Rumors Over Facts: The Washington Post Explains

Two days ago the Washington Post ran a front page story...check that...ran a front page list of debunked rumors, known in some ethical circles as lies, about Barak Obama, titled:

Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

Appalled that the Washington Post chose to give a national platform to smears and politically motivated whisper campaigns, I asked if the Washington Post was The New Drudge?  I was not alone in my outrage.  As cataloged in a diary by psericks, Media Matters pointed out that they, "reported only Obama's denials of madrassa smear, not media debunkings," while the Columbia Journalism Review called it, "the single worst campaign ‘08 piece to appear in any American newspaper so far this election cycle."  Even the Washington Post's own political cartoonist slammed the newspaper, with his caption reading, "So much discussion they ran out of space for the word 'lies'."

Making all of this doubly infuriating, was that at the same time the Washington Post was using the front page of their national newspaper to rehash lies, they all but ignored the well-researched, documented news that Rudy Giuliani had sex with his mistress on the taxpayer's dime.

And what was the Washington Post's response to the overwhelmingly negative reaction to their new, Drudge-style "reporting"?  I first checked in with their ever-vigilant ombudsman, Deborah Howell, but she was busy covering the question of whether the murder of Sean Taylor had received too much coverage.  But Lois Romano, "a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters," did respond during the Post Political Hour.  First, on the Obama story:

These are always very difficult decisions-- how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehoods out there. This discussion has reached a high pitch on the Internet and our editors decided it was in the readers interest to address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because they read he doesn't put is hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this-- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

Where to begin?  First, their job is to report the news, not to acknowledge and repeat, "so much garbage and falsehoods."  And did it occur to her that that garbage wasn't just on the internet(s), it was on the front page of her so-called respectable newspaper?  And if it's their job to lay out the facts, can she start by showing where, "this dicussion has reached a high pitch"?  Because if repeating lies from random, whacko sites is now newsworthy by Washington Post standards, I have a few suggestions for next week's political coverage:  Laura Bush, Murderer, or maybe, George Bush, Complicit Role in 9/11 Attack.  And while they're at it, maybe they can finally set the record straight; Apollo Moon landing, fact or fiction?  Because, hey, it's all on the internet.

Finally, they were giving Senator Obama, "a chance to deny its accuracy"?  Great idea.  Perhaps next week the Washington Post will allow him to deny that he beats his wife.  

And what about the non-coverage of the Rudy-does-Judi story?

I would disagree that it was underplayed. If you're asking why we didn't put it on the front page, that is because we had nothing new to add to the Politico story at this time.

Well, sure.  The leading contender for the Republican nomination for president was, at best, using creative bookkeeping to subsidize his illicit affair, and three sentences in the middle of an article about the debate was plenty of coverage.  It's not like he paid a lot for a haircut or anything.  And they had nothing to add?  So, if they had nothing new to add to the fact that the WTC was hit on 9/11, they wouldn't run it on the front page? If they had nothing new to add to Al Gore announcing his candidacy, they wouldn't run it on the front page?  Is that another new standard for the Washington Post?  If we don't break the story, we don't cover it?  Matt Drudge will be crushed.

Digby's take on the Washington Post's embarrassing lack of journalistic ethics was, "It doesn't matter if it's true or not.  It's out there," and sadly, their own political reporter seems to agree.  Unless of course what's out there is a substantial, investigative piece about Rudy Giuliani.