Daily Kos

View Story | 308 comments

  •  Amazed (4.00 / 11)

    I was amazed at how clear and well-researched the feedback was.  Some of it was very bold.  A few were impolite.  None were "hate speech."  Sad.  Does the Washington Post want to pursue "the truth," or is does it favor spinning "conventional wisdom narratives?"

    Wahoo!

    by bink on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:56:30 PM PDT

    •  Do you happen to have them (none / 1)

      cached?

      by seanleckey on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:03:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I posted a few (4.00 / 3)

        here.

        They've not only shut down the abliity to comment, but the abliity to read all previous comments. I would think their system is good enough so that they could delete individual hate-speech or extreme comments rather than chunking the feedback mechanism altogether.

        'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

        by jorndorff on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that would expose the lie (none / 0)

          I suspect that the WaPo has the power to delete the offensive posts, but the deletion of two or three vulgar posts wouldn't end the embarrassment the WaPo was enduring

          face it, the WaPo got caught with the DailyKOS equivilent of a troll, and they let the troll have front page privliges

          instead of losing the troll, the WaPo lost the community

          had to kill that village cause it would have killed us

          by knowthings on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:20:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  DU have some.. (4.00 / 5)

        http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

        by back2basics on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  LOTS are here (4.00 / 6)

        wapolies.blogspot.com

        Rise Against.

        by georgia10 on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pure Gold (4.00 / 2)

          And from what I have read so far, not a single instance of profanity. Of course, I'm not finished, yet.

          MS. Howell main objective seems to be to cloud the issue by using an expansive definition of association so that it tars both the parties equally. Why cannot she just first say that all of Abramoff's personal contributions went to Republicans?

          Let me diagram her logic for her.
          B and C have been giving money to D for a long time.
          Now A acquires B and C as clients.
          B and C continue to give money to D.
          A turns out to be a criminal.
          So A and D are part of a criminal enterprise.

          Amazing!
          I should be an ombudsman. How does one get such a position?

          Posted by: lib | Jan 19, 2006 12:08:40 PM

          Bet she blew a gasket after reading that one. How dare those informed provocateurs throw truth and facts at their betters. Oh god, I gotta lay down...

          by strangely enough on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:48:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Lil Debbie tries to parse her way. (4.00 / 2)

      Firedoglake's take...

      http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/...

      Debbie here assumes everyone is as slow on the uptake as she is and needs a nice, patronizing lecture about this amazing discovery she seems to have just now made. You guys at the WaPo did a great job hiring an obudsman. Really top-drawer.

          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.

      I don't expect Lil' Debbie to understand this so she can just stop reading now and go back to speed dialing the Hudson Institute for her next column, but those with some interest in spin, publicity and the generation of public image probably don't need to be told that all this dancing around about "Democrats took contributions from Abramoff clients too" is an intentional attempt to mislead the public into making a conclusion that is patently false. The implication is that the Indian Tribes are as dirty as Abramoff, something the Post has so far failed to do. They go straight to the White House for their take on any story which they then dutifully transcribe, and have neglected in any meaningful way to go to the Indian tribes themselves and ask for their version of events.

      Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

      by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:16:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Irresponsible of Howell (none / 1)

      There's always going to be useless insulting flames sent to the author of any contentious topic that presents a strong opinion.

      However, it is entirely irresponsible of Howell, who should have a sense of understanding of this issue, to judge the majority of viewpoints by the few most-extreme flame mails received.

      If she's that irresponsible for knowing this fact as ohmbudsman, she shouldn't even be in that position in the first place. I mean seriously, this would be like the editor refusing to acknowledge ALL letters-to-the-editor just because a few of them will be inappropriate.

      The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

      by jeffwass on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  reasoning (none / 0)

        I got the feeling she crafts her trade by kissing ass all her life. She is trying to kiss ass the Washington insider/Whitehouse.

        Read her principle below... (she seems to give special care to 'access')

        http://atrios.blogspot.com/...

        7. Don't be a jerk. Too many young reporters act like you can't get a story without being rude. Be friendly. You'd be surprised how far you can get on a smile and a pleasant manner. When I was a kid police reporter in Corpus Christi, Texas, I baked cookies for the dispatchers. They called me before the competition when there was a hot story breaking. They once sent a patrolman to fix my flat tire.

        Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

        by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:02:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Being a jerk, or....? (none / 1)

          Funny, way back when my dad was a kid reporter, the cops weren't so crazy about him. That's because instead of baking them cookies, he was exposing how they were allowing houses of prostitution to operate in exchange for bribes. A cop once smashed in the window of his car with a nightstick, and I seem to remember him saying something about some threats out there, too.

          Looks like she hasn't known how to do her job from the start, or even what that job is. Plus, she's too thin-skinned for journalism, or at least the way it used to be.

          Maybe she should go back to baking cookies for people with clout. Or maybe she never stopped.

          by MattK D1 on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:32:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You're right - this point sounds like (none / 0)

          an introduction to Bushism, in which the world is divided into

          • corrupt power brokers
          • sycophants (wanna-be power brokers, learning to get "favors" from the power brokers)
          • the rest of us

          by baked potato on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:41:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I read the comments at 50+ (4.00 / 2)

      and most were polite.  Some were a little rough but not vulgar.  But as the saying goes, "if you can't take the heat, maybe cooking isn't your line of work".  It is laughable that their skin was so thin that constructive (though harsh) critism was cut off.

      Which brings us to the obvious questions:

      1. Why would you not listen to the complaints of your customer(s) to improve the quality of your product so that your customers demands of quality are met??
      2. If the above is not a concern, who is your actual customer?

      I find both options to be troubling with regards to the "free press".

      $

      He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

      by joby on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:33:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This one gives you some insight into (none / 0)

      why they really shut them down :
      <div class="blockquote">I ask again, why was my comment removed?

      I said that maybe you weren't a liar.

      That maybe you weren't even first class at obfuscation.

      But I DID say you were INCOMPETENT.

      Is that it? Being called incompetent yanks your chain?

      Posted by: garyb50 | Jan 19, 2006 3:49:13 PM | Permalink</div>

      Can't take criticism I guess.

      Experience is nothing without good judgment.

      by sgilman on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:05:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blockquote changed (none / 0)

        Kos has changed the way you're supposed to do blockquotes. Instead of:
        <div style="blockquote">
        blah blah blah
        </div>
        You're supposed to use:
        <blockquote>
        blah blah blah
        </blockquote>
        I'm actually kind of annoyed — the div HTML element let me put pretty borders around pictures and I can't do that anymore.

        by silence on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:24:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They should simply change the name... (none / 0)

      from Washington Post to the Washington Strained Conventional Wisdom Report.  Too long I guess.  However it's very nice of Ms. Howell to demonstrate how ethics work in BushWorld.

      Certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man. - OWH

      by blockbuster on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:14:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 308 comments