Every time I read the weekly column by "Washington Post" Ombudsman Deborah Howell, it confirms my view that she is absolutely the worst ombudsman in the entire world. Her column of Sunday, October 1
Allen's Run of Problematic Press is now online, and it sure lives up (?down?) to my expectations.
What is her major conclusion in her analysis of the coverage that "Post" reporters, columnists, and editorial writers have been giving Sen. George Allen in recent weeks? Speaking of the "Post" coverage of the "macaca" racial slur, Howell says, "Did The Post overplay the incident? Not initially, but the coverage went on for too long after he apologized." Well, I think she's wrong about that, and wrong about a whole bunch of other things in her column. I think we should politely but firmly point out the flawed thinking in the column. More below.
In the column, Howell looks at coverage of three major events: (1) the "macaca" racial slur, which first broke into the press on Monday, August 14; (2) Allen's Jewish heritage, which a TV reporter asked Allen about at the Webb-Allen debate on Monday, September 18; and (3) the "N-word" piece published by Salon.com last Sunday. Let's look at some of Howell's comments on each one of these, and I'll share some of my reactions. In your comments below, please point out other flaws in Howell's thinking (?!?) that I haven't mentioned.
THE MACACA RACIAL SLUR
Howell says:
First, let's go to the macaca tape. Watch it on washingtonpost.com. It was definitely a news story. Allen rightly apologized for a lapse in judgment.
Did The Post overplay the [macaca] incident? Not initially, but the coverage went on for too long after he [Allen] apologized. The news stories, handled by the paper's Virginia political reporters, did not go overboard. An editorial was well done. Then the columnists weighed in, along with Style reporters and editorial cartoonist Tom Toles. No one piece was over the line. But when you put it all together, it looked like piling on.
Some of my thoughts:
- Following what was already known about Allen's racist past before the macaca slur (the noose, the Confederate flag, opposition to MLK holiday, Confederate lapel pin in his high school yearbook photo), didn't this macaca slur deserve some serious, ongoing coverage? And that's not taking into consideration the "Nation" article and photo of Allen and the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, which came out just two weeks after the macaca story broke into the news (and which still hasn't received serious coverage from the "Post" or any Virginia media.)
- Why doesn't Howell mention the numerous, different "explanations" that Allen and his staff gave for the macaca slur?
- Gosh, wasn't the PATTERN of Allen's behavior worth reporting on?
- Don't Virginia voters deserve a full picture of who their next senator might be?
- How much did Howell complain about the media coverage of, for example, Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky flap?
THE REVELATION OF ALLEN'S JEWISH HERITAGE
Howell says:
[Post reporter] Shear's interview with Mrs. Allen -- which the senator's campaign staff did not want to take place -- told readers what happened from the point of view of Allen's mother. It was a needed and even sympathetic story. It was easy to empathize with her fear of revealing her Jewish background, especially because her father had been imprisoned by the Nazis during World War II. She [Allen's mother] said she told [son George] Allen about it only recently, asking him to keep it secret. Allen frequently mentioned that his grandfather was imprisoned by the Nazis; it would be logical to think his grandfather might have been Jewish.
- Gosh, no mention of the fact that Allen and his staff lied to the media and the public that week about what George Allen knew and when he knew it?
THE "N-WORD" PIECE IN SALON.COM
Howell says:
This brings us to the story from Salon that said he used the N-word in his college days. Two people, including a college friend, made the accusation; others have said they never heard him say it. The Post couldn't ignore the story, but it should have noted that Salon is a liberal-oriented Web site.
John Burpo of Springfield asked: "Why did The Post violate its own guidelines and standards to allow anonymous sources to attack Senator Allen with unsubstantiated allegations?" Using quotes from two anonymous sources who said that Allen had used the racial epithet added nothing to the story.
- Golly, horror of horrors, Salon.com is "liberal." The dread "L" word. Boy, that should really discredit the solid investigating and reporting that the magazine did, right, Ms. Howell?
- Shouldn't the "Post" and lots of other papers give the same scrutiny to Allen's DEFENDERS that they have given to Allen's accusers? (For more on that, see this excellent diary earlier this week by tomVA, Allen's teammate 'defenders': GOP operative, political appointment, corp benefactor...
- OMG!! Salon.com used ANONYMOUS sources to confirm a story!!! If the "Post" rejected stories that used anonymous sources to confirm information, how many of the stories it now publishes would be left out of the paper? You know, maybe half of its stories on the Bush Administration? (One note: Howell likely wrote the column on Friday, before the latest piece from Salon.com, where one of those anonymous sources went on the record.--so we can give her some slack on that point.)
SUGGESTED ACTION STEPS
STEP 1: Please go and read the entire column, and then telephone or email Howell with your thoughts on the "quality" of her analysis. Be specific with your criticisms. Her telephone number and email address are at the end of the column. I'm NOT going to publish them here (and please don't post them below in your comments) since I want you to read the entire column for yourself before you send her your comments. It's a real "piece of work," and you need to read the whole thing to fully understand how she performs her job as ombudsman. (And one note: Unlike many of the news articles in the "Post," Howell doesn't have an online blog attached to her column, to allow public discussion of her column. Gosh, I wonder why?)
And remember, please be polite in what you say to her, so we won't offend her delicate sensibilities and give her an excuse to ignore our comments.
STEP 2: Read the full column, and then do a letter to the editor to the "Post." Send your letter to: letters@washpost.com. Do NOT post your LTE here on Daily Kos or elsewhere on the Internet before the "Post" publishes it. If they like your LTE, The "Post" will ask you if you have previously published it elsewhere, including on the Internet. If you have, they'll reject your LTE. Save your words of wisdom for the folks who read the print edition of the "Post." And, despite all the flaws in Howell's column, keep your LTE short, no more than 150 words.