Kind of old news, but below is the response I sent to the Washington Post's
ombudsman and its
National Editor, Michael Abromowitz. I'm reposting it because I put a lot of effort into it.
After I sent it, I got an unsigned, almost certainly automated, reply: "Many thanks for the good comments and observations."
I've enjoyed the depth and quality of the Post's coverage of the Democratic presidential primary campaigns. Mostly this coverage seems fair and accurate, which is much more than I can say for many of your competitors!
Still, after reading VandeHei and Finer's Dec. 18 piece "Dean's Remarks Give Rivals Talking Points" a few times over a couple of days, some aspects of it still disturb me enough that I felt I should take the time to respond.
I'd like to discuss three issues: its use of partial quotes, its use of paraphrasing, and its limits in providing wider context.
Now, I understand these practices are necessities of journalism. However, in this case, the way they are used tends in every case to present an unfavorable view of Gov. Dean. This causes the piece to lack balance, in my opinion.
In the spirit of disclosure, I should say that I support Gov. Dean's candidacy.
First, the use of partial quotes. The second paragraph reads "Dean, for instance, recently spoke of a 'most interesting theory' that Saudi Arabia had 'warned' Bush about the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Although Dean said he does not believe Bush was tipped off about the assaults that killed nearly 3,000, he has made no apologies for raising the rumor."
This partial quote of Gov. Dean gives the impression that Dean's hope in raising the "most interesting theory" is merely to spread an ugly rumor about President Bush; that Dean is engaged in a calculated act of dirty politics. It's only near end of the piece that we get the full quote, which shows Dean mentioning the rumor in passing (and repeatedly cautioning that the rumor is unsupported), in support of his criticism of President Bush's approach to the 9-11 commission. But this is too late to offset the impression given in the piece's second paragraph of Dean as a underhanded, scheming politician.
Second, the use of paraphrasing. The piece's sixth paragraph reads "After saying at his last gubernatorial news conference that he was sealing his official records to avoid political embarrassment, Dean now says he was joking and is not sure what is in the files." Dean is not quoted directly here.
This causes two problems. First, it creates the impression that Dean has admitted that his official records contain politically embarassing material. Given how damaging such an admission this would be, the use of a direct quote is more appropriate. Second, the piece says Dean's defense is that his remarks at the time were not serious. This makes Dean sound as if he's giving a lame excuse, and reinforces the impression that the records contain politically embarassing material. If readers were given a direct quote rather than a paraphrase, they would be in a much better position to judge whether Dean's explanation is reasonable.
Third, the failure to provide needed context. The piece's eighth paragraph reads in part: "One example cited by Kerry's campaign: Dean recently said, 'I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States. Ever.' But in September 2002, Dean told CBS's 'Face the Nation': 'There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States. The question is: Is he an immediate threat?'"
Here, the context of Dean's more recent quote is critical. Does the context show that Dean's use of the term "danger" is equivalent to his previous use of the term "immediate threat?" If so, the Kerry's campaign's claim that Dean's position is inconsistent does not hold up.
This actually raises another issue with the piece. In their defense, VandeHei and Finer might argue here that they are not claiming that Dean's position is inconsistent, Kerry's campaign is. Elsewhere, however, claims about Dean's truthfulness are made in the reporters' own voice. In the following paragraph, the reporters mix it up, so we don't know who is making the claims, the reporters themselves or the other campaigns:
"Dean's remarks, his critics say, are in keeping with his history of making statements that are mean-spirited or misleading. He has distorted his past support for raising the retirement age for Social Security and slowing Medicare's growth. He has falsely said he was the only Democratic presidential candidate talking about race before white audiences. And he made allegations -- some during his years as governor -- that turned out to be untrue."
The effect of mixing the reporters' "objective" voice seamlessly with the voice of the critics is to make it appear that ALL the criticisms of Dean are valid. This further unbalances the piece, in my view.
Thank you for offering your readers the opportunity to respond. Looking forward to more Post coverage of the campaign!