Washington Post Ombudsman Michael Getler responds today to reader email regarding Dana Milbank's column on the Conyers hearings. He gets the importance of the DSM, but misses the point on Milbank.
Here is Getler on the DSM:
The July 23 memo is important because it is an official document produced at the highest level of government of the most important U.S. ally. Its authenticity has not been disputed. Whatever some people said or wrote three years ago, there has never been -- except for this memo -- any official, authoritative claim or confirmation that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Blair denied that at the news conference. But could the secret minutes of such a meeting be wrong? Maybe there's a different interpretation, or maybe "fixed" means something different in British-speak.
Or maybe Blair could produce the former intelligence chief, and the note-taker, for a news conference or open parliamentary session and let reporters or legislators ask for an elaboration on the assessments in the memo.
Thanks to Mr. Getler for stating what should be obvious, but nonetheless needs to be said.
However, his discussion of the Milbank column revolves entirely around the use of the term "wingnut" and whether or not newly-minted "columnist" Milbank (not to be confused with "reporter" Milbank) was justified in using it.
Who the fuck cares? Wingnut, lock nut, Brazil nut--he can use whatever 'nut' he wants.
The point is his column was a hack fest. Not one word about the substance of the hearing--the DSM. Milbank spends all his time taking cheap shots at Conyers and making fun of the crappy room they were forced to use because the House leadership denied them larger (but available) rooms. Oh, and if it was such a joke, why did the Republicans schedule more votes in three hours than they had in the last week?
Getler deserves credit for acknowledging the newsworthiness of the DSM, but should have also acknowledged the complete lack of class his new "columnist" exhibits, which is beneath a publication of the Post's reputation.