Oh, Milbank's a columnist now, not a journalist?

[bicentennial_baby]

Their target this time was a column by Post staff writer Dana Milbank on June 8 in which the term "wing nuts" was used. Many of the e-mailers said the reference disparaged the real concerns of many people that the administration misrepresented the situation that led the country to war.

Milbank is one of the paper's most talented and observant reporters. On the other hand, for the past several months he has also been serving as a columnist, frequently writing observations that go beyond straight reporting in a column labeled "Washington Sketch" that appears in the news pages of the A-section. On Friday, for example, The Post covered an unofficial antiwar hearing on Capitol Hill only in a Milbank column. Several readers found this inappropriate.

Unfortunately, it has never been announced or explained to Post readers that reporter Milbank is also now columnist Milbank. The reference to "wing nuts," as in left-wing nuts and right-wing nuts, appeared in the June 8 column, not a "news story," as many e-mailers wrongly stated. This is also understandable because FAIR neglected to tell its subscribers that this was clearly marked as a "Washington Sketch" and not a news story.

Milbank's column was about the June 7 Bush-Blair news conference in Washington and it reported that "Democrats.com, a group of left-wing activists" had sent e-mails offering a "reward" for anyone who could get an answer from Bush about the report that intelligence had been "fixed" around Iraq policy. Later in the column, Milbank wrote that a reporter who did ask such a question, and who had no idea of the activists' e-mails, "wasn't trying to satisfy the wing nuts."

Post Assistant Managing Editor Liz Spayd said "the term referred to one specific group" and not everyone who was questioning coverage of the memo. As for the term "wing nuts," she said "that word is probably sharper than it should have been." I agree. It was a needless red flag that undoubtedly would be read as disparaging beyond the group that Milbank was referring to. But columnists do get more leeway and the term has infiltrated political discussion in these heated times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061800874.html

[Supersedeas]

1. Circle the Wagons Post--maybe you will apologize like when ya dismissed

WMD sceptics.

[Mythsaje]

2. Anybody think

that WE are the "wing-nuts" in question?

[bicentennial_baby]

3. That's what I'm thinking

and it's a disgusting assertion, and a smear that has no place in a national paper...

[Mythsaje]

11. Maybe we just need to

"reclaim" the word. You know, a tee-shirt that says

"Proud Wingnut."

:evilgrin:

[Clark2008]

4. While I don't agree with what he wrote, he *is* a columnist

now - and has been for the past few months - and part of that means he is entitled to his opinion, no matter how ludicrous it seems.

In fact, we're all entitled to our opinions. The sad part is that Dana's is in a nationally (once)-respected newspaper, which gives it some legitimacy.

[Justice]

7. How many people do both reporting and columns??

does his expression of opinion in his columns undermine/make suspect every bit or reporting he does?

[Clark2008]

9. A lot, actually.

I was asked to do a column when I was reporting, but I refused on the grounds that I didn't want my sources to know exactly what I thought.

But, that doesn't stop a lot of people.

Check your local paper. You'll notice that, for example, the political editor generally has a column. So does the sports editor and probably others, too.

[Spazito]

12. Whether he is writing as a columnist or a journalist....

he is not off limits to criticism and he should have developed a thicker skin long ago. It seems he has not and that says to me that maybe he should choose another occupation that doesn't allow criticism of his 'opinions'.

[deutsey]

15. That's why, in my email to Milbank, I took him to task for his mocking,

snide commentary.

[Justice]

5. Who is really sending Milbank emails??

Here's Milbank's view: "While you have been within your rights as ombudsman over the past five years to attempt to excise any trace of colorful or provocative writing from the Post, you are out of bounds in asserting that a columnist cannot identify as 'wingnuts' a group whose followers have long been harassing this and other reporters and their families with hateful, obscene and sometimes anti-Semitic speech."

Wow! who is doing this? you would think as a reporter Milbank would be a bit more thick skinned about critics -- and also a bit more skeptical about who the emails are really coming from.

Emails can be from anyone posing as anyone else. If Republicans can fool a country into going to war on false pretenses, they'd have no qualms about sending fake emails.

[demgrrrll]

6. Sounds like Dana got his widdle feelings hurt by some e mail and

decided to take a shot at some folks. I wonder if he is being deliberately obtuse. Surely he understands the magnitude of the loss of thousands and thousands of lives based on a lie. This isn't a joke and it does not fall into the category of "colorful language". He really is an ass.

[baldguy]

8. Don't columnists have a responsabilty to tell the truth,

just like journalists? They can't just ignore the facts, right?

[Clark2008]

10. No, they're not supposed to ignore the facts;

however, there is no rule that says they can't spin 'em to their liking.

[laura888]

13. Here's my letter to the Ombudsman

Mr. Getler:

Shame on you for your utterly lame reply regarding those who complained of the Downing Street Memo column.

When I read your statement "...maybe there's a different interpretation, or maybe "fixed" means something different in British-speak" my mouth hung open for a full minute in disbelief.

It would be the equivalent of the Post hearing that the Nixon had tapes that backed up the Watergate story, and replying "well, those tapes may not be anything at all. Why investigate?"

What the hearings (that Milbank disparaged so viciously) were calling for was an investigation of the memo's contents. 500,000 people agreed with this need for an investigation and signed a petition to ask for an investigation.

And yet the Post did nothing but send a possibly conspiracy minded columnist (he claimed it was fine to "identify as 'wingnuts' a group whose followers have long been harassing this and other reporters to cover this story." Ummm.... does this include the 500,000 signers of the petition as well as John Conyers?)

Today's poll on MSNBC.com shows how wrong the Post is for not covering the story:

To the question: "Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with Iraq?" Currently there are 50,602 responses. 95% say YES.

___

send your own:
[e-mail]

[Daphne08]

14. I just now read the Ombudsman's Column and I see

that Mr. Michael Getler obviously doesn't comprehend the "Job Description" of an ombudsman.

All he seeks to do is cover Dana's little hiney! :eyes:

Give me a break!

[Jack Rabbit]

16. I guess if you can call Ann Coulter a 'columnist', it works

Ann Coulter sure as hell ain't no journalist. And after his feeble attempt at a trash piece on the Conyers hearing, neither is Milbank.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Columnists are absolved from accountability when they write bullshit?

Damn. I didn't get the memo on that. OK, all you people who bitch about my work: Bite me. I am above critique.

Oh, P.S., Mr. Milbank: Your book 'Smashmouth' sucked rocks.