Washington Post ombudsman calls for more substance in campaign coverage

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: A Vote for Coverage of Substance
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, July 20, 2008

....My monitoring of political stories since Nov. 12, done with my assistant Jean Hwang, shows that almost twice as many "horse race" stories (675) have been written as stories on issues (295) and biographical background (99). Part of that reflects the long primary campaign and the number of candidates....

New York Times' "The Long Run" delved deeply and early into candidates' backgrounds....Bill Hamilton, The Post's assistant managing editor for politics, said, "We have every intention of telling the life stories of Obama and McCain, but at a time when readers are most focused on the election. And the same goes for exploring the issues that are driving this campaign." He said that two fine writers, Michael Leahy on McCain and David Maraniss on Obama, have been assigned to do biographies.

Candidates' policy speeches often end up being covered in short stories without detail or context as to whether what is being proposed might work. The policy papers should be dissected. A good start were recent pieces on Social Security and quoting fiscal experts as saying that it will be tough for the new president to launch any initiatives.

You have to look beyond the paper's news pages for analysis. When McCain said that he would balance the budget by 2013, the plan wasn't critically examined except in an editorial; the Ideas Primary editorials have provided much-needed insight into the issues. Much of The Post's accountability coverage is done in Michael Dobbs's Fact Checker which unfortunately is seldom in the paper. Neither is media writer Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch. If you're not looking online for Post coverage, you're missing some of the best stuff.

Voters want to know, especially in a troubled economy, about their pocketbooks. I admired a Wall Street Journal story and another on National Public Radio that reported how Obama and McCain might be expected to change tax policy. The Post needs to do these kinds of stories. Their voting records should be explored extensively....While The Post has written about who advises the two candidates, I want to know what the advice is and whether it is being taken.

Tom Huff of Bealeton, Va., wrote recently and got it just right: "I really hope The Post's coverage of the election doesn't sink into a quagmire of process, politics and inside-the-Beltway chess games at the expense of issues that really affect our lives. . . . If all the news outlets want to talk solely about insider issues, that's all we'll know about. But if the focus is kept as keen as a laser beam on the critical issues of our times, then that's what the campaign will be about. That's what it has to be about. If The Post's staffers are true watchdogs of government, then that is the job that should be done. That's what we pay for with our subscription. Please tell your writers not to blow it this time."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802368.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Mind_your_head]

1. Isn't that part of an ombudsman 'job'????

1 : a government official (as in Sweden or New Zealand) appointed to receive and investigate complaints made by individuals against abuses or capricious acts of public officials
2 : one that investigates reported complaints (as from students or consumers), reports findings, and helps to achieve equitable settlements

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ombudsman


Don't make me 'dig back' into my OLD 1957 paper dictionary, which has NO reference to "a government official" in the definition of ombudsman -definitions HAVE REALLY BEEN CHANGED/TWEAKED for ??????? (the NWO, perhaps????)

[Me.]

2. Translation

Given her past preference for the GOP, it means she thinks the hammer should be brought down on Obama.