Readers Tell Ombudsman To Do Her Job, Washington Post Responds By Shutting Down Blog Comments

Deborah Howell, ombudsman at The Washington Post, needs to brush up on what exactly an ombudsman is supposed to do. See, an ombudsman is supposed t to correct factual errors, not condone them.  An ombudsman is supposed to reply to reader's concerns, not ignore them.

Yet in the span of a week, Howell has done just that.  On January 15th, Howell penned a column "Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff" where she lauded the reporting of Susan Schmidt, including the following 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.

(You can read Califlander's diary on the subject here). Instead of correcting the GOP talking point that Abramoff made contributions to Democrats, Howell gleefully reinforced it.

Readers rightfully assailed Howell for condoning Schmidt's GOP stenography skills rather than calling her out on her egregious factual error. Howell's column received over 700 comments, which, according to the Post, overloaded the system.

Instead of responding appropriately to the reader's concerns, Howell dug her heels in, insisting that the scandal was indeed bipartisan because Abramoff "directed" tribe contributions to both parties. Did she provide any evidence that Democrats were aware that Abramoff directed these contributions? Of course not. Because Howell does not concern herself with facts.

What she does concern herself with is giving a green light to factual inaccuracies at the Post.  And when readers challenge her to, I don't know, do her fucking job, how does the Washington Post respond? By shutting down its blog comments completely:

Comments Turned Off

As of 4:15pm ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely.

At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.

But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.

We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to [e-mail].

Thanks,
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

Readers spent countless hours writing those comments, many of which were carefully researched and debunked Howell's claims.  So now we see the WaPo embracing Bush's policy--when you're confronted with the facts, ignore them, silence the truth-speaker, and play the victim.

Update [2006-1-19 17:9:59 by georgia10]:: The "hate speech" excuse is just that--an excuse. As Media Matters has noted, Howell has refused to engage in any constructive dialogue about her performance:

Omb Learns Lesson
Posted By: Deborah Howell
Date: 1/13/06 5:45:52 PM EDT

The omb lesson is that I replied to mediamatters.org last week that I thought I had been misrepresented. That's just brought another attack. From now on, I don't reply.

•  Wow.

  That's weak.

  by Cisco Pike on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:53:59 PM PDT

  •  lol

    One effing reason why Big newspaper are dead. When it comes to facing the public (full internet force)  They fall apart. Washingtonpost can't take it!

    If Washingtonpost.com is a blog, It'll be the subject of redicule till the end of time. Whiny ass can't take it after dishing out crap.

    Contrast of any top bloggers, Either defend yer stand or apologize/fix it...then move on.

    Washingtonpost thinks they can get away from public scrutiny. And their head explodes after they get cought.

    feh... pathetic.

    by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:01:06 PM PDT

    •  What was WaPo's stance...

      ...on bloggers as journalists?

      A reaction like this to criticism makes it very clear to me that kos and the front-pagers are far more deserving of the legal protections afforded to journalists than anyone who works at the Washington Post.

      by wiscmass on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:30 PM PDT

    •  Don't Blame the Post.com

      This Idiot is employed by the WaPo not Wapo.com and they are almost seperate newpapers at this point.

      What makes her sin this time worse is that this isn't the first time she's slammed somebody on the left with her column.

      You'd think she'd have learned her lesson from the Last time when she wrote a column about complaints from the Post's WH reporters (later discovered to have been fueled by comments from an RNC operative) That the Title of  A WaPo.com Blog Froomkin's White House Briefing was confusing to readers who might think that Froomkin was part of the WaPo's WH press corps. (so What?)

      Ignoring for a fact that she was way beyond her juridisciton anyway when she wrote the column since  Ombudsmen are supposed to mediate READER complaints not interdepartmental squabbles.    The article itself was inartfully written and full of casual accusations and assumptions.  Specifically she stated the post needed a conservative blogger (what's wrong with Howard Kurtz?_) to "balance" Froomkin who was  "quite Liberal"  

      The Sturm und Drang that Erupted on the Wapo Blog was unbelieveable.  Howell got downright shellacked by literally thousands of Post  readers for that comment and the overall tone of her article.  You'd think she would have learned as ombudsman that shee too was bound by the same standards of Journalism as everyone else.

      But apparently it has yet to sink in for her.

      by Magorn on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:24:58 PM PDT

      •  wait

        She is the Ombudsman, who care where she is imployed. She is in charge of keeping it straight regardless. But instead she is a GOP propagandist herself.

        by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:34:00 PM PDT

        •  My point was

          Hate all you like on the dead-tree Print version, but save some love for the .Com version.  Although they have the same name, they are essentially different Newspapaers that share content.   and .Com  is MUCH  better Paper.  Dan Froomkin's column alone puts most of the print version to shame for depth of reporting and context.

          by Magorn on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:37:20 PM PDT

          •  low technorati.com rank

            okay,

            but according to technorati, it barely register at 'respectable' level. (ie. nobody is giving them love nor care linking. )

            by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:42:47 PM PDT

    •  until we purchase and operate

      our own "media" we might better piss in Katrina's face. becuz, "freedom of the press" only belongs to those that own the press.
      and, as swell a site as this is Kos is right. we can scream and holler on here 'til the cows come home, if WaPo says the Dems are just as involved as the Repubs then, by God they are just as involved as the Repubs. it don't matter what the "facts" are becuz nobody reports those anymore. so...
      until we buy our own printing press and radio/ tv transmitter...
      we might better hold our hand on our ass.

      by winkler on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:24:46 PM PDT

    •  This whole thing reminds me...

      ...of the trip Bush 1 took to Japan in the early '90s. Does anyone remember (how could you forget the leader of the free world barfing on Japnese dignitaries?)? Accompnying the former president/failed father on this trip were executives of the US auto industry. They went there to ask the Japnese manufacturers to bring the quality of their cars down a notch or three so that they (the US corps.)would have an easier time competing.

      This sems to be the prefered approach by American corporations, including the media. Rather than do their job and tell us what's really going on, the MSM simply want to Xerox the GOP talking points and spew them as "news". Meanwhile, folks like Kos are putting out the truth. Instead of following suit and giving us a more complete and accurate picture of what's going on the MSM simply attacks the blogs. "Please stop doing such a good job of providing information to the public. If you don't we'll have to actually start doing our job in order to compete."

      Well, the folks at WaPo and The NY Times shouldn't worry--as long as there are puppies to train and fish to wrap the major dailies will still be useful for something. As for news, however, there is just no longer any reason to take the MSM at all seriously.

      by OneBob54 on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 05:27:39 PM PDT

    •  The only possible response to this...

      ...is a boycott.  Boycott this motherfucking newspaper and its advertisers.  Drive it into bankruptcy.  Drive it out of business.  Kill it dead like the roach that it is.

      I mean it.  Boycott this motherfucking rag with the goal of destroying it.

      by asskicking annie on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:10:44 PM PDT

  •  Anybody have all the relevant emails???

    What is Howell's email?

    Exec Editor Jim Brady has a generic email of [e-mail] -- does anyone know of a direct email?

    And LTEs go to [e-mail]

    Where do column submissions go?

    by thesill on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:01:52 PM PDT

    •  Howell's e-mail

      [e-mail]

      by jorndorff on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:11:14 PM PDT

      •  "Omb learns lesson"

        reads suspiciously like someone (at the check-signing level) imparted a lesson to Ms. Howell.

        The Washington Post Company, its subsidiaries and institutional investors, are not eager to see the flagship drug past an enlightened, pitchfork-bearing readership, 'cause if you give those folk an inch, they'll take a mile, and we'll all suffer.

        by Mogolori on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:34:21 PM PDT

        •  perhaps

          this blogging thing is harder than the "pros" make it out to be, eh?

          by le sequoit on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:59:44 PM PDT

          •  Good point . . .

            Democracy is a messy proposition

            . . .

            by TravelerDiogenes on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 08:13:34 PM PDT

      •  Have written her there

        a couple times. She's never responded to me.

        But I did just write the Executive Editor.

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

        •  Get a whole lot of friends to join in

          You could historicaly get a response from Deborah Howell if you could get 30-40 people to send in similar (but not identical) letters about the same issue. It might be terse and not address your actual concern, but it would be a response.

          by silence on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:46 PM PDT

      •  Deborah Howell

        
        

        Deborah Howell is a native of San Antonio, Tex., and became a reporter and editor, first at her high school newspaper and then at the Daily Texan at the University of Texas (BJ '62). She was a reporter at the Austin American-Statesman, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and the Minneapolis Star. She became the city editor at the Star and then the managing editor and editor of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. She was the Washington Bureau chief and editor of Newhouse News from 1990 until 2005. Howell joined The Washington Post in October 2005 as an ombudsman. In that capacity, she promotes public understanding of the newspaper and journalism. She also writes a weekly column.

        by Scarce on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:48:58 PM PDT

        •  thanks for the bio

          I have been wanting to get my hands on a bio because her name is very familiar -- and indeed, I do remember her from her Strib and Pioneer Press days in the Twin Cities.  No specific recollection as to quality of work, tho.

          by worldwideellen on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 05:38:08 PM PDT

        •  Yowza

          I'm not sure what we can say the "BJ '62" part that would be, you know, constructive.  But I'm sure someone around here with a filthy mind will think of something...

          by loudGizmo on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 05:40:04 PM PDT

    •  Deborah Howell's email and snarky response

      
      This from Ms. Howell when I asked about claims in Ms. Schmidt's reporting that Delay and Abramoff were  not in fact friends:

      "I talked to the reporters. They say DeLay and Abramoff were political friends, not personal friends. They have reported on this extensively and found no one who says they were personal friends. Political and personal friendship are very different to me." Deborah

      Snarky, inside the beltway, you just wouldn't unders tand how washington works huh?

      Here is deborah howell's direct email:

      [e-mail]

      by huracanA on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:38:43 PM PDT

  •  [e-mail]

    FLAME ON ,,,

    by billious noire on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:57:35 PM PDT

  •  Powerful weak n/t

    by sgilman on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:00:16 PM PDT

•  I am glad you have front page privileges,

  georgia10.  

  by DCDemocrat on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:56:24 PM PDT

•  Amazed

  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?"

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

  •  Do you happen to have them

    cached?

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

    •  I posted a few

      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.

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

      •  that would expose the lie

        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

    •  DU have some..

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

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

    •  LOTS are here

      wapolies.blogspot.com

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

      •  Pure Gold

        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

  •  Lil Debbie tries to parse her way.

    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.
    

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

  •  Irresponsible of Howell

    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

    •  reasoning

      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.

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

      •  Being a jerk, or....?

        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

        •  love the sig

          I had a bumper sticker for awhile that said impeach, convict, jail. But seeing yours, I like the indictment part. So for those lawyerly ones out there, can we just send him to jail after the impeachment conviction or do we have to do the whole grand jury indictment thing too?

          by randallt on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:30:33 PM PDT

          •  Hmmm...

            It makes more sense to me if it's "Impeach Indict Imprison".

            But that's just me ;)

            by GOPhuckYourself on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:49:56 PM PDT

            •  Broad range

              I was thinking of the phrase as applying to the gang of crooks as a whole, so maybe some will be indicted, some will be imprisoned, and one will be impeached. Of course I am open to a wide variety of interpretations. :)

              by MattK D1 on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 04:42:00 PM PDT

              •  How bout we make it simple

                And just use IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!

                That should be the first step anyway. Then maybe we can add the indict and imprison part after he's tying to hide in Crawford.

                by randallt on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 08:35:06 PM PDT

      •  You're right - this point sounds like

        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

  •  I read the comments at 50+

    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".

    $

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

  •  This one gives you some insight into

    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.

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

    •  Blockquote changed

      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

      •  I was using RPXP

        A great tool, but now I have to go back and edit post before posting:(  Hopefully it will be updated soon.

        by sgilman on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:26:33 PM PDT

  •  They should simply change the name...

    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.

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

    •  Freedom isn't Free

      in Bush's world.

      by Patricia Taylor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 05:55:38 PM PDT

    •  How 'bout the Washington Putz?

      Maybe Putz can be an acronym...

      Putrid Utter Trash Zzzzzzz sort of lacks the intellectual panache of Strained Conventional Wisdom Report, but we could work on it some more.

      by KateCrashes on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:01:52 PM PDT

•  What a neat trick

  I wish I had thought of it last year when I was being lambasted.

  by Armando on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:56:43 PM PDT

  •  File it away

    I'm sure the opportunity will come again...

    by Elwood Dowd on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:59:44 PM PDT

    •  What would we do withput

      dear sweet Armando!

      :)

      by Anglico on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:37:21 PM PDT

      •  Withput?

        out, of course.

        My best made up words are by accident!

        by Anglico on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:38:02 PM PDT

  •  What, a litigator shrinking from a fight?!?

    Never! ;-)

    by kovie on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:04:25 PM PDT

  •  Fuckin-A

    Nice trick.

    You don't like the crap, shut it down!

    Oh yeah, that's gonna save your ass...sure...

    Yeah right...

    by x on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:10:06 PM PDT

    •  Freedom of Speech

      Ha, that's freedom of speech for ya, huh?

      Does the WaPo blog have the same moderators as freerepublic?  Cause in freeperville, as soon as you disagree, you get shut down.  Hell, even if you somewhat agree, but don't use the right talking points, you get banned.  I tried it once (for exactly what reason I'm still not sure).

      Oh, the irony.  It's just too thick sometimes.  Our flagbearer of freedom of speech, decides not to allow it for anyone but themselves.  

      by joanneleon on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:34:16 PM PDT

      •  Not

        that I really want to defend her or the paper here, but this is not quite free speech.

        Their blog is not a public square.  It's a private enterprise, with advertising and such.

        If they want to shut it down, it's between them, their readership, and their advertisers...but they're plenty free to do it, however unwise a choice..

        by Stymnus on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:27:02 PM PDT

  •  No you don't

    You enjoy fighting with the lambasters too much.  

    by NearlyNormal on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:55:42 PM PDT

  •  like you never vaporized anybody ???

    are you trying to say that all those times that you dissapeared stuff, you had your "delete" button on stun ???

    not that I object to your deletions, I just don't think you should act like you haven't done it

    by knowthings on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:35:59 PM PDT

    •  hey knowthings

      ccnwon has a new uid.  it's "mparent."

      he/she thought it wouldn't be obvious, but he's still linking to the same lame livejournal.  just a heads up.

      by als10 on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 09:57:21 AM PDT

  •  Does Armando post under other names?

    www.democraticunderground.com :
    

    what can I say, but,

    heh

    Posted by: mario | Jan 19, 2006 3:44:43 PM | Permalink

    by sgilman on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:10:34 PM PDT

•  Call bullshit...

  don't they have the ability to delete the comments that they find violative of their rules?

  It seems to me that the simple answer would be to do that & leave the good comments alone.  But I suppose that would be a problem because their ombudsman is shown to be a liar & a Republican shill.

  by GTPinNJ on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:57:01 PM PDT

  •  I was wonder the same thing

    Why didn't they just delete any comment that broke their rules?

    by strengthof10kmen on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:59:12 PM PDT

    •  Call bullshit...

      ... On calling bullshit on calling bullshit on the bullshit that was bulled.  Really I think we'd be far better off to ignore and boycott the WAPO, NYT, CNN, etc.....

      Calling BS is a lost cause for the relevant time frame.  Just boycott them until the start printing & broadcasting actual news.  You know, information that is accurate, timely, and relevant to important issues like war.

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

  •  They've done that often

    There's even a blog dedicated to preserving comments deleted by the Washington Post.

    by silence on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:02:09 PM PDT

    •  ROTFLMAO! n/t

      by atomicBirdsong on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:13:23 PM PDT

  •  yeah. I want to see that.

    That'll be even bigger sin, than just shutting down comment. Their blogging status will be lower than lowest rightwing scum if they start erasing "legitimate criticism".

    They can't take it, and they are hiding it...

    by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:04:50 PM PDT

•  I Just Spoke to Jim Brady...

  ...the executive editor of washingtonpost.com (as opposed to the newspaper).

  Mr. Brady explained that numerous hate-filled and profane comments had been deleted by washingtonpost.com staffers before they were ever posted to the website.  When I asked Mr. Brady why the Washington Post didn't simply continue to delete the offensive comments rather than deleting ALL of the comments he responded "the Washington Post can't afford to have two staffers spending their entire day deleting offensive comments."

  That's what the Washington Post thinks of you.  Last week they claimed a "technical glitch" caused over 700 comments to be deleted.  This week they simply can't be bothered anymore.

  The Washington Post we've all known is dead.

  by Thomas C on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:58:00 PM PDT

  •  Maybe they can't afford

    to employ such a stupid twit of an ombudsman.  

    by strengthof10kmen on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:01:31 PM PDT

    •  Especially...

      ...if we boycott.

      Let's destroy this newspaper.  Boycott it and its advertisers and drive it out of business.

      by asskicking annie on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:20:50 PM PDT

      •  What am I supposed to read?

        I dumped the NYT.  Now the Post?  And if I boycott anyone that advertises with them, where am I going to shop?  Where am I to get my coupons?  My daily Soduku?  My DH's crossword puzzles?  Yes, basically that's all they're worth.  But it's the Post, did you expect something better?

        Can you subscribe to foreign newspapers?  If so, which one actually does good reporting?  Thoughts on the Economist?  What do you read?  

        by BlueMax on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 04:57:13 AM PDT

      •  What am I supposed to read?

        I dumped the NYT.  Now the Post?  And if I boycott anyone that advertises with them, where am I going to shop?  Where am I to get my coupons?  My daily Soduku?  My DH's crossword puzzles?  Yes, basically that's all they're worth.  But it's the Post, did you expect something better?

        Can you subscribe to foreign newspapers?  If so, which one actually does good reporting?  Thoughts on the Economist?  What do you read?  

        by BlueMax on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 04:58:14 AM PDT

  •  Dissembling

    Untrue?

    They had Moveable Type configured so that comments appeared immediately.  At least this was the case when I submitted my comment earlier today.

    by bink on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:02:05 PM PDT

    •  You Make A Good Point

      When I challenged Mr. Brady on his claim that various commenters had called Ms. Howell a "c*nt" he replied "you didn't see them because we deleted them."  In fact maybe he really meant that they were posted briefly but deleted before I'd had a chance to see them.

      by Thomas C on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:05:17 PM PDT

      •  Mr. Brady is telling the truth

        At least on the c*nt part he is.

        I saw several of those comments myself.  They were really out of line and over-the-top.  People called Deborah Howell everything under the sun - and the c*nt word was definitely on the page.

        I strongly disagree with the Post's response though.  Most of the comments I read were angry, but well thought out.  Post staffers could read over the comments and delete them - hell, it would probably require just a couple of low-level staffers or even interns.  Or they could program their software to not allow certain words.  

        The Post response is overkill, and a reaction to the fact that their Ombudsman is just awful.

        by DBJ on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:24:53 PM PDT

        •  Excuse me, what about a simple filter

          Two staffers reading every post for bad language? Isn't this the internet? Aren't we dealing with computers? Computers do somethings very well and one of them is filter for language. Just create a filter with all the bad words you don't want used on your site and automatically delete any using the banned words. You might warn everybody up front that posts using bad words will be deleted. How hard is that?

          Lets face it Howell just didn't want to be called out for a very blatant administration bias.

          by ronbyers on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:55:55 PM PDT

    •  Don't you know Bush?

      That's "dissassembling"

      by josiahbounderby on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:38:08 PM PDT

    •  WTF?

      The WaPo is using Movable Type.  Good God, the traditional media must be really hurting if they can't afford to hire one person to configure a good blogging engine and delete a few emails.

      Kos, just how can you afford all this superduper technorrrigy?!!

      by atomicBirdsong on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:16:32 PM PDT

      •  correx: I shouldn't attack MT

        I'm going to appologize for this up front. I am sure Movable Type is a fine bit of software...seriously.  I have not used it in some years, and so its unfair for me to say.  But the point that the WaPo can't figureout a technical solution to a problem lay-people deal with every day is a pretty lame excuse.

        by atomicBirdsong on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:50:14 PM PDT

  •  Does that make sense?

    Is there really a lag time before a comment is posted so it can be reviewed?  And doesn't that mean someone is there reviewing the comments before they are posted?

    by spacerock on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:03:22 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      Moveable Type has both moderated and un-moderated commenting.  Moderation was not turned on when I made my comment.  It's possible that they enabled it later, but I did not see that.

      I also did not see any "hate speech."

      People were emphatic, but startlingly well-informed.

      by bink on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:04:55 PM PDT

      •  plug-ins

        I am pretty sure it has various advance screening plug-ins too.

        pure spam/swear words, proxy posting, individually banning posters, are all standard blogging tools. It's not rocket science.

        They can't even lie properly.

        by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:28 PM PDT

    •  I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF ROVE

      had his minions type offensive stuff so that this would happen and make the moderates look unhinged.  Didnt he bug his office to make his opponent look bad?

      by Kalki on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:06:49 PM PDT

  •  Wait, wait, wait.

    Is the problem the volume of abusive comments, or the volume of comments in general?

    It seems to me like they have to monitor all the comments to weed out the abusive ones.  And that isn't necessarily a problem with the volume of bad comments, but the volume of total comments.

    And therein lies the big problem for WaPo.  If you want to have a dialog with your readers, you have to be willing to accept a high volume of messages.  Otherwise it's not terribly meaningful.  They have to commit to this completely.  They should be willing to have "two staffers spending their entire day" monitoring the blog.

    by GTPinNJ on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:05:35 PM PDT

    •  financial priorities

      If you want to have a dialog with your readers, you have to be willing to accept a high volume of messages.  Otherwise it's not terribly meaningful.  They have to commit to this completely.  They should be willing to have "two staffers spending their entire day" monitoring the blog.
      

      If they choose to spend so little of their money on fact-checkers, what makes you think they might spend any money on blog staffers?
      

      by Bearpaw on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:45 PM PDT

    •  Big bullshit

      Moveable type is pretty strong blogging apps.

      1. It can handle big traffic. I am pretty sure that little wapsoh blog isn't getting a 2 million hits a day yet.

      2. there are more than enough comments plug-ins that can automatically screen 'swear words', viagra spam, block individual posters, proxy attack.

      There is also Bayesian based filter!

      Anti-spamming moveable type directory:
      http://www.sixapart.com/...

      So either Washingtonpost team are bunch of fucking idiots who can't even download a plugins and install it. Or they are PATHETIC EFFING liars who just get cought AGAIN.

      Amazing how easy these people lies, yet they run newspaper. No credibility whatsoever.

      (hey, at least TRY not to LIE about BLOGGING TOOLS on the net. 99.5% of bloggers on the net KNOW blogging apps!)

      by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:27:44 PM PDT

      •  Washingtonpost team are bunch of fucking idiots

        Ding!

        by atomicBirdsong on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:18:05 PM PDT

    •  Moreover

      They already have those two people employed, to monitor the large number of comments on their chats. I wouldn't imagine the volume is that different, at least not on contentious issues.

      Which suggests it's a problem of the volume of well-written rebuttals of Howell's stuff. They get to censor the chat comments, but not the blog comments. So rather than see the newspaper proven wrong, they shut off the blog.

      by emptywheel on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:00:08 PM PDT

  •  Comments vs LTE's?

    "the Washington Post can't afford to have two staffers spending their entire day deleting offensive comments."

    Ummm, isn't this about as demanding as weeding through the various LTE's to find which ones are worthy to print? Would this assertion then suggest they DON'T read their LTE's and just choose a few at random to publish? It might mean, also, they get far more replies to the site than LTE's.

    But still, how many comments do they get per day, compared to LTE's, and why is it so hard to delete inappropriate ones? I mean, for crying out loud, just put a 'inappropriate' button to allow users to complain about specific emails which a staffer can then judge. I mean, Amazon.com, for instance, has a buttload of comments on the various books which uses a system kind of like this. Why is WashingtonPost so inept?

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

    by jeffwass on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:25:50 PM PDT

•  Oh

  that is rich! Shut down the comments, seems a popular solution on right wing blogs these days ...

  by DarkSyde on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:59:17 PM PDT

  •  yes ... the problem with dissent

    is so obviously not that there are certain structural deficiencies that demand addressing but the fact that people dare to walk out of lock-step or speak out of lock-jaw with the majority, who, as we all know must be right and as the Republicans are also right it only makes sense (like a kind of communicative proof) that the Repubs should be the majority (even if they have to lie cheat and steal to do it).  

    Like the cameras at Abu Ghraib, the problem is not that the problem is, but rather that the "official version" is being challenged ...

    clap harder dammit </snark>

    by grollen on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:12:20 PM PDT

  •  DS, you stole my thunder...

    ...I was going to point out that WaPo must now officially be a right-wing blog, as the hallmark of such is to disable all commenting.

    by viget on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:14:35 PM PDT

  •  Remind you of anyone specific?

      Maybe somebody named.......................                            

                                     DEMBSKI?

    
      {effecting my best Church Lady manner}

    by dougymi on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:27:33 PM PDT

  •  So I wasn't the only one?

    Now I feel better.  I got bumped from a Repub blog and I still can't figure out why?  I was on for about 6 months and was upfront that I was a Dem.  Then one day - Blocked.

    Good Poll question - Have you ever been blocked from a Repub blog?

    by BlueMax on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 05:36:09 AM PDT

•  Cowards

  by lecsmith on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:59:23 PM PDT

•  Ahhhh, but now

  this mistress of manipulation, this nymphet of newspapers now has her own blog:

  http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/...

  by Sprinkles on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:59:26 PM PDT

  •  Parsing!

    .. Oh men.....is she now fried or what. She is tossing parsing comment behind " you can't touch me' comment turned off blog.

    She is such a target for a big joke in the blogging world now.  

    She is making name of herself. (after Judith Miller,   Daniel Okrent... both disgraced big paper journalists)

    by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:12:24 PM PDT

•  Certain New York Congressmen

  wish they could "shut it down" too. I'm guessing John "Skiing with Sweeney" wants all comments shut down right about now.

  Sorry John. You could order the Miami recount shut down. The WaPo can shut down their blog. But unless you use those close connections of yours to the White House to shut down free speech then you aren't going to be able to shut down the story of how you called for sweeping House leadership changes in the wake of the Abramoff-DeLay-Norquist scandal and then jetted off to Utah for a "Skiing with Sweeney" fund raising weekend with your big pharma lobbyist friends.

  by Andrew C White on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:59:27 PM PDT

•  OMG

  Ann Althouse has taken over the Washington Post!

  In fact, has anybody ever seen Ann Althouse and Deborah Howell together in the same room?

  Me neither (of course, I wouldn't know either one of them if they bit me in the ass).

  OMG again -- maybe Deborah Howell IS Ann Althouse!

  What a lame excuse for a once great newspaper.

  by jsmdlawyer on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:00:18 PM PDT

•  Squawk, squawk, squawk!

  Gee, did we make her cry, too?

  Sure hope so.

  by xyz on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:00:23 PM PDT

•  e-mail addresses

  can anyone get the personal e-mail addresses of WashPost Editors?  If they don't want to hear from us one way, let's do it another.

  by captainebo on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:00:46 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    ...I asked above about specific email addys (rather than the generics). Here's a start...

    Jim Brady, executive editor = [e-mail]

    Deborah Howell, ombudsman =
    [e-mail]

    LTEs=
    [e-mail]

    by thesill on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:05:46 PM PDT

    •  The normal nomentclature of WP e-mail is...

      [e-mail]  see:

      Contacting Washingtonpost Writers and Editors

      by akeitz on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 04:17:06 PM PDT

•  The Washington Ghost.

  It's dead to me.

  hink

  by MrHinkyDink on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:00:53 PM PDT

  •  Yup, it's going on the board...

    

    by ilona on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:19:53 PM PDT

•  So

  Wapo is dead.  they wouldn't know how to report the truth unless they were paid to do it just like they are paid not to tell the truth.  they have been bought and paid for by the BushCo.  shrub owns them and therefore all peoples that have subscriptions to Wapo should pull their subscriptions.  If you don't pay for their misinformation they can't give it.

  by libbie on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:02:08 PM PDT

•  THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH INDIAN TRIBES!!!!!!!!!

  When will the motherfucking MSM get it through their heads that there is nothing inherantly wrong with taking money from Indian Tribes, any more than there is taking money from Halliburton or the Chamber of Commerce!!  Abramoff's bribery schemes were made with REPUBLICANS, and the fact that he may have secretly directed Indian Tribes to make contributions to Democrats is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the criminal investigations that are swirling through Congress and Republcian circles as we speak!!!!

  by pontificator on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:02:10 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    Yeah, weren't they, like, his VICTIMS?

    by mdsiamese on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:38:19 PM PDT

  •  race-baiting

    When anyone other than a pure-blood white makes money, then they must be cheating in some way.

    Arnold used this well in his initial run for office. And a lot of non-Indian minorities bought it too.

    by bigbay on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:12:45 PM PDT

    •  Arnold

      Arnold ran a bunch of ads about nefarious Indian casinos...ignoring the fact that States have few legal rights to regulate Reservations, based on the US Constitution "Congress shall regulate commerce...between the various Indian tribes"...

      by bigbay on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:16:18 PM PDT

•  This both indefensible and ludicrous

  If the Post objects to some of the comments posted because they're too hostile and violate their blog's rules, then they should just delete those comments rather than shut down the entire blog. Of course, they knew that if they did this, they would be accused of censorship. So what did they do instead? They censored the ENTIRE BLOG!

  Transparent and shameless fools. They've hit a new low, which for a paper that STILL publishes partisan assholes like Krauthammer and morons like Hoagland, is saying a LOT.

  by kovie on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:02:38 PM PDT

•  does anybody think

  that maybe comments could be toned down? points can be argued and made with out profanity, hate or flames. or is it just me?

  by baltimoremom on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:03:40 PM PDT

  •  You may not

    
    You may not have read the comments, but I did, and I  can tell you they were NOT inflammatory for the most part.  Mostly the were asking for evidence. Few contained personal attacks, although many called for Howell's resignation.  I can tell you there was no good reason to shut down the comments, except for the thin skin of Ms. Howell.
    
    

    by cat on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:11:19 PM PDT

    •  but I thought

      they said they deleted comments in question before they were posted online....

      by baltimoremom on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:40:33 PM PDT

      •  then I'll guess you would have no idea

        as to what they said, either, right?

        by shpilk on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 05:56:09 PM PDT

  •  I'm gonna guess....

    just you.

    8^)

    by Don Quixote on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:14:12 PM PDT

  •  i can't control every person who makes

    inappropriate comments. Some people are angry and do not know how to express themselves effectively.  Effective messages won't be vulnerable to criticism for using cuss words.  But there will always be some people who use them.  Often -- hardly always -- they are very young people, or people not experienced in public discourse.

    To bury a line of dialog because in the mix cuss words are found, that is just a pretext, an excuse.

    by tamandua on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:26:05 PM PDT

  •  Well..

    There was also this comment from Opinions Editor Hal Straus:

    The problem may be related to the large number of comments (more than 700 so far) received over the weekend concerning Deborah Howell's Sunday, Jan. 15 column on The Post's coverage of the Jack Abramoff story.

    We may also have unintentionally caused or made the problem worse by trying to remove a few comments -- about a dozen -- that failed to make a substantive point and were simply personal attacks on Howell and others.

    Of course it's just a matter of they said, we said, but I don't think a dozen out of 700 comments that are pure hatred is unreasonable to believe.  Not EVERYONE plays by the rules.

    Maybe it's those dozen that made her react, and the breaking of the blogs in general as a result..

    by Stymnus on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 05:18:35 PM PDT

    •  Poor little baby ..

      learned that it's dangerous playing with matches.

      They got singed. Not the first time, and most assuredly not the last that this will happen in open forums.
      

      by shpilk on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 05:59:35 PM PDT

•  firedoglake

  firedoglake

  has been following this.

  They have a link to an archive of many of the original comments here

  by NYC Sophia on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:03:42 PM PDT

•  georgia10

  Here's something I posted on skippy the bush kangaroo about this (hence the lack of caps)

  years ago i was at a fire hall in a backwoods community sitting in the hollows of western maryland. the county association had cracked down on the volunteer company because too many "incidents" involving wrecked trucks and teenage firefighters drinking at the hall. the community was called to a meeting to hear the complaints of the residents, who donated funds to the department.
  the locals gave them hell - so much so i turned to a sheriff's deputy friend and said "if a fight breaks out i'm hiding behind you." and he replied, "if a fight breaks out i'm running for my cruiser."
  the firefighters were shouting down the critics when bang bang bang the president of the fire hall, a big, unkempt ogre of a man hammered his gavel down. "QUIET!" he roared. "i'm still runnin' this meeting and there will be no more interruptions. these people have the right to be heard."
  and he turned to the speaker and said, "the floor is yours."
  and the speaker went back to criticizing the president's tenure. and he listened and later in the meeting passed measures to make the department better and at the end of the meeting he resigned.
  that president of a small, rural fire station had a better concept of the principles of free speech and the importance of hearing out critics and responding to them than the ombudsman at the washington post.

  
  same holds true now of the washington post.

  by Carnacki on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:03:59 PM PDT

•  You should tip off editorandpublisher.com

  E&P ran with the Froomkin controversy last month. You should let them know about this little brouhaha and WaPo's decision.

  by Rock Strongo on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:04:40 PM PDT

  •  Editor and Publisher is great

    They are really good at calling people out, and repeating good stories that only get picked up in small publications.

    by Geotpf on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:55:18 PM PDT

  •  i suspect....

    ...e&p is on top of this. it's their job, you see...

    by FemiNazi on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:06:07 PM PDT

  •  E&P Just posted their story.

    And it gives a nice overview of the controversy.

    by Rock Strongo on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:31:44 PM PDT

    •  Link

      The E&P article can be read here.

      by silence on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:43:46 PM PDT

•  I hope the GOP is happy

  They've finally killed the independent media.

  by PsiFighter37 on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:06:24 PM PDT

  •  Oh they are.

    by Yoshimi on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:12:17 PM PDT

•  I Love It!!

  These ivory tower media dinosaurs pulling up the drawbridges in terror as an informed citizenry hit a critical mass of outrage at the lies.

  VIVA
  T H E  
  G R E A T  
  R E V U L S I O N
  2006

  KEEP ON BLOGGING
  

  by Necons Will Ban Me on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:09:29 PM PDT

  •  yeah

    They even TRY to lie about what blogging software can and cannot do!

    lol. Amazing.

    Who on earth "SCREEN" spams??? there are even software that can be trained to filter comment ala Beysian filter.

    by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:30:42 PM PDT

•  Links...

  ...I got a diary in just half and hour before this -- I'd be happy to delete it for the sake of reducing redundancy, but the links compiled there may be useful to people.
  

  by miholo on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:09:52 PM PDT

•  It's the bloggers fault!

   That is pathetic. Oh, we have to hire two people just to delete the scarey stuff.  So? How many people did they have to read letters to the editor before the net?   Yes, they used to throw away the ones written in crayon.  The only thing computers changed is that now writers use spell check instead of a real human proof readers and it shows.  If they don't want an ombudsman fine. If they don't want to print the truth fine. If it is all about the money I suggest that instead of a newspaper that they print Bibles and pornography, that's were the big bucks are.  

  Peace & Impeachment in '06

  by upperleftedge on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:10:20 PM PDT

  •  "If it's all about the money ..

    I suggest that instead of a newspaper they  should just print Bibles and pornography, that's where the big bucks are."

    That's awesome!  Funny because it's true.

    by strengthof10kmen on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:52 PM PDT

•  Big media whines more that right wingers.

  When is this country going to toughen up?  We've been wimpy since 9-11 and I am embarassed.

  by Yoshimi on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:11:37 PM PDT

•  My e-mail to Brady

  (Subject line - Suggestion)

  Grow a thicker skin.

  Seriously, this has nothing to do with "profanity, etc...", as most of the comments were not in violation. This has to do with a
  public embarrassment for the Post, and getting rid of it ASAP.

  The dead giveaway being that instead of locking the comments, you simply deleted every one retroactively on this subject. Obviously you have gone through the previous threads on this
  subject...the one that had been up for days. Any that violated your policies had already been deleted. Yet instead of locking out any new ones in those dead threads you deleted them
  (along with your own post about losing comments previously).

  Yet somehow non-embarassing (for you) threads were simply locked.

  Congrqatulations. The Post bravely takes a pro-censorship stance when it's in its own parochial interest. Extra points for the sheer unmitigated irony and chutzpah in using censorship of reader's public feedback to protect the Ombudsman, who's entire job is to be the reader advocate. Finally, an extra credit bonus for the sanctimonious tone of it all.

  Really, bravo!

  (Jim Romanesko cc'ed to keep you honest.)

  by ElitistJohn on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:11:57 PM PDT

  •  FYI

    That e-mail Brady offers gets a generic, "thank you for your submission, we don't have time to read this" response mail.

    Talk about pathetic.

    by ElitistJohn on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:25:49 PM PDT

•  She is a hack, Kurtz is a hack and Brady is a

  fucking crybaby.

  Getting the facts wrong so consistantly and then acting like arrogant asses when called on it. Yet the only one that gets chastized was Froomkin. The guy with the single most informative column on their site. Apparently being informative about the Bush administration means you have a liberal bias.

  I bet Froomkin is laughing his ass off at Howell being called on her shit. She owes Froomkin and the readers a huge apology.

  Time she swallowed her pride just like she has swallowed all other Republican horseshit

  by TexasLiberal on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:12:42 PM PDT

•  Controversy Drives Web Traffic

  You'd think that they'd have appreciated all of the extra eyeballs on those mostly-dead pages.

  by bink on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:12:58 PM PDT

  •  but...!

    The web does not forget. If washingtonpost still want to keep their reputation, these controversy better be resolved in clear manner, or people on the net will keep pulling old thread and laughing at washingtonpost each time they try to patronize.

    by fugue on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:48:58 PM PDT

•  You can tell she is a GOP propagandist.

  As soon as she gets a factual error pointed out to her, she gets hysterical and accuses the opposition of hate speech and shuts down discussion. You see this sort of thing from Bush and his so-called town-hall meetings all the time.

  Even though this is off-topic as far as my field is concerned, she goes straight to my Wall of Shame for this.

  by Eternal Hope on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:13:11 PM PDT