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
- Native Americans tribes give money to both parties
- Some Native American tribes were represented by a firm that Abramoff worked for
- 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.