readers. Of course, if that is so (and it’s an opinion only), perhaps he believes that being partisan *is* in the best interests of WaPo. All I do know is… This whole event is very strange, and I believe there is more to it than meets the eye. I cannot believe that Howell could be so naive and irresponsible. Her career belies that. So, what was it all about? The only rational explanation I can think of is that it was either designed to distract attention from other events, or to plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of readers that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. But what actually happened, is that many readers simply became more convinced that it *is* a Republican scandal, and WaPo lost credibility. I don’t have enough information to come to any conclusions about what happened and why. All I have is more questions. I think it would be a *GREAT* idea for you and Jane and the others to meet with WaPo and discuss the issues. Perhaps some enlightenment might be found, and some honest conclusions reached. :) I was going to post an updated blog about this at LM. I have been holding off because I am troubled about the whole event. It makes no sense to me, it seems… illegitimate (for want of a better word). My hope is that people such as you can discover the truth, or at lest some of it. Thanks again Jay, and cheers! :) After reading the long list of comments from over the weekend. I think the Post is taking the wrong attitude with its comments section. Instead of taking the comments down, it should make a special section of them (or a book) so that everyone can see how they act in private. They should do this in some kind of forum that achnowledges that vulger comments will be accepted. If they want to keep their own sit cleanm they then can do that through editing of comments. Again the problem is NOT making the mistake, that happens (see West Virginia mine story), but the reaction to the complaints that is important. It is not the crime, but the coverup. Jay, A little buried beneath all the issues being discussed is what I thought was a great question of yours to Brady. It seems to me if you’re dismissing the complaints of the partisans you’re reacting in exactly the wrong way; they’re your best customers. They’re way involved in the news. You have to find a way of hearing them, or your sunk. Of course some of them are crazy, excessive, extremely rude and they say things for shock value or just to rage at the machine. Maybe it’s hard to find the signal in the noise, but that is exactly what the press has to do. There’s an idiocy to partisan complaints; there’s also the heart and soul of politics in them. No political journalist can afford to ignore that, and no online editors, either. I’m afraid that after an incident like this, more will. What do you think? Brady dodges what your are really asking which is about how does the Post treat partisan complaints in general (I was thinking of the Media Matters dust-up with Howell which I was hoping you'd comment more on). Brady answered the question as this only refered to the message board in this particular incident as if you'd asked "did you shut down the boards because a bunch of lefty progressives were complaining?" "Why no Jay, it wasn't that they were lefty progressives, it was that they were rude, lefy progressives." I was still hoping you might say something about Media Matters-vs.-Debra Howell because their original complaint wasn't about the Abramoff story. I think you may have a point about not criticizing Brady for going on Hugh Hewitt's show, but I do wonder if other radio show's asked and this was the one he choose. But then again I'm not in a great position to judge his radio show as I've never heard it. I mostly know of Hewitt's through his wacky questions he asks during press briefings. Posted by: catrina at January 23, 2006 8:53 AM | Permalink Unless, of course, you write the follow-up paragraph, based on a little research easily accessed in these days of digital databanks, which says, basically, "The RNC response is fundamentally untrue." Steve, wouldn't this just clutter the copy even more? i don't have a solution to this he said/she said problem. your suggestion reminds me of my days working for Gannett, which has a gazillion rules that USAToday didn't have a to deal with. One was mainstreaming, meaning reporters must try to find a minority source. great intention, bad practice. mind you, i was working here. How many minority sources were there? we ended up going back to the same source often or getting a man on the street for "mainstreaming." Plus there was also the no-jump rule, so you have a 12-inch story or less, several inches for the mainstreamer who didn't add anything. you could open up the paper, spot the mainstreamers in any story because their quotes were meaningless and didn't add color or any relevant fact. we often had to tell the mainstreamer the news just so they can react. often, reporters just write the story and hope it will slide. but editors would kick it back, and then you are there for sometimes hours trying to find your mainstreamer! Posted by: bush's jaw at January 23, 2006 10:04 AM | Permalink cat: If there was one question he dodged, it would have been that one-- about dismissing the partisan voices. The reason? Probably because it wasn't so much about the dispute at hand, but a larger matter in the background that mostly involves the Post newsroom, as against post.com. It's also the hardest question to deal with, one of the hardest in all of journalism, as illustrated by the rhetorical questions of MayBe a few posts up. This is the true voice of the newsroom: "...both sides are at best often whiney and at worst filled with rage." (Therefore, the newsroom thinks, it's best to ignore them.) "has any administration or political person ever not attempted to use the press to its advantage? (There's nothing new under the sun; we've seen it all before. Politicians spin and manipulate, the press sees through all that.) "Wouldn't any smart administration use its influence to-- influence? (The world isn't changing, the world is the same as it's always been, and the ancient wisdom of the newsroom as apt now as it was in 1974.) "Is it possible that when you don't agree with the politican, you think the press is a lapdog and the politican coercive? But when you do agree, you think the press is being fair and honest?" (You're ideological, we in the newsroom are not. And you're just a bunch of babies who want everything your way.") Kryten: Thanks for your note and assessment. I think you are wrong about one thing. "He sounds to me like he was looking for an excuse to close the blog and blame the leftwing bloggers and call them (and the WaPo readers) trolls." I believe Brady's on the side of the angels in the sense of wanting a more open, interactive, transparent and two-way Post. That's his agenda. In this quest he gets pushback from some in the Post newsroom, who say: Why should we open our site if we're just going to be attacked? What do these bloggers have to say of value? Why do we have to put up with those silly "whose blogging this?" links when most of that commentary is angry, partisan and irresponsible? Having to close the post.blog hurt Brady with those people, who now have more ammunition with which to question further changes. He knows the post.com lost some ground with the shut down, which is why he was so visible in trying to explain it. This incident was a setback for his agenda, not the fulfillment of it. Oh, and Atrios is back on the case with a Monday post. "Basically, I call foul. The Post trashed its readers with multiple news stories in multipe media outlets claiming they were oh so abusive. There's been almost no evidence of that despite many efforts to find it." Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 23, 2006 10:15 AM | Permalink He sounds to me like he was looking for an excuse to close the blog and blame the leftwing bloggers and call them (and the WaPo readers) trolls. I agree, but I don't think it had anything to do with ideology. The real problem was the sheer volume of comments, "substantive" or not, that had to be waded through in order to delete those found "offensive" or "inappropriate". Brady "repurposed" the necessary employees to take care of the problem until Howell responded, with the expectation that Howell's response would resolve the situation. Of course, Howell's response on Thursday exacerbated the problem -- so Brady shut down comments rather than assign staff to deal with the massive volume of comments that were coming in. I think Brady really is on the side of the angels.... but's he's also a human being who was forced to deal with a problem that he had no control over -- but which he was being held responsible for. David Carr's New York Times column finds old media striking back. Some excerpts: "The trouble with a community built of one-way e-mail messages posing as two-way communication is that when people can say anything, they frequently do - a fact of digital life that goes back to The Well..." Brady is quoted: "As a certain point, you think, 'Why should we be handing them a weapon against us?' If all they are going to do is call people names, why would we do that? The question becomes whether we are able to set the rules of engagement on our own site." Howell is interviewed: "It was a mistake, but they wanted me to be drawn and quartered at high noon in the public square," she said. "This was a huge learning experience for me. I have to be very precise and have a very tough skin." Ms. Howell tacked back to the subject in her regular newspaper column yesterday, a move likely to provide more rocks for what she called "a public stoning." And the clincher: don't e-mail me! "Personally, I'm all for a robust interaction with the reading public. My address is David Carr, New York Times, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10036. And don't forget that the price of stamps just went up." Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 23, 2006 11:45 AM | Permalink Jay you forgot to mention the ridiculous new convention of the NYTimes that in addition to putting their columnists behind the TimeSelect barrier they're also putting the e-mail responses behind the same barrier. They only want to *hear* from TimeSelect payers/Times Subscribers. I really doubt that was the columnists' idea. Very early on I suggested maybe the Post could do the same thing with their message boards "if you want to comment you have to be subscriber." Posted by: catrina at January 23, 2006 11:59 AM | Permalink Heh...I did want to add that I love this statement from DCFishbowl's Garrett about the whole Howell affair and lastest ombudsman column. Why does it seem like today's ombudsman/public editors, in theory the readers' representatives inside a newspaper, hate nothing more than dealing with readers? And why are the high-profile ones so loathed by readers in return? Posted by: catrina at January 23, 2006 12:11 PM | Permalink about David Carr and the "old media", hitting back --communicate him you via stamps? is he so ill-informed that he doesn't understand that he has made himself irrelevant? probably not, the NYT did implement TimesSelect, after all, where, if you pay for it, you get the privilege of sending e-mails to columnists and getting server generated form responses! --more broadly, the discussion about how the Post should run a blog, subscribers only, moderation, etc., tends to put the larger issue in focus do they want a real blog, and the dynamics of public interaction, sometimes polite, sometimes informed, sometimes profane, or do they want a sanitized form of it that primarily serves marketing purposes, akin to a flim studio "blog" that gives people the opportunity to glowingly talk about the film's stars the amazing thing is, if the Post had played this right, they would have generated a tremendous amount of permanent interest in their blog, a must visit daily location, with rough and tumble political and social comment from the public so, if they had taken the line, "we are having trouble dealing with the volume, and cleaning out some offensive comments, but we, like any website would be, are pleased with the incredible level of public participation, as it confirms the success of our web-based approach to journalism . . ", they would have come fine instead, all the thin-skinned GOP sympathizers squawked, as they have previously done, people like Harris and Howell, and the Post has decided that the success of the website must be impaired to protect of them, and their ability to attempt to influence the public in the guise of "journalists", with Brady signing up with them in his Hewitt appearance the whole thing is quite comical, declaring war on bloggers as an evil assault upon journalism makes about as much as sense as saying that we have to stop hurricanes both, if apperances are correct, are getting stronger and stronger, and it would make more sense to accomodate them these old media responses remind me of Trotsky's comments about how the Russian aristocracy was incapable of doing anything other than immolating itself Posted by: Richard Estes at January 23, 2006 12:26 PM | Permalink I am puzzled by several things. I posted and read most of the posts in the Howell/Froomkin dust-up. I remembering cringing at the language and allusions in some of them, but then I am an older person and maybe I cringe easily. However, I don't remember the WaPo expressing concern over the language or the number of posts, and Jim Brady did not shut down the comment section. I also read many, many of the reader comments in the latest fray. To me they seemed no worse, maybe even "cleaner," than those in the first controversy. In the Howell/Froomkin dispute Brady certainly had a dog (Froomkin) in the fight. In the Howell/Abramoff situation, he had none. Is this why he became outraged by the language of the comments in the second situation but not the first? No one on the outside has seen the content of the emails Howell received. Were they that much worse in the second go-round? I know I saw several emails to Howell posted on various sites during the Froomkin debate that made me blush. Is the WaPo simply suffering Howell fatigue? Was it easier for the WaPo to react this time because they could identify one site firedoglake that they thought was leading the charge? Did the WaPo hope to accomplish two things, stop the charge and slime the chargers? After publishing Ms Howell's non-apology yesterday, management at the Wapo must know that they have an interesting two years ahead of them. Posted by: Ohio Blue at January 23, 2006 12:41 PM | Permalink While the allegations may outrage those who wanted the dems to skate clean and pure on this one, they are not insignificant. An allegation unsupported by facts is exactly that, an allegation. There is a word for it in politics. It is known as a smear. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 23, 2006 1:32 PM | Permalink David Carr rewrites history... LAST Thursday, Deborah Howell, the ombudsman for The Washington Post, posted a clarification on the newspaper's Web site after suggesting in her Sunday column that the lobbyist Jack Abramoff had made "substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." Of course, Howell didn't "suggest" any such thing. She said it flat out. Please ami, Would you type that on a Smith Corona and send it Pony Express? Otherwise Mr. Carr's primitive synapses may not be able to process this info. Posted by: SpinMD at January 23, 2006 3:30 PM | Permalink Alice. Be sure and remember that. It will no doubt come in handy. Or be extremely embarrassing, depending. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 23, 2006 3:31 PM | Permalink Having worked a lot with fielding reader comments on a newspaper site, I'm in agreement that some careful moderating before the comments go live is in order. Thats our method,and it works for us. Its yet to dampen down the exchange, but keeps it from degenerating to just an exchange of bad words. There are a lot of benefits to having a slight presence in the moderation chain as well. WP's error is they had no established parameters clearly set and like any kids with no limits you get unruly behaviour. Posted by: Stefan Dill at January 23, 2006 3:35 PM | Permalink David Carr has a blog. Leave him a comment and let him know what you think about his article. http://carpetbagger.nytimes.com/ Posted by: JGeorge at January 23, 2006 3:40 PM | Permalink Thanks for that report, Stefan. Most informative. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 23, 2006 3:47 PM | Permalink Jay, thanks for the reply. :) Thanks for your note and assessment. I think you are wrong about one thing. "He sounds to me like he was looking for an excuse to close the blog and blame the leftwing bloggers and call them (and the WaPo readers) trolls." It's not that I *believe* that was his reason, I was talking about impressions, and that was the impression I was left with. And I know others have said something similar. I should have made that more clear. :) You are in a better position to judge, since you spoke with him, you would have gotten the emotional overtones which, of course, are lacking in the written version of the interview. And as an experienced journalist, you would have picked up on the overall tone of his feelings and probable level of frustration. Perhaps you can comment more about that? It may help to understand his replies better. Also, how well you you actually know him? Are you in a position to judge his general character? (Always a difficult thing, I know!) :) I still think there is much more than meets the eye here. And in all honesty... none of it makes any sense! Thanks again. (just so jay doesn't have to....) K42 wrote: You are in a better position to judge, since you spoke with him, you would have gotten the emotional overtones which, of course, are lacking in the written version of the interview. a closer reading of Jay's original entry will reveal that his Q&A was conducted via email.... Yes, e-mail. However, I have met Brady, and I do correspond with him, so I have some insight into his thinking-- emphasis on the "some." By the way, Brady is on Air America's Majority Report today, probably because he was invited. A good review of blog reactions is at National Journal's Blogometer. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 23, 2006 7:36 PM | Permalink After publishing Ms Howell's non-apology yesterday, management at the Wapo must know that they have an interesting two years ahead of them. My guess is that the promise of "an interesting two years ahead of them" is not disturbing in the least to anyone at the Washington Post or to Jim Brady. To the contrary, to put it in crass commercial terms, it's an editor's dream come true.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 23, 2006 7:38 PM | Permalink What is most frustrating is the fact that Howell refuses to see how her positions repeatedly call her objectivity into question. Brady seems to beg for questions about his political biases by going on the Hugh Hewitt show. Posted by: Erik D. Hilsinger at January 23, 2006 7:55 PM | Permalink Oops -- Brady goes on Air America as well as on Hugh Hewitt's radio bashathon ! Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 23, 2006 8:04 PM | Permalink Brady is coming this hour (8 p.m. Eastern) on AAR's Majority Report with Sam. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 23, 2006 8:05 PM | Permalink Oops! You are correct ami, thanks. For some reason, I had it in mind as a phone interview. Well, I guess that would make a face-to-face more imperative then. :) That is one of the major problems with information exchange via email, forums, or online comments of any form. So much non-verbal communication is missing. Sometimes, the tone and the body language can tell far more than words. Which is probably why many of the current Administration are staying out of public view currently. :) Thanks again. :) [Oops -- Brady goes on Air America as well as on Hugh Hewitt's radio bashathon ! Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 23, 2006 08:04 PM | Permalink] The issue, as noted by several people here, was the CONTENT of what Brady said on Hugh Hewitt's program, in which he made claims about the Abramoff scandal, and Howell's coverage of it, that were not true, and participated in a mutual admiration society with Hewitt about being victimized by partisan blogs. It will be interesting to see what Brady says on Air America. I wonder if he will put out his 3rd different version of events, in effect, pandering to what he perceives the Air America audience to be, or sticks with what he told Hewitt. The Post is being whipsawed by two competing motivations: catering to the White House, with the temptation of grabbing the poisoned chalice of right wing media support, while trying to maintain itself as a respected, objective news organization. Transparency is great, but not so great if you ineptly change your story for each new audience. On line communication just nails people who try to do this now, when, even 10 years ago, they could get away with it. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 23, 2006 8:29 PM | Permalink Well, I listened to AAR with Brady, and I reached two conclusions.... 1) Brady doesn't have a clue about the facts (as opposed to the Post reporting) about the Abramoff scandal... 2) Sam Seder knows less than Brady does OK, Mr. Anonymous editor, you asked for this: Heed this essay of utter importance in these times that try MORE than men's souls... Wake up and save the American Dream In case you have been living in a bubble and somehow failed to notice, these are times that try not only the souls of human beings everywhere. These are times that try our patience on almost a daily basis - unless you are on Xanex four times a day and live in a plantation or in the White House and focus all of your attention on the sports and religion news. We are in a battle today between the descendants of the Son's of Liberty on one hand, who did more than dump tea in Boston Harbor to bring about the American Revolution, and the descendants of British Loyalists on the other side, who would never have supported the American Revolution in the first instance. Posted by: Glynn Wilson at January 24, 2006 12:49 AM | Permalink 1) Brady doesn't have a clue about the facts (as opposed to the Post reporting) about the Abramoff scandal... Such joined-up journamalism. Brady says: 'Trust us.' The commenters say: 'Give us reason to do so.' Posted by: pseudonymous in nc at January 24, 2006 2:11 AM | Permalink i havent read the Air America transcript yet but i 'd be very interested in seeing one. i think Estes' 8.29 post is pretty cogent, as was his earlier post. I think Brady is spinning/counterspinning this far harder than he needs to, and its not helping in keeping the two themes separate (Howell's accuracy, and post.com's handling of the public response to it). If any progress is going to be made about the future online interactivity/transparency,etc, these two issues need to be isolated and dealt with separately. Brady's muddying the waters by going out there unless he sticks to the post.com portion, and I too am baffled as to why he's put in a position of doing Howell's clean up work. Why isnt she out there herself or at least why can't Brady stick to the online aspects? again see Estes' earlier post. I had the good fortune to meet with Brady and the WP online operation last November, and I do believe that they are genuinely committed to a more open, participatory practice for online journalism, so he is, as others have noted above "on the side of the angels" and should be defending his more open-process agenda. But making the talk show circuit, based on the Hewitt transcript, isnt going to help his cause, me thinks. I also note that their editorial blog - post.blog - has no updates beyond a link to friday's live chat transcript; i.e., no updates over the weekend, no word to the public from the home base - is odd, given the circumstance. To be so suddenly incommunicado with your own readership - at this juncture, especially - is a weird course to take. Posted by: Stefan Dill at January 24, 2006 2:44 AM | Permalink have any of the bloggers encouraged their commenters to apologize to Deborah Howell? For the personal attacks, among other things. Perhaps for the overzealousness, maybe for the anger. For acting in a way that did not generate the Washington Post's trust in them, even as they demand the Washington Post earn their trust. Posted by: MayBee at January 24, 2006 3:56 AM | Permalink MayBe: are you going to apologize for your insulting suggestion, phrased as a question, that participants in this discussion don't really have a "press" issue to discuss, or a legitimate complaint about the Post and its ombudsman, but are instead acting out their political disaffections and simply pretending that it's about the Post? Well, are you? And where did you learn such towering condescension? Or is it a natural thing? (As in: "Is it possible that when you don't agree with the politican, you think the press is a lapdog and the politican coercive? But when you do agree, you think the press is being fair and honest?") Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 24, 2006 9:11 AM | Permalink Slate's Jake Shafer has now Posters Vs. The Post weighed in. He gives a pretty good rundown of the timeline and then mentioning that the flaming of a message board isn't like, the first time a newspaper has ever had pile of flaming dog poo hurled at it. I think the piece is decent except for his final paragraph... One last point: I invite you to go back and read both Howell's pieces and what her critics wrote about her. (Technorati links to the relevant blogs.) I'm no Howell fan, but blogger accusations that she is carrying water for the right or peddling some bias are completely unwarranted. Attacking somebody as if they are your enemy when they clearly aren't makes no sense. Unless, of course, you're among the perpetually aggrieved and you've tired of flogging the usual villains. I think he sort of willfully misunderstands the bloggers' complaints (or Media Matters) about Howell. For someone who goes through a timeline of the situation, I don't get why he doesn't understand that progressive/lefty/democrat bloggers were upset that Howell was pushing a frame that this very Republican scandal was in fact a bipartisan scandal. If your a Democratic blogger, you don't want to see one of your biggest campaign issues get so easily muddled by one of the print world's biggest voices so that it in effect becomes a bipartisan scandal by dint of conventional wisdom. Howell remarks weren't "accidental" so much as mistaken. I don't know why Schafer just jumps to the term "enemy" and therefore to imply that Howell *isn't* an enemy of the blogger's. The blogger's enemy was misinformation. They despise those that spread it. But also, one distinction, one has to separate the "bloggers" in this scenario (FDL, DailyKos, Atrios, even Media Matters which isn't a blog) from the posters. The Bloggers are individuals...the posters are more like an uncontrollable human swarm. FDL was certainly angrier than Atrios, but the language used by the bloggers was certainly not at the level of the posters. I think Scafer kind of conflates the two (bloggers and posters). Posted by: catrina at January 24, 2006 10:03 AM | Permalink But making the talk show circuit, based on the Hewitt transcript, isnt going to help his cause, me thinks. it looks to me that Brady is caught trying to be open and transparent about the operation of WPNI and its website (for which he should have a great deal of pride) while also trying to defend the Washington Post news/editorial staff (despite the fact that what they produce is often "indefensible"). I think reading wp.com is like looking out a picture window -- and seeing nothing but a brick wall. Its great that the window is there, and that Brady does such a great job of keeping the glass as transparent as possible -- but we're still looking at a brick wall. Brady shouldn't be in the position of having to defend Deborah Howell, and Sue Schmidt, and John Harris, and Len Downie. They should be out there, answering informed and substantive criticism of their own work (and not just showing up every once in a while to answer the questions they pick on the WP.com chats.) it looks to me that Brady is caught trying to be open and transparent about the operation of WPNI and its website (for which he should have a great deal of pride) while also trying to defend the Washington Post news/editorial staff (despite the fact that what they produce is often "indefensible"). Ami I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've really come around on Brady, not just from his appearence on Air America (which I still haven't heard yet, but will) but I've been reading his comments more closely and I think that is the problem. He's being great about the transperancy but as a WP "team player" he also has to pretty much defend Howell and her column. When, of course, he has no editorial control over Howell. But I do sense there's a guy who can lead the WP toward a more interactive-with-readers future there. What would be worse is if Brady and the rest of the staff at WPNI said "well we tried talking to the readers but really, they're just rabble and have nothing to say." I don't think that's where his head is at. I sense he's frustrated, and I don't think its *just* the frustation at the bloggers. One should be able to forgive the Post it netiquette growing pains as it learns to create a message board more inline with 2006 eventualities. Posted by: catrina at January 24, 2006 10:41 AM | Permalink Having now listened to the Air America Majority Report interview with Brady, I feel kinda bad for the guy. Sam Ceder didn't do as bad as I thought he would based on comments here...but the problem was he kept hammering Brady about things that Brady really had no hand in, both WP's reporting on Abramoff and Howell's column. The thing that Brady had a hand in, that I think Cedar wasn't so interested in talking about, was the comments being shut down. Brady's area of expertise was ONLY the comments board portion of this issue and Sam wasn't interested in talking about it. Sad actually. Posted by: catrina at January 24, 2006 11:24 AM | Permalink [Having now listened to the Air America Majority Report interview with Brady, I feel kinda bad for the guy. Sam Ceder didn't do as bad as I thought he would based on comments here...but the problem was he kept hammering Brady about things that Brady really had no hand in, both WP's reporting on Abramoff and Howell's column.] But, if Brady has no hand in the work of Howell and Schmidt, which must be true, why was he so expansive about Howell on Hewitt's program? Which may explain why Seder was so forceful about it. Let's go back to last Friday to refresh our memories: [HH: Jim Brady, you had a meltdown...A) congrats on going online today and answering your critics, and congrats for coming here. Explain to the audience what happened yesterday. JB: This actually all started on Sunday when the ombudsman of the newsman, Deborah Howell wrote a column about the Abramoff scandal, and in that column, made a reference to both Republicans and Democrats being the beneficiary of Abramoff donations. And what she should have said, and what she put up on the blog on Thursday was that he directed...he did direct contributions to Democrats, which is undeniable. There's lot of documents that show that. But when she wrote it in the column, it was phrased in a way that made it seem like he was personally giving money to the Democrats[, of which there isn't proof of that at this point. . . . HH: The central fact which seemed to upset the critics of the column, is that the Post has reported that between 1999 and 2004, Jack Abramoff's Indian clients contributed to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats, tens of millions of dollars to both, correct? JB: Correct. HH: And so, why do people object to your publishing that fact? JB: Well, they...they objected originally to the fact that she...that when she stated it, she made it seem as if he personally was donating to Democrats But what she meant to say was that he was directing money to Democrats, which as I said, is beyond any kind of argument . . . There's a real...this group that has been going after Deborah all week, I don't think, would have been happy no matter what she said. But she was clear about that, we put links up that have documents that show that . . . . HH: Jim Brady, who do you think these people are? Because I run into them in this business, but we have a six second delay, goodness knows why. Who do you think they are? Why are they so fundamentally unhappy? JB: Well, I mean in this case, there was very much a concerted effort to...when Deborah wrote her column on Sunday, a lot of the bloggers on the left side of the spectrum really...they got together and they said let's go to the Post blog and tell them how unhappy we are with this column. HH: Was there an epicenter of that effort? JB: It looked like it was in a bunch of different blogs. I mean, it certainly was getting a lot of attention on Atrios and Daily Kos, and some other places. HH: Well, you've just named the two central islands in the fever swamps. So I'm not surprised. When you write on...in your online edition today, I think it goes to basic human decency. Are you saying protecting Deborah Howell? Or are you saying...I hope you're saying both, you're protecting your readers from it as well? JB: Yeah, and we've been clear about that, that we're not going to tolerate anybody being called these names, whether they're employees of the Washington Post or other commentors. And this was more directed at Deborah than it was at other commentors. But that was certainly part of the equation, and it's just...you know, as I said in the discussion, if you can't make your point without calling people some of the names they were being called, then you don't have a point in my opinion.] So, Brady went on Hewitt, and basically put out the company line, defended Howell with all the falsehoods and half-truths that have colored the Post's coverage of the Abramoff story from the beginning, and now, we are supposed to sympathize with him because Seder was asking him all these tough questions? Sounds to me like Seder should have read right off the Hewitt transcript, and been even tougher, as in, why are you stepping back from what you said last Friday? If not, why did you say it? And, do you really believe that liberal blogs are "fever swamps"? If so, how does the Post expect to succeed if so many of its readers find the blogs more credible than its' reporters and columnists? Let's face it, this guy has NO CREDIBILITY. His claims about why the Post shut down the blog are absurd, and his defense of Howell and attacks upon bloggers are pathetic. As I posted over on David Carr's NYT blog, I'm registered as DECLINE TO STATE, and periodically post on a left blog that attacks Democrats as well as Republicans with equal ferocity. So, when I posted on the Post's blog to criticize the failure of the paper to report accurately on Abramoff, that makes me part of some New Model Army charging behind an armoured Jane Hamsher as she rides upon a white charger? [I think Brady is spinning/counterspinning this far harder than he needs to, and its not helping in keeping the two themes separate (Howell's accuracy, and post.com's handling of the public response to it). If any progress is going to be made about the future online interactivity/transparency,etc, these two issues need to be isolated and dealt with separately. Brady's muddying the waters by going out there unless he sticks to the post.com portion, and I too am baffled as to why he's put in a position of doing Howell's clean up work. Why isnt she out there herself or at least why can't Brady stick to the online aspects?] The problem here is straightforward: the Post can't separate issues of transparency and the reporting of Howell and Schmidt, because, you can't be very "transparent", when you are shackled to the company line. Real transparency would require the Post to acknowledge the serious flaws in its reporting about the Abramoff scandal, it's panic response in shutting down the blog and its embarassing attacks upon those who criticized Howell and Schmidt as hate mongers. So, it's here that I disagree with Jay and others about Brady deserving credit for acting consistent with principles of transparency. He isn't. Instead, he's engaging in a practice that has been common in America since the beginning of the 20th Century: public relations. And, if we aren't smart enough to distinguish between the two, and recognize that transparency requires honest dialogue, while public relations is about self-promotion, then the future of journalism is America is even more bleak than I could have ever imagined. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 24, 2006 1:08 PM | Permalink Howell conflated direct contributions with directed contributions. Strikes me as far less a mistake, both in the ease of making it, and in the degree of misapprehension to which it leads, than a number of others I could think of which didn't get this much concern. There's Calame's lame excuse for the NYT's misrepresenting a soldier's point of view--"procedural error"--which told us the NYT has nutty editors who put stuff in op-eds which the procedure is supposed to take out. Or Rather's faked memos. And there is the Cpl.Starr letter in the NYT which was artfully cut so as to reverse the thrust of the thing. Didn't get much professional journo attention, except to damn as nutcases those who objected. Ditto the false report that the Army was sending people from boot camp to combat, or the faked-up picture of the result of the late missile strike in Pakistan. This is definitely a matter of whose ox is gored. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 24, 2006 4:47 PM | Permalink Well, Richard, since you have already dismissed any responses out of hand -- and what a surprise that is -- you save us the effort of responding. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 24, 2006 5:12 PM | Permalink Jay- I do have a problem with what I've seen written by some- that one side is trying to make the press better and one side is trying to coerce the press. Or that one side uses steroids and the other is trying to decide whether to start using steroids or start playing clean. I can't agree with that at all. Both sides do the same things and then point at the other and say the other's behavior justifies it. Which isn't to say there aren't press problems. I just think there are blog problems as well. My condesation was probably a combination of inartful writing and a natural ability to sound condescending. Posted by: MayBee at January 24, 2006 5:16 PM | Permalink Thanks, May. That's reasoned and helpful. New post! Brady, Hamsher, Reynolds, Jarvis, Rosen at the Post site. Plus: Elite Newspaper Divergence (END) Our live Q and A begins 1:00 pm Wednesday... Brady says he will be adding comments to news articles soon... Times columnist David Carr’s take on the “whirlwind” around Deborah Howell includes some extraordinary instructions for how to e-mail him: don’t... "Wow," says Dan Gillmor. See ya over there: Right and Wrong in Making the Post More Interactive. (My title would have been: Howl!.) Jim Brady, Jeff Jarvis, Jane Hamsher, Glenn Reynolds and me are online tomorrow, 1:00 pm. War game it in comments now, review it after. But first let Will Femia at MSNBC’s Clicked guide you through recent events: “The dots I’m clicking show a change in mood and tactic by online liberal activists.” Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 24, 2006 6:34 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
