Deborah Howell has published an almost unbelievable
defense of the recent WaPo editorial "Good Leak". Her article starts off factually but soon turns to alibi and downright softball twisting of the facts. It is another sorry performance by her.
Ms. Howell lays the foundation for Ombudsman "reasoning" with this introduction and can't stop herself from making the Republican point the that Ambassador Wilson was recommended by his wife as if the implications of nepotism (despite no payment for the trip) or impications he could only have work with the help of the little lady would be enough to discredit his research or his subsequent editorial. She also apparently doesn't predict well on the support for leaks from newspapers as the NY Times did write an editorial today " The Bad Leak" against this selective leak.
The front-page story by reporters Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer, drawing on legal papers filed by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald in the perjury case, put Libby and his former boss, Vice President Cheney, at the forefront of an effort to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador and controversial critic of the Iraq war.
Wilson had made a trip to Niger, at the CIA's behest, in 2002. He wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in the New York Times dismissing an allegation that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. A key part of the Gellman/Linzer story was that "the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before." Wilson was suggested for the trip by his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA employee, whose name was leaked to several reporters, setting off the investigation.
The editorial was written off a front-page story Friday by reporter R. Jeffrey Smith about Fitzgerald's filing, which disclosed that President Bush authorized Libby to leak classified intelligence from the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate to reporters.
The Post editorially has supported the war, and the purpose of the editorial -- headlined "A Good Leak" -- was to support that leak as necessary to show that the president had reason to believe that Iraq was seeking uranium. The editorial said Bush "clumsily" handled the leak, leading to Democrats' "hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy." (Don't expect newspapers to editorialize against leaks.)
She makes her moves quite quickly and is standing on soft ground as she starts to alibi for Hiatt.
The passage in the Post editorial that sent war critics round the bend was this one: " . . . Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."
First, it's important to remember that the articles and the editorial are looking back at June and July of 2003, seeking to add historical context to what we knew then. And we know a lot more now about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than we knew then.
Second, it's important to understand that I have no purview over the editorial policy of The Post. The editorial board makes policy, and it is not my job to second-guess it. But this case provides an excellent opportunity to point out to readers how reporters and editorial writers can see things quite differently.
Editorials and news stories have different purposes. News stories are to inform; editorials are to influence.
I think we all understand the editorial are designed to influence but are the editorial writers held under a different standard of intergrity and honesty than the news side? She actually begins to answer that in ways they may regret.
Some readers think it's a scandal when two parts of the newspaper appear to be in conflict with each other, but it's not that unusual that reporting -- particularly in news and editorial -- will depend on different sources.
Apparently the editorial pages can have not only their own opinions but also create their own facts. The most damning part is in a later statement she shares that Fred Hiatt would not be stopped even by better information reported by his own paper. What paper would he recommend? Maybe he should work there.
The editorial was written Friday; the story appeared in the Sunday edition. Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt said it is unlikely that the story would have influenced the editorial.
The "supported" in the editorial refers to Wilson's report that there was a trade meeting between officials of Iraq and Niger. Though news accounts have said there was no talk of uranium, the meeting was seen as corroboration that the Iraqis were seeking uranium, because that's mostly what Niger has to export.
Apparently to Mr.Hiatt, with Ms Howell's support, having only proof there was a meeting in 1999 is enough proof for the Washington Post Editorial Page to firmly make statements about the nature and substance of the discussions no one reported on. He can just imagine what he wants to make his point.
The editorial pages are not under Ms. Howell (as she stated that the internet version of the paper was not especially if it involved republican plagiarism). She can justify the shoddy work of the editorial pages though and allow them to continue to avoid dealing with wrongly influencing public opinion about the war and never printing an apology or clarification but just adding more disinformation. What a low standard this "ombudsman" sets in advocating for us, the readers.