Skip to main content

In a masterstroke of covert action, WaPo has quietly restored 948 blog posts that they had ripped down several days ago. Not just that: posting is enabled on this particular article. And not just that: they apparently did this roughly 24 hours ago, because a spambot noticed. And I just did my own little posting test here.

Now here's the fun part: what's missing? In my diary a couple of days ago (recommended by 332 people, I'm tickled to notice), I looked into that question, with regard to another batch of messages they restored. The results were interesting. So let's do it again.

In this latest batch, WaPo has reinstated 948 posts. Various archives (here, here and here) correspond to about 717 (75%) of those 948 messages. In other words, if WaPo was restoring everything, all of those 717 posts would appear among the 948 that have been reposted. Do they? No. Exactly 711 of these archived posts were deemed fit for WaPo to restore to public view. Exactly 6 posts (0.8% of the 717) were deemed so offensive, so profane, so pornographic, that they are still hidden from public view.

Well, they're not exactly hidden from public view. They're only hidden from readers of blogs.washingtonpost.com. Here are the lucky winners. Judge for yourself if WaPo is afraid of pornography, or if WaPo is afraid of intelligent readers who are more familiar with the facts than WaPo is:


Ho, Ha,
Fun is fun but I must disclaim any marital relationship to this Debora Howell person. As I hear it she is the remarried famous first wife of the late comedian, Sam Kennison who referred to her by the pet name of, "LYING LITTLE BITCH! AAARRRRGGG!"

It's ever so obvious when you think about it. Is it not? ;-)

Yours Truly,
Thruston Howell III

Posted by: Thurston Howell III | Jan 15, 2006 9:01:27 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------

You know that title "ombudsman?" The title invites confusion. It
dilutes our only asset -- our credibility.

Posted by: JHarris | Jan 16, 2006 3:06:46 AM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------

Willis wrote:     "But contrary to what some commenters have said here, Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case, and I have asked that we post at least some of them so that readers can see for themselves."

That was two hours ago. Now, it takes me about ten minutes to scan a document, and upload it to my own website, and post a URL -- and that's because I'm not very good at all this "internets" stuff.

Willis claims that there are documents in which Jack Abramoff directs his clients to give to Democrats. One assumes that these include signed letters or memos from Abramoff to his clients, or emails directly from Abramoff to his clients --- and one assumes that if such documents actually existed, the Post would have written about them as part of what Deborah Howell described as Susan Schmidt's "explosive" investigative work on the Abramoff scandal.....

But to date, all the Post (and Willis) have ever come up with are these facts

  1. Native Americans tribes give money to both parties

  2. Some Native American tribes were represented by a firm that Abramoff worked for

  3. Some of these tribes gave money to some Democrats -- but since Abramoff has been around, they aren't giving Democrats as much

So, Willis, where are your "documents"? Its been two hours plus -- ten times as long as it would take for you to scan and post the "Abramoff memo" you need to show us that you aren't lying through your teeth....

Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 10:31:19 AM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------

well, its now three hours and counting since Willis claimed that "Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case" and also claimed that he was going to get those documents posted...

but instead of posting these "explosive" documents, the Post deletes Willis's claim....

Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 11:29:24 AM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------

Howard Kurtz has a hilarious water carrying defense of Schmidt and Howell, with the pertinent excerpt posted after at Romenesko:

Fort Washington, Md.: Reporter Sue Schmidt and ombudsman Deborah Howell have both asserted repeatedly that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans. The FEC shows no record of any Democrat getting any money from Abramoff, period. Some Indian tribes who were among Abramoff's victims contributed funds to some Democrats, but suggesting that that somehow is a donation from Abramoff defies logic. How does the Post justify passing on what appears to be nothing but GOP spin as fact?

Howard Kurtz: Howell's column Sunday said that a number of Democrats "have gotten Abramoff campaign money." That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her, is that some Democrats have received campaign cash from Abramoff clients, and that this may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist. That's why you have a number of Democrats (as well as many Republicans, now including Denny Hastert) giving back the tainted dough or donating it to charity. Even National Review Editor Rich Lowry says this is basically a Republican scandal -- we are talking about a Bush fundraiser and Tom DeLay pal -- but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too.
Posted at 12:50:56 PM

So, the bullsh-t continues. Here's Kurtz saying, Democrats received money from tribes through Abramoff, which "may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist." Note, Kurtz completely glosses over the inconvenient fact that these same tribes were among Abramoff's victims. After all, it is critical, as Howard was advised in the White House talking points e-mail not to "get off message". By the end of the remark, he concludes, "but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too."

So, in the absence of any proof that Abramoff was channeling tribal funds to Democrats, "the tangled web has been extended to Democrats"???

Good work, Howard. Have your received Karl's appreciative e-mail yet?

As for Howell, reliable sources in the newsroom state that she will be reporting that WMDs have, in fact, been discovered in Iraq, and that Iran successfully conducted a nuclear weapons test over the Christmas holiday.

Posted by: Richard Estes | Jan 17, 2006 1:43:58 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------

When is little miss liar howell going to retract her lies about democrats recieving money from master crook abramoff? If the Wash. Post had any integrity left she already would have!! Liars!!

Posted by: Don Adams | Jan 18, 2006 10:55:31 AM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------

Needless to say, there are a few obvious questions. If 99% of the messages are suitable to be seen now, why were they ever taken down to begin with? And why did WaPo repeatedly assert that there were "hundreds" of profane messages, when it seems more and more clear that those messages never existed outside of Brady's imagination? And why is WaPo so afraid of Paul Lukasiak?

Update, around 8 am ET: Funny thing, that Yahoo cache doesn't work anymore (the third "here" above). Good thing I saved the contents elsewhere.

By the way, I don't mean to insult Richard by omission (because I mentioned Paul). I think Richard's post is powerful. And I have a feeling someone at WaPo feels the same way.

Update, around 9 am ET: Here's something odd. Above ("quietly") I allude to this, but now I want to be more explicit. A few days ago when WaPo decided to undelete 198 comments, they posted a blog article to announce ("Some Comments Returned") that they were taking that step.

How peculiar that they then decide to undelete a batch almost 5 times bigger, but this time they make no announcement of any kind (as far as I know; please chime in if you know otherwise). And they decide to implement this step early on a Sunday morning (apparently, judging from the serendipitous spambot post). What a wacky crew over there. Who knows what they'll do next.

Speaking of wackiness, I had the 6 posts in a scrambled order. This had to do with the fact that WaPo can't make up its mind if they like ascending or descending order better (they've done some of both). Anyway, I fixed it.

Update, around 10:30 am ET: I think it's important to highlight and elaborate on what Lukasiak says above about "Willis." Derek Willis is a WaPo reporter. On 1/17, he said this: "contrary to what some commenters have said here, Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case, and I have asked that we post at least some of them so that readers can see for themselves."

(This post by Willis is currently live. I have a feeling it has been deleted and undeleted a number of times. But for now it's there.)

Lukasiak and many others challenged Willis on this. Willis made his statement six days ago. What's taking him so long? (Surely he's not thinking of this pathetic exhibit; for more on that exhibit, see my 5 pm update here.)

Maybe Willis's managers need a reminder. This might be a good opportunity to mention another 100% profanity-free post that WaPo selectively deleted (as documented in my earlier diary):

Does flat-out lying and refusing to issue retractions affect the public perception of the value of your brand?

The people who watch the bottom line might want to know:

>>>The Washington Post Company

1150 15th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20071

202.334.6000

TWPCoReply@washpost.com

Ann McDaniel

Vice President

Rima Calderon

Director - Corporate Communications

>>>Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

P.O. Box 17370

Arlington, VA 22216

703.469.2500

Tim Ruder

Vice President - Marketing

>>>The Washington Post

1150 15th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20071

202.334.6000

Eric Grant

Director of Public Relations and Contributions

Lisa Bolton

Public Relations Manager

Posted by: Shystee | Jan 19, 2006 1:12:25 PM | Permalink

(More-or-less that same contact information is here.)

Speaking of the bottom-line, stockholders might want to consider the perspective of a prominent stockholder who said this: "I believe it scant coincidence that the Washington Post Company's shareholders are now suffering as a result of what has become an obvious prostituting of journalistic integrity once of such proud repute, with share prices having fallen sharply."

Be courteous but firm.

Originally posted to jukeboxgrad on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 04:37 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is so new. (4.00)
    Kick 'em again, harder, harder.
    •  WaPo= Bushite scum machine (4.00)
      The WaPo folks were right there with Lying Judy and her pals at the NYT in promoting Bush's war.  And of course there's always the overstuffed Woodward who couldn't be bothered to share his insider information on the CIA leak case.

      WaPo is just one more Bushite scum stenographer- good catch on the "disappearing" posts.  Remember, it's "hard work" rewriting history, Winston was part of a huge bureacracy in that business in 1984.  Now in 2006 we have the WaPo voluntarily working for the Bushite scum masters- private enterprise at its most corrupt!

      •  i just read that link thread (4.00)
        Atrios said,"I remember when lying was a bad thing, something which caused aneurysms in editorial writers around the country. Now there's no objective reality at all, just what "Karl Rove says" and what "Karl Rove's critics say." ....and it occurred to me that B-Boomers & gen x strikes again. This time in the form of shallow editing, writing, reporting. Subscriptions are declining because where once an entire city, left&right, could assume the integrity of Journalists and Journalism in general, nowadays we have political  "he said/she said" instead of research and verification.>
        Jerry Springer the Journalist? I don't think so....
        Dumbing things down for the readership is oxymoronic.
      •  Yikes!! what a hypocrite!! (none)

        Bush is NOT America!

        by annefrank on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 12:08:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  WaPo's Brady to be on Air America tonight? (none)
      Sam Seder on Air America's The Majority Report (which began airing today at 7:00 p.m. Eastern) announced WaPo's Jim Brady will be on his show this evening to explain the purging of comments from the Post's forum.  Seder didn't say what hour Brady will be on.  And I wondered if Seder was joking; he didn't seem to be joking.

      Well, this is posted on his show's webpage:

      On the show:

      Jim Brady, executive editor of WashingtonPost.Com, who last week shut down the reader comments section of the Post's website following a misleading column by ombudsman Deborah Howell.
      ...

      You can listen to Seder's show live by clicking here.

      Will Brady continue digging the Post in deeper?
      Will he fess up?

      I have a feeling he's going to offer his "profanity," "obscenity," defense.  Get ready, Kosmopolitans.  Seder has a blog at the link just above the blockquote. We can get the truth to Seder if Brady chooses to push the same discredited myth.

      "We, the people..." [shall] "establish justice!"

      by trupatriot on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 04:41:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think it's because the WaPo.com editors (4.00)
    wanted to draw maximum national attention to their utter and incomprehensible failure to understand the Internet. Somehow they figure that makes the world a better place.

    (none / 0), (none / 0), it's off to Kos we go, with a...

    by doorguy on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 04:47:27 AM PST

  •  "Curiouser and Curiouser" (4.00)
    Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).
  •  Five or six posts? (4.00)
    I counted six posts in your diary. Maybe I need some more coffee.

    Either way, these don't strike me as so profane to block them from the blog. Folks at WaPo are mighty sensitive these days. Wonder why?

    -7.38, -5.23 One day we ALL will know the truth about the 2000 presidential election. God help us all.

    by CocoaLove on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 05:04:49 AM PST

    •  It's five, not six (4.00)
      "Posted at 12:50:56 PM" should not be read the way you're reading it. It's simply a reference to the quote from Kurtz.

      "these don't strike me as so profane"

      That's an understatement. 3 of the 5 are 100% non-profane. The other 2 contain these words: BITCH, bullsh-t.

      Gosh, I'm mortified. The horror.

      •  shit (4.00)
        I'm the one who needs coffee. You're right, it's six. Thanks for noticing. I'll fix it soon.
      •  Correction: 4 of the 6 are 100% non-profane (none)
      •  First one should have been deleted (none)
        in my opinion.  If I were moderating, I would have deleted it.

        The other ones? No way.  In fact it doesn't make sense to restore a whole bunch of other critical comments and delete those.  Maybe it was some kind of oversight or... I dunno. Weird.

        How can we get over it when people died for the right to vote? -- John Lewis

        by furryjester on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:06:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why did they pick on Lukasiak and Estes? (none)
          "it doesn't make sense to restore a whole bunch of other critical comments and delete those"

          True. Among the undeleted are many high intelligent posts. However, in my opinion these posts by Lukasiak and Estes are exceptionally clear and pointed. In my opinion, that's why they were targeted.

          Needless to say, it's a very, very bad thing that WaPo is singling out posts on this basis.

          •  Were SOME of Lukasiak's messages restored? (4.00)
            I'm thinking in particular about this one (noted in a previous diary), in which Lukasiak raised very good questions about the WaPo graphic (boldface is mine):

            Howell wrote: "One of those lists can be viewed in this online graphic, while a graphical summary of giving by Abramoff, his tribal clients and associated lobbyists can be viewed here."

            Howell's intellectual dishonesty (and her support of the Post's twisting of this story) is astonishing.

            The "online graphic" that she refers to, when compared to actual FEC filings, (http://www.capitaleye.org/...) demonstrated precisely the opposite of what Howell claims. The list, which Howell says shows Abramoff "directing contributions" to Democrats, shows that....

               1. While Abramoff supposedly "requested" $2000 each for Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland, and $5,000 for Tom Daschle, the tribe in question gave Carnahan and Daschle NOTHING, and Cleland on $500.

               2. Every GOP incumbent who was running for re-election that is mentioned on the list got at least $1000 --- the total "contribution" to the GOP names found on this "graphic" exceeded $15,000.

            Perhaps more to the point, the Post went out of its way in "photoshopping" the graphic to make it appear that Tom Daschle was a recipient of Coushetta tribe funds "directed" by Abramoff (the FEC filing shows he wasn't), they "whited out" the line directly below Daschle's name -- in which some kind of "contribution" was directed to Tom Delay through the lobbying firm of Williams and Jensen (that is the firm whose address is 1155 21st St NW, #300 see http://www.williamsandjensen.com/.... ) -- a firm where Tom Delay's former chief of staff found a very lucrative job the same year that Abramoff is "directing" $20,000 to that firm.

            The other graphic, which makes it appear that there was a substantial increase in donations from Native American tribes to Democrats thanks to Jack Abramoff, disguises one key fact --- these tribes had been giving to Democrats for years-- the "increase" in contributions for Democrats is a reflection of Abramoff getting these tribes as clients, NOT an increase in tribal contributions to democrats per se.

            Ms Howell needs to explain why she thinks the "graphic" she linked to is evidence that donations were "directed" to Democrats when the FEC filings prove that this document was virtually ignored when it came to Democratic politicians, but GOP incumbents listed on the "graphic" all received funds that year.....

            She also needs to explain why she won't admit that she lied about Jack Abramoff giving money to "both parties", and giving money to Harry Reid and Byron Dorgan.

            It didn't happen -- and it is inconceivable that Howell could have "done her homework" on the Abramoff scandal and yet have written what she wrote. How has to acknowledge that she was careless and incompetent -- that her sole purpose in writing the original column was to defend "Steno Sue Schmidt" and here efforts to disassociate Tom Delay from Abramoff, and to suck up to the GOP that wants to make the WHOLLY REPUBLICAN Abramoff scandal into something "bipartisan."

            Its bullshit, pure and simple. Howell lied, and she continues to lie.

            Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 19, 2006 2:59:15 PM

            Interesting stuff. How do these Lukasiak accusations hold up?

            "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us." - Senator Lindsey Graham.

            by QuickSilver on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:08:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lukasiak is a target (4.00)
              Yes, one of his messages was restored. But at least 3 were not.

              "How do these Lukasiak accusations hold up?"

              Very well, in my opinion. I think he was arguably the strongest voice in articulating those accusations. I hope everyone pays very close attention to what he says. I think we need to be in WaPo's face until we hear satisfactory answers to the very important questions Lukasiak raises.

              •  Lukasiak is DEFINITELY onto something (4.00)
                when he asks questions about the actual donations made by Abramoff's clients to Democrats, in contrast to Abramoff's (supposed) list of suggestions. Even in the WaPo's photoshopped and cropped graphic, the list hardly favors Democrats; and in reality, as Lukasiak points out, Democrats received even less than what's recommended here.  

                Only the Republican House and Senate could deliver the goods to the Coushattas, and Abramoff was under no illusion otherwise. jukeboxgrad, have you had luck tracking down that quote from an Abramoff/Scanlon email exchange, buried in a WaPo piece a few weeks ago, which ridicules Indian tribes for continuing to give to Democrats at all? I remember reading it but can't find it now. But it seems highly relevant to the ongoing discussion...

                "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us." - Senator Lindsey Graham.

                by QuickSilver on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:41:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  More or less is not the issue (none)
                  There's a lot of discussion about whether Dems got more or less money (either absolutely or proportionately), pre-Abramoff or post-Abramoff, from some particular tribe or set of tribes. I think that sort of misses the point, to some extent, because there are many possible reasons why such a thing might happen (correlation vs. causality, in other word).

                  Einstein said everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. This is one of those situations that can be made reasonably simple, but it mustn't be oversimplified.

                  I think there are a number of other inter-related questions that need to be considered:

                  a) Did Abramoff tell a client to send money to Democrats?

                  b) If and when he did so, how did his suggestion compare to what the tribe had done historically? In other words, he could indeed have been advising a tribe to send money: less money.

                  c) If he advised a tribe to send money, did the tribe actually send money?

                  e) If he advised a tribe to send money, and if the tribe did send money, were they doing it because of what he said, or were they doing it for some other reason, or combination of reasons?

                  f) If he advised a tribe to send money, and they did send money for that reason, are there signs of a quid pro quo, or was it just ordinary lobbying?

                  When these factors are considered separately and together, what it adds up to is that there is little or no indication that any Democrat is in any kind of Abramoff-related trouble.

                  On the other hand, when this framework is applied, lots of Rs are in trouble.

                  The Bushists would like everyone to be confused. A statement like "one or more tribes who worked with Abramoff gave money to both Ds and Rs" is entirely true, but it's far from the entire truth. It's a gross oversimplification which is used to claim the following specious and nonsensical conclusion: "therefore this is a bi-partisan scandal."

                  Also: everyone knows that 100% of Abramoff's personal contributions went to Rs (I believe this was about $200,000 over 4 years). Wingers like to point out that the checks written by tribes added up to much more than the checks Abramoff wrote himself. That's true. But the 100% partisan tilt of his own donations is highly revealing (and of course there are many other indications that he is 100% Republican in his loyalties). It indicates that he has no interest in supporting Ds. Therefore anything that tends to look like evidence of Abramoff supporting Ds is something that should be examined very carefully, and taken with a big grain of salt.

                  "email exchange"

                  Here:


                  "I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah." Abramoff, in an e-mail to an ally, about an American Indian tribe's contributions to Democrats.

                  •  in fact, Abramoff was writing to Ralph Reed (none)
                    on Feb 11, 2002:

                    I wish those moronic Tiguas were smarter in their political contributions. I'd love to get our mitts on that moolah!! Oh well, stupid folks get wiped out.

                    What does THAT say about Abramoff's attitude to Indians supporting Democratic candidates?

                    "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us." - Senator Lindsey Graham.

                    by QuickSilver on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 01:54:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  How my accusations held up... (4.00)
              Interesting stuff. How do these Lukasiak accusations hold up?

              pretty well, in fact.

              I was wrong about Daschle not getting any money.  DASHPAC did recieve $5000 (hat tip to Ron Bryneart from Raw Story for pointing this out, and pointing me to http://www.fecinfo.com/ for much more complete info on contributions than can be found on opensecrets.org)

              HOWEVER....

              I looked into this whole thing further.   Based on my research, I think its safe to say that the DASHPAC contribution was unrelated to the list cited by Howell as "proof"....  the list appears to have been compiled in March, 2002, and the DASHPAC contribution came on 6/30/2002 -- months well after any other contribution that can be attributed to the list was made.

              Secondly, the Cleland contribution was actually half of a contribution of $1000 made on 7/17/2002 to a group call "Friends of Mary and Max", which was a joint fundraising committee for Mary Landrieu and Max Cleland that appears to have existed primarily for one or two fundraising events.   Given that Landrieu is the Senator from Louisiana, and the Coushatta tribe was from Louisiana, it would appear that the primary reason a check was written to this group was that Landrieu was involved.   In other words, anyone who tries to tie the $500 given to Cleland by the Coushatta tribe to the Abramoff list cited by Howell should be corrected...

              (Note -- assuming their names were on the list, the list cited by Howell does appear to have resulted in contribution to at least two democrats -- Tim Johnson and Tom Harkin.  But the bottom line on the list is that it was a "wish list", and not a list of "directed" contributions--- at least where it concerned Democrats)

          •  I actually attempted to calm Paul down (none)
            There was at least one post that was clearly over the line.  I don't remember it, but I actually commented saying he was making great points, but was risking having the baby thrown out with the bath water.

            There was no one on any of those threads that was staying on top of the situation and raising the critical points like Paul.  He did however get ovezealous at times, and I assume was one of the people Brady is now trying to portray as a villian as opposed to someone keeping the post honest.

      •  Strange (4.00)
        It seems Howie Kurtz has cancelled his Regular monday morning online Chat at Wapo online this morning

        Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

        by Magorn on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:04:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How do you know that? (none)
          This historical schedule indicates that he almost never misses it.

          Hmm, maybe you noticed that he's not on this list:
          feed://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/rss/liveonline/index.xml

          Very interesting.

          •  Yep. (none)
            And that's one of my Must read/ particpate chats on WaPo.com (Froomkin and Dana Priest are the others)

            Even more interesting,  He's written a column today (he writes every day for Wapo.com and the Monday version is reprinted in the paper), so its unlikely he's on vacation.  Curious to say the least.

            Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

            by Magorn on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:10:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  FYI (4.00)
    There are still comments that were specifically deleted that are not found anywhere.  I know because I posted between 12:52pm and 1:23pm on January 19th, and there is no record of it (other than a 1:23pm comment responding to my comment by name).  Here's my comment explaining it.

    There seems to be a universe of comments that have slipped off the map entirely.  Given that my disappeared comment had neither profanity nor hate speech (unless you argue that saying that someone experienced a "rhetorical beatdown" amounts to hate speech), it just shows that the WAPO was eliminating "mean" or vaguely insulting posts, as deemed by whatever flunky was initially cleansing the comment section before the entire comment section was taken down.

    Good work all around nailing this stuff down, but there are definitely comments out there that haven't been tracked down.  Yet.

    "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

    by Slim Tyranny on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 05:07:52 AM PST

  •  Lukasiak is Always Brilliant (4.00)
    Loved Lukasiak's work on the AWOL site and he was right on the money. Many thanks, highly recommended!
  •  Kind of Like Criticizing That % of (none)
    DC Dems who do little but stay in charge and live well -

    attack those who are identifying the problem as pornographers and obscene word users -

    opps, I mean as helping the thugs.

    excellent work who ever you are.

    no wonder the MSM hates blogs !! f*&^ them!

    rmm.

    Grassroots Organizing Should Be for The Community, By The Community - NOT for "Leaders" http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

    by rmdSeaBos on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 05:53:55 AM PST

  •  I think this shows.. (none)
    ..that the Post's web operation is being run by amateurs who didn't realize how easy it is to recover something once it has been posted.  They are learning on the job, though, if the dissappearing cache thing is any sign..

    What did someone say about totalitarianism and incompetence awhile ago?

  •  If these are the worst 1% of posts (4.00)
    Then Debora Howell needs to get some thicker skin.

    Dear WaPo Ombudsman, Do your job!!

    Bush Wants Absolute Power To Run A War He Lied To Start.

    by bejammin075 on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:07:45 AM PST

  •  thank you for doing what brady should have... (none)
    here's my question and brady's non-answer from his ask post.com attempt to quell the critics.

    Worcester, Mass.: Perhaps my (negative) judgment about your decision to stop comments (and remove those already posted) is not entirely based on accurate information. Would you please tell us - How many comments did you receive, how many were deleted as inappropriate and how many were posted? if you are sincerely interested in transparency (and I do so want to believe you are), the actual data would help. Thank you.

    Jim Brady: I don't have the figures in front of me, but we had about 1,000 posts on one posting and a few hundred of those we had to axe. There were also a few hundred posts after Deborah's response, and we had to remove a good chunk of those as well, but I have not checked on exacts...

  •  It'll take up space (none)
    But perhaps the posts on particular news items should be saved in case WaPo gets snide again.

    Freedom is the concept by which we stand. All else must follow and defend. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/15/15022/6329

    by RElland on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:27:37 AM PST

    •  Storage is ultra-cheap... (none)
      ... especially with regard to text files, which is essentially what we're talking about. A 30gb drive will hold about 38 million blog posts. Assuming 200 posts/day, you'll need to buy a new drive in 500 years. By then WaPo might have learned how to be honest without our help.

      Every browser has a save command. When visiting with a host who has proven to be untrustworthy (like Brady, for example), use it often. It's your civic duty.

  •  What a disgrace. (4.00)
    Hey, WaPo!  If you're not going to do anything that First Amendment, do you mind if we use it for a while?

    Sincerely,

    The Blogosphere

    They didn't just violate the 4th Amendment. They left it bleeding in the alley with its panties around its knees.

    by roxtar on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:34:51 AM PST

  •  Could be a SNAFU.. (none)
    I mean it could at least partly be due to technical stupidity.  I realize the odds are low but it wouldn't be the first time.

    Peace in a world free of Religion, Peace in a world where everyone gets Heaven... -- Toni Halliday

    by Wintermute on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:44:06 AM PST

  •  INARTFUL WRITING AT THE WASH. POST (4.00)
    "That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her...." (Howard Kurtz, cited in the Diary above.)

    Fantastic journalism--what Howell said was not wrong, just "inartfully worded." Howard Kurtz "believes" that he knows "what she was trying to say," though he has "not discussed this with her."

    You can see how hard he worked to get the facts before he wrote this statement.

    What's even more fantastic is that people like Kurtz and Howell can write this sort of stuff and still be taken seriously by readers.

    The Wash. Post actually had a very good Omsbud person before this. The NY Times had an unsatisfactory "public editor" before, but now has a very good one. Why is the WP now going in the reverse direction?

    I looked up "inartful" in my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. The word is not there.

    "Artful" means "adroit in attaining an end often by insinuating or indirect means."

    Maybe "inartful" is supposed to mean "not being adroit in attaining an end--often by insinuating or indirect means." In other words, saying something misleading, but not saying it cleverly enough, and getting caught out.

    Perhaps "inept" fits better.

    •  Precisely (4.00)
      That is so bogus on so many levels. "Inarfully worded." Um...you guys are writers. What's more you are non-fiction writers, Howard, so when you guys are "inartful" with your words, it qualifies as "fucking up your job." Might be worth an apology a little stronger than the "everyone does it sometimes" version you  (Howard) are trying to peddle.
    •  What Howard Kurtz really meant to say ... (none)
      ...was inartfully worded. I believe what he was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with him, is that Deborah Howell is an established professional journalist and when she writes she says exactly what she means. The problem is that too many of our oh-so-clever Post readers actually understood the truth behind her attempt to propagate the administration smokescreen. Unfortunately she also learned all too quickly that smoking can be hazardous to your health. As the saying goes, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. So this time she issued a mea culpa, and she will try to do a better job next time...of hiding her lies while pushing the administration talking points...while I continue to push a smokescreen around her smokescreen. <snark>

      Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman

      by dewtx on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 12:59:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  sort of related (none)
    I wonder what charities got the dirty money

    Support the project that believes in the best our community has to offer! Support YearlyKos

    by gina on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:10 AM PST

  •  The WaPo is just getting used to the new idea (4.00)
    of truthiness in journalism. Give them time.

    -6.88/-5.64 * You know what's happening. Fight it.

    by John West on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:50 AM PST

  •  "lying little bitch" not appropriate (4.00)
    That one was justly deleted.  I find it funny, to be honest, but the Washington Post blog is not the appropriate place for it.
  •  No this is deliberate spin (3.77)
    The best defence the WaPo has come up with is this graphic:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    Several curious things. Why we are just given a fragment? Are the originals actually torn? You would think that even in these days of electronic publication someone has some tape and a copy machine.

    But sure enough we have both Carnahan and Cleland. Proof positive for the WaPo it seems. But oddly this list starts right after Roy Blunt and ends right before Tom DeLay. Is there any scenario is which this could be an accident?

    No this is a clumsy bit of stagecraft put on by a news staff that has been called out as liars or fools or both. Technical glitch, I don't think so, this was carefully done by hand with malice aforethought. And some people should be calling Howie out (Howell is a lost cause).

    •  actually... (4.00)
      the list probably starts right after Sam Brownback, whose "Restore America PAC" received 25,000 on the same day (3.31.2002) as Conrad Burns' "Friends of the Big Sky PAC" got $25,000....  which, as you will notice, is the amount that Abramoff asked to be sent to Burns on the first entry of the list....
      •  Thanks for the correction (none)
        And man wouldn't it really, really suck to be a Republican Senator named "Brownback" in this year of all years.

        Between Santorum's "dogs", Conryn's "box turtles" and the current success of a certain movie about sheepherders on a "Mountain" if I were Sam I would be wondering "why was my dad not born a Swenson?"

        Snark aside, thanks for the excellent point. The cropping of this post was no accident.

  •  Wow. Great freaking diary. (4.00)
    Why is it that only non-journalists know what journalism is anymore?
  •  It's time (4.00)
    to stop reading papers like the Post and the Gray Lady.  I don't watch anything on Fox because I won't support Murdoch.  The way to punish incompetence is to vote with your dollars.  Fewer readers or viewers translates to less advertising revenue.

    Pennacchio for Pennsylvania

    by PAprogressive on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:07:10 AM PST

    •  Exactly (none)
      If they want to play games with the truth, then let the truth of diminishing revenues bite them where it hurts.
      •  I refused free NYT last week (4.00)
        A nice saleslady called to offer me a free trial subscription to the NYT, then ended up agreeing with  me when I gave her several reasons why I do not want the NYT, even for free.

        What makes the NYT the "most influential" newspaper?  Nothing more than the readers.  So if we can convince the readers to drop the NYT, we have a better chance of actually publishing the information that courageous whistle-blowers reveal.  The fact that Bush was using the NSA for illegal spying could have been enough to tip the election in 2004, so the NYT has kept this evil dictator in office.

        I hope that the next wave of whistle blowers will approach Seymour Hersh, or better yet, some of us on the blogs so that we can quickly publish the information on Bush's crimes.

        The NYT and the lapdog WaPo are actually hurting this country be taking up space that could be filled by newpapers that were independent of the Bushite scum.

        •  It is not the readers its the advertisers (none)
          Free copies are often distributed as sponsored copies by businesses or as additional copies to boost circulation figures around the time circulation audit figures are issued, so they can set high advertising rates based on the extra copies distributed. More copies out there= higher readership supposedly.

          The purchase of a copy of a newspaper probably barely covers the cost of production.  The big dollars are from the full pages of advertisers.

          Remove the readership- no advertisng= no profit.

          •  Exactly why I refused the NYT (none)
            I agree, that's why I told the NYT to not send me any free copies of their rag.  Maybe some key ads will reach the whistleblowers- send your information to dailykos- we'll be sure to publish it and drive Bush from office.
  •  I almost feel sorry for the WaPo and others of (4.00)
    the traditional print media.

    On just DailyKos alone there are likely 5,000+ people who are able to find and willing and capable of plowing through masses of information to disprove the assertions of those reporters.  Much from sources many of which the traditional print media reporters have never heard.

    It has to be just a scosh intimidating to have a few thousand critics fact checking you.  Or it would be if you were even aware enough to know they were there.

    No wonder so many of the traditional print media get so defensive automatically when they are challenged.

    Heh

    Being liberal means one is for civil liberties, equality, social justice, fairness. ... How can someone be too liberal? Dr. P.Z. Myers

    by maybeeso in michigan on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:14:23 AM PST

    •  Mistakes vs lies (4.00)
      All reporters are human, so they all make mistakes. Then they deserve considerate correction. Under those circumstances, there's no need for anyone to feel threatened or intimidated.

      But when they intentionally lie (and resisting correction is a key sign of this), they deserve no mercy. In my opinion, there is now ample proof of sustained, repeated lying. We need to keep hitting them over the head until they stop. No slack.

  •  Hmmm (none)
    I think we ought to cut and paste Paul and Richard's comments into an e-mail. And then everyone ought to send an e-mail to every single e-mail address you can find at the paper. Add a note asking why they're so afraid of engaging with Paul and Richard, and when they plan on answering the questions.

    Maybe print out and fax these questions to their fax number, too.

    I'm running out the door, but I'm sure there's lot of helpful contact info on their website (at least for now).

    Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

    by saucy monkey on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:29:49 AM PST

  •  So, basically... (none)
    Ms. Howell is an out-and-out liar.  And when called on her lies, she just lies some more.  And her colleagues lie.  And her bosses lie.

    Let justice reign though the heavens tremble

    by Viceroy on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:33:00 AM PST

  •  Important work (4.00)
    And I'm glad you know how to do it. They will continue this Rovian talking point about Dems being corrupt too, unless we keep correcting them adamantly and forcefully. I don't personally care for the use of profanity but I use words like "hack" all the time; especially when its warranted. The only post of your six that should have been deleted was the first and not just because of the profanity it was content free. But the others? The WaPo is allowing itself to be look like a fool the longer they play this charade out. They should just 'fess up, Howell should suddenly need to spend more time with her family and we could all move on!

    Recommended!

    Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought- John F. Kennedy

    by vcmvo2 on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:44:23 AM PST

  •  Where is the NY Times on this story? (4.00)
    At this point it seems incumbent on the Post to select and highlight the worst offending examples of profane posts for 2 reasons.

    1. so their claim of profanity requiring mass deletion may be independently verified and

    2. so that Post readers/commenters may have some guidelines to follow to ensure that their posts will not be capriciously vaporized into the haze of the internet ether.

    This is the most profound example of editorial bumbling I can think of. So where is the competition, in today's hyper competitive market environment, to issue the clarion call to their own readers that the WaPo is a ship without a rudder? Is anyone aware of any major MSM entity, either in print or web versions, that are following this issue, in the news or opinion columns?

    My suspicion is there is no such coverage. Which leads me to no other conclusion but to believe that severed horse heads have been placed at midnight on editorial desks across the country.

  •  Shameful (none)
    The whole thing is just so embarrasing.  None of their excuses have made any sense.  Who did they think they were fooling?  Brady should stop defending and start appoligizing and making restitution.

    Fine work here!

    onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

    by atomicBirdsong on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:06:14 AM PST

  •  Willis lying? Why? (none)
    It is highly interesting that a loyal, powerful Republican like Abramoff would direct anyone to contribute to Dems, especially at a time when Tom DeLay was punishing people for doing just that.

    That's a fascinating story if true, and one that I would very much like to hear, since it directly challenges my understanding of how the K Street project works.

    Yet this is the story the Post is peddling - not in any of its articles, but in Willis' comments, Kurtz's comments and Howell's "correction." Why?

    There are two possibilities:

    1. The Post is waiting for further evidence before it can go to print. (I find this very unlikely, since Kurtz, Howell and Willis refer to this as an established fact).

    2. The GOP cocktail party/ water cooler line is that Abramoff spread his money around. They've said it so often that Willis, Kurtz, and Howell have simply bought it. No further confirmation needed. It is now CONVENTIONAL WISDOM, not just among GOP hacks, but among the "impartial" journalists.

    I'm not aware that powers that be at the Post understand how untenable their position might become if we persist. The Abramoff scandal isn't going away. All of his crimes will be detailed by direct evidence.

    My prediction: no evidence of directed contributions to Dems will emerge.

  •  WaPo makes it up as its go along. (none)
     The most pathetic (and infuriating, and funny) thing is to see these nimrods with the Post making it all up as they go along re:  what "should" and "should not" be posted, 'acceptable' questions, standards of journalism.

     And, as is often the case, when you make up the rules as you go along you end up stepping on yourself and looking like an idiot (or, if doing it in a collective, a bunch of idiots).

     That the WaPo can't simply [ 1 ] report facts and not GOP talking points, and [ 2 ] do a mea culpa and appropriately professional corrective story when caught in such dimwittedness, demonstrates the WaPo's proclivity to substitute "Amateur Hour" standards for anything resembling a once-exalted standard of excellence.

     Can't we find some adults to run things there for a while?

     BenGoshi
    __________________

    We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

    by BenGoshi on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:29:15 AM PST

  •  It seems to me clear (none)
    what we can gleam from the ommission of the above posts:

    Kurtz does not have the documents to prove Jack-'bramoff actually directed the funds to democrats as he claims.

    I'm not so quick to think Kurtz was lying.  But maybe he was simply misinformed when he wrote the message.  Either way, this misinformation must be corrected.

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:42:44 AM PST

  •  jukeboxgrad, you are EFFING FANTASTIC!! (none)
    Howell and the stubborness of senior editors have managed to completely eviserate any credibility that the once proud Post had had.

    I'm now marking the start of my own countdown til WaPo shareholders demand the announcement of Howell's resignation.  Of course, just like with the perpetuation of her lies, Howell shouldn't go it alone.  Along with her, I demand Brady, Kurtz, Willis, and Schmidt tender their resignations as well.  No need to speculate on any motives on their part.  The evidence of complete betrayal of any and all journalistic integrity on this matter is more than sufficient evidence.  Good night, and we'll be expecting your parking passes and all Post property returned before sending out your final paycheck.  Rodolfo, please escort them from the premises.

    And jukeboxgrad, I wanna bear your children.  Many of them. No matter how many hours it takes.

    "We, the people..." [shall] "establish justice!"

    by trupatriot on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:46:57 AM PST

  •  A lesson learned (none)
    Liars are so sensitive especially when they are called on their lies. OK, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are merely lazy reporters.

    It's the beat generation, it's be-at, it's the beat to keep, it's the beat of the heart, it's being beat and down in the world and like all time low-down

    by Splicer on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:53:40 AM PST

  •  Scary To Think That WaPo Owns Kaplan Education (none)
    It is scary to think that the Washington Post Company owns Kaplan Education.  In fact, according to the recent financial reports, it appears that Kaplan is the cash cow for the WaPo corporate monster.

    What is scary is to realize that the same corporation with a culture that can tollerate --  even apparently condone and encourase -- lying and deception, can be responsible for educating and tutoring a large segment of today's youth, college students, para-professionals, and professionals.

    It is sad that they are destroying the Washington Post Newspaper brand.  Hopefully they do not taint the Kaplan Higher Eduction brand and reduce the value of the education and degrees.  

    •  re Kaplan Education (none)
      Judging from some work I did for Kaplan Education maybe 5 years ago, they sell books and tutoring that help people pass tests that they would otherwise (probably justly) flunk.

      I had a soiled feeling of enabling well-to-do incompetents become tomorrow's filthy rich (and still incompetent) professional class.

      WaPo isn't likely to make Kaplan worse but could give it political cover if someone raised a stink about, e.g., illiterate doctors.

      My apologies if the outfit is mostly good guys and I saw a tiny bad part or if it's changed.

      Joy
      http://badattitudes.com/...

  •  Great post! (none)
    Skinner over at DU has another batch that he cached. (Sorry for the lame link. I can't go there while at work.) I don't find them especially scurrilous. Maybe WaPo should read their editorial page and imagine that the pundits are talking about them for a change. I maintain that if they'd substitute "black," "Jew," or other traditionally maligned group for "liberal," they'd have to ban a lot of screed for being hate speech and would end up with a blank page.
    •  same batch, not another batch (none)
      Thanks for pointing out Skinner's post. I hadn't seen it. I'd like to show up there and thank him, but for boring technical reasons I can't.

      His post is essentially the same work I did in my earlier diary. I used the same archive he's talking about.

  •  jukeboxgrad says I'm full of shit (none)
    But you can judge for yourself in this subthread of Armando's frontpager.

    Tribes acting under Abramoff's influence INCREASED donations to Democrats, and did so at his direction, and there's no reasonable controversy on this point.

    I'll be out, but have fun.

    None Dare Call It Stupid!

    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:25:41 AM PST

  •  I Can Understand Why These Would Be Eliminated (none)
    These so called "intelligent" postings are personal attacks on the Post's ombudsman, repetitive accusations demanding immediate posting of supporting documents and a potential problem of cutting and pasting copyrighted material.  I don't see why these five postings are somehow indicative of a conspiracy at the Washington Post.  Granted the whole situation is pretty sordid and highly unethical/unprofessional but this is a partison newspaper with no shred of credibility left.  

    Let's hit them on the real issues and not spend so much time on this conspiracy stuff.  Keep your eyes on the ball.

    •  "Real issues" (none)
      If a slanted, dishonest press isn't a real issue, I don't know what is.

      "demanding immediate posting of supporting documents"

      If those documents exist, they should have been posted weeks ago.

      "repetitive accusations"

      When a good question is ignored, repeating it is proper.

      "copyrighted material"

      I can't imagine a plausible scenario where this would actually be a consideration. Can you?

      " I don't see why these five postings are somehow indicative of a conspiracy"

      The problem is that they told us they deleted hundreds of profane messages. That appears to be an outright lie. I don't know why you're inclined to dismiss this.

      "personal attacks on the Post's ombudsman"

      When a lying liar is caught lying, calling them a liar is the right thing to do.

  •  WAPO is busted... (none)
    bootlickers.

    It's sad, WAPO had a chance there for awhile to prove it could pick up where the NY Times fell apart.

    Instead, they've proven they're just as much full of propaganda and disinformation as any other major paper.

    U.S. journalism is broken and it deserves to be broke, with this kind of bullshit.

    Jeff Gannon is our media's mascot for the 21st Century. And they did it to themselves in their corporate lust for cash.

    All of these papers should be shut down and new legislation enacted to reinstate the standards our journalists have thrown in the garbage.

    If journalists will no longer do their jobs ethically by choice, then they must be forced to. That's what government is for.

  •  Excellent Job (4.00)
    Brady's excuses are crumbling.  You've done a superb job.  (And personally, I think you've freaked 'em out -- they never expected this.)

    Bravo.

    jane hamsher

    •  Thanks (none)
      I have the very highest regard for you, so your kind words mean a lot.

      "you've freaked 'em out"

      A whole shitload of us freaked them out, and I hope we keep it up. The real heavy lifting here was done by the people who posted hundreds of intelligent, substantive comments. If it really had been just empty, illiterate attacks, no one would have paid attention or cared, including WaPo.

    •  Jane, you're wonderful (none)
      Well said stuff on your site.  WaPo got nailed for lying.  Now they're getting nailed for their bungled retro cover-up.  Maybe we can help them before they morph completely into Richard Nixon.
    •  As I said in the comments on your site (none)
      If you attend the conference, please request the list of deleted posts.  I know they stated they would not talk about Howell, but I would frame it as trying to understand the "WaPo standards" and how they relate to the blogosphere.

      BTW-It is interesting how quickly the decided to have a roundtable on blog comments ethics.  When do we get the roundtable on ethics of corrections in national newspapers?

      Keep up the good work.

      And Jukebox - Thanks for keeping Brady and Co.'s feet to the fire. You have done a fantastic job.

      It is important that everyone understands that words have consequences, including those of us posting here or on a blog like Jane's.  In the end, credibility is all we have and the Washington Post has cashed in some unnecessary chips during this adventure.
       

  •  David Carr (none)
    Some reaction to David Carr's silly impression of this incident starting to appear on his own blog.

    http://carpetbagger.nytimes.com/...

  •  Richard's and Paul's posts are good and (none)
    they both managed to disagree with Ms. Howell without attacking her for the unforgivable sin of being a woman.

    The blatant misogyny of the other removed comments is disturbing.

    As it always is.

    -9.0, -8.3. The less a man knows about how sausages and laws are made, the easier it is to steal his vote and give him botulism.

    by SensibleShoes on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 11:01:09 AM PST

  •  Great WaPo Catch (none)
    Kudos to you for finding those posts and for tracking the story.   That new ombudsman is scary, but we knew that.  The most insidious propaganda is the stuff that tries to pass itself off as "liberal".
  •  man this is getting ugly... (none)
     '...what has become an obvious prostituting of journalistic integrity once of such proud repute..."

    will live in the subject line of everything I send the Post from now on . That stings

  •  Actually (none)
    I'm a little dissapointed my comment wasn't in the Deleteds...guess I didn't make my point ...

    it's like Not being on Nixon's enemies list. Shameful.

  •  "conspiratorial delusion" (none)
    Has anyone else been accused of suffering from "conspiratorial delusion" (yes, that's a quote) in email echanges with WP reporters for bringing to their attention (and asking whether there is a simple explanation) for the matter of the photoshop job to white-out Delay's name from the list of donors that they published?

    No attempt at explanation was made, he refused to even look at it. Lukasiak and several others repeatedly brought up this issue in the comments. Nobody at the Post has yet had anything to say about it as far as I can discern.

    Or am I priviledged to have been included in their Washington Post Factor beta?

    --
    Blogs will matter when we act locally: Local Diaries on Daily Kos.

    by miholo on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 02:51:51 PM PST

  •  WaPo's Brady explains on AirAmerica? (none)
    Sam Seder on Air America's The Majority Report (which began airing today at 7:00 p.m. Eastern) announced WaPo's Jim Brady will be on his show this evening to explain the purging of comments from the Post's forum.  Seder didn't say what hour Brady will be on.  And I wondered if Seder was joking; he didn't seem to be joking.

    Well, this is posted on his show's webpage:

    On the show:

    Jim Brady, executive editor of WashingtonPost.Com, who last week shut down the reader comments section of the Post's website following a misleading column by ombudsman Deborah Howell.
    ...

    You can listen to Seder's show live by clicking here.

    Will Brady continue digging the Post in deeper?
    Will he fess up?

    I have a feeling he's going to offer his "profanity," "obscenity," defense.  Get ready, Kosmopolitans.  Seder has a blog at the link just above the blockquote. We can get the truth to Seder if Brady chooses to push the same discredited myth.

    "We, the people..." [shall] "establish justice!"

    by trupatriot on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 04:30:36 PM PST

  •  Organized terrorists (none)
    Just watching a little O'Reilly 'cause my blood pressure was a little low this evening, what with all the global stability and economic upturns going around.  He claims that lefty websites are organized terrorists backed by gazillionaires Peter Lewis and George Soros.  We beat up on the poor lying hag at the WaPo and called her gross names.  Big ol' mean organized terrorists.  How dare we all glom on to another big fat lie and insist it be corrected?  Apparently, he was offended by the personal sexual natures of some of the posts.  Did someone say loofah?

    What a joke, O'Reilly.  We're not ORGANIZED.  

    P.S. Dear CIA, we are not terrorists either.

    P.P.S.  Not kidding.

  •  Four more (none)
    For some reason I didn't notice this archive until now. Thanks to this archive, I can now present to you 4 more deleted posts:


    Douchebags!!!

    You can't take away our freedom of speech!

    Howell is a douchebag!!

    Keep deleting, we will not go away!

    NO DEMOCRATS TOOK ABRAMOFF MONEY!!

    THIS IS A REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE!!!

    Posted by: Douchebags!!! | Jan 17, 2006 10:03:23 AM | Permalink
    -----------------------------------------------
    They delete comments to cover up the crimes of the murderous chimp.

    They delete comments because they know there is no truthful explanation for ChimpCos. criminal enterprise.

    They delete because they are all hacks, and they know Mehlman has the goods on them.

    You would't knowingly help in the destruction of your country, would you?

    Would you help destroy your country for a couple dollars?

    Hacks and Whores!

    Posted by: Delete This! | Jan 17, 2006 10:07:42 AM | Permalink
    -----------------------------------------------
    If they delete, you re-post!

    Posted by: They delete-You re-post! | Jan 17, 2006 10:10:31 AM | Permalink
    -----------------------------------------------
    Hack

    Posted by: KMW | Jan 17, 2006 10:33:10 AM | Permalink
    -----------------------------------------------

    I think "douchebag" is a bit too vivid, but the one-word post ("hack") is not profane, and gets credit for being concise. And true.

  •  "Mean Dems" meme (none)
    First Mrs. Alito, and then Deb Howell.  When we stop being so darned nasty?!  That freeper comments on the web are alive and well demonstrate that a). this is a deliberate attempt to portray the left as mean, inconsiderate folk without a shred of common courtesy, kindness or tact; b). Republican woman sorely need a backbone / protection from the Dem wolves at door from Papa Bush; and/or c). Dems have grown such  much tougher from years of abuse this stuff doesn't even register anymore.

    Sturm und Drang -- poking at culture's soft underbelly since 2005.

    by magpie02141 on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:43:07 AM PST

skybluewater, Sharoney, sdf, Sidhe, Thumb, gpclay, ChicagoDem, RakDaddy, Doug in SF, skippy, stevelu, Chris Andersen, Maccabee, copithorne, CJB, Round Midnight, Phoenix Woman, randompost, Nathan in MN, JoelK in AZ, Rayne, deben, acquittal, magpie02141, casamurphy, Trendar, sharronmar, Schmendrick54, misscee, BeBe, ubikkibu, jimpol, js7a, 2pt5cats, Mountain Don, TrueBlueMajority, sen bob, Unstable Isotope, bushsux, saraswati, melvynny, ScientistMom in NY, palooza, Alan S, wytcld, Winger, roscodagama, Robespierrette, bliss149, Stoy, Elizabeth D, Shockwave, scaryice, scorponic, Xan, Pondite, genethefiend, jennen, wintersnowman, ssteuer, lysias, Stein, Mnemosyne, RickD, Romberry, figdish, bilge, LeftHandedMan, jcwabbit, Voodoo, frisco, ilona, TexasLiberal, DrSpike, exNYinTX, Cache, Jerome a Paris, redtravelmaster, strengthANDwisdom, PKinTexas, kissfan, dpc, RubDMC, fabooj, eyeswideopen, jackspace, mlafleur, fabacube, concernedamerican, gp39m, Justina, bronte17, worriedmom, courtjester, Babsnc, indybend, Shadan7, guyute16, understandinglife, jem6x, MD patriot, lpackard, b2witte, Wireman, Ghidra99, snoopydog, otis704, mhale85, fathom, Glic, Scoopster, buckhorn okie, cookiebear, mrblifil, vmibran, Transmission, chimpy, roses, ides, allysonsta, javelina, MissAnneThrope, amberglow, peraspera, oslo, sgilman, LondonYank, freepress4all, luku, Fe, superba, kolly, DiMe, mystified, Thaxter, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, evansb2, bustacap, Cedwyn, antirove, Alna Dem, CocoaLove, WeatherDem, dan2, annan, commons3nse, sockpuppet, SlowToAnger, NYC Sophia, Dallasdoc, realitybased, Sycamore, sp0t, kenjib, besieged by bush, atomicBirdsong, synth, duncanidaho, Caldonia, DSC on the Plateau, duhnonymous, mcolley, dwahzon, mem, lizah, cat chew, HollywoodOz, socal, horsewithnoname, Eddie Haskell, welshvalleymaid, 313to212, Dood Abides, Rxtr2, rosel, cevad, General Disarray, Exurban Mom, Noisy Democrat, Levity, KateCrashes, fugue, davybaby, mattes, randallt, eco, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, TexasLefty, HK, bronxdem, DrewDown, justmy2, zannie, rickeagle, kd texan, eve, AaronBa, Blueiz, Shapeshifter, macmcd, leftymelz, My Philosophy, Arcparser, weelzup, davidkc, cafepants, nehark, vcmvo2, Skennet Boch, drofx, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, saodl, 3goldens, SisTwo, TxTiger, MrSqueaky, patrioticliberal, Five of Diamonds, LarisaW, baccaruda, seesdifferent, furiousxxgeorge, ek hornbeck, Bodean, Chinton, irate, Dr Observer, Heronymous Cowherd, saucy monkey, capioxxii, lil bird, Slim Tyranny, Fire Dog Lake, myeye, juliesie, Brooke In Seattle, Back in the Cave, NeuvoLiberal, eru, IL dac, majcmb1, eyama, ncnygirl, tutone, dunderhead, zenbot, GreyHawk, annefrank, QuickSilver, libbie, JellyPuddin, bmaples, Dan A Lewis, Caleb G, RickE, collapse, optimusprime, Shotput8, neroden, FindingMyVoice, Pluto, Brian B, SignalSuzie, proudprogressiveCA, Indiana Bob, kkjohnson, chiefsjen, Alan Arizona, kathny, Strawberrybitch, occams hatchet, yourhost, awhig, PoppyRocks, Orinoco, bee tzu, bdmac, rmdSeaBos, njr, Opakapaka, BlueInARedState, leo joad, dharmafarmer, Big Eddie Calzone, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, Truza, buhdydharma, Boojum68, poichick, madcitymelvin, isis2, greenearth, trupatriot, TalkieToaster, MJ via Chicago, global citizen, imabluemerkin, condoleaser, theleftknew

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site