WaPo: "Several readers" upset with 6/17 Milbank column

[LiberalEsto]

Am I hallucinating? Have I been transported to the Twilight Zone? Did only a handful of us get into a tizzy about Dana Milbank's column on Friday?

The Washington Post's ombudsman Michael Getler, writing today about the furor over Post hatchet man Dana Milbank's recent columns, claims that "several readers" were upset that the Post's only coverage of Rep. John Conyers' DSM hearing appeared only in Milbank's column.

Getler made no mention of the dozens and dozens of DUers and others, including Conyers, who sent angry e-mails to Milbanks and Getler after Milbanks' rude, arrogant, biased, unbelievably nasty column of June 17 caught our attention. (Nor were any of these letters, including Conyers', published.) Instead he describes Presstitute Milbanks as "one of the Post's most talented and observant reporters." Talented? At taking dictation from Rove?

Getler also assumes that one reason we were annoyed with Milbank was because he is now a columnist, not a reporter. Silly us! Apparently we failed to notice this, and THAT'S why we were so fussy -- because we're too dumb to tell the difference between hard news and columns.
And Milbanks' use of the word "wingnuts" to refer to liberal DSM activists in an earlier column, was merely a "needless red flag"

Apparently the Washington Pest has decided how it wants to approach the Downing Street Memo issue: with a stony wall of silence, and ridicule at those of us who insist that it is critically important and could become the basis for impeachment.

The sole redeeming feature of Getler's ombudsman column today is that he voices his opinion that, unlike Milbank, he believes the July 23, 2002 DSM "is important because it is an official document produced at the highest level of government of the most important U.S. ally."

I suppose we should be grateful for that teensy crumb. I'm sure Milbank will now feel free to pursue his insulting and childish interpretation of journalism and the Washington Pest will continue to publish it, stonewall their critics, and maintain its status as a toady to the Bush Misadministration.

A link to the Post Ombudsman column can be found on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1867349&mesg_id=1867349


:banghead:

[BayouBengal07]

1. No shit!

"Getler also assumes that one reason we were annoyed with Milbank was because he is now a columnist, not a reporter."

so why was his story in the front A pages and not in the back with the rest of the opinion columns. If it wasn't a report, why was it among the news?

For those of you who missed it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html

[liam97]

2. we should bombard them again

and ask if several is a number or an opinion? How many

[mediaman007]

5. Problem is "Getler also assumes..."

The ombudsman should do to much "assuming." Perhaps he/she ought to be following up on some of the responses to more accurately respond to the critiques.

[CatWoman]

3. this isn't about his 6/17 column

but rather a 6/8 column.

[LiberalEsto]

9. Getler gives the 6/17 column ONE sentence

Getler: "On Friday, for example, The Post covered an unofficial antiwar hearing on Capitol Hill only in a Milbank column. Several readers found this inappropriate."


That's part of my point. Dozens, maybe hundreds of us barrage the Post and Milbank with emails about Friday's column, and all the Post manages to say about it is ONE teensy sentence in the ombudsman column.

OK let them insult us, insult John Conyers, insult Ray McGovern, make fun of a hearing on a significant issue: whether the president lied to us and the rest of the world about the lead-up to the Iraq debacle. Let them ignore Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan, ignore a rally in Lafayette Park, ignore a petition with 540,000 signatures, ignore our reactions to Milbank's snotty little column....

One day the Washington Pest's presstitutes will wake up and find nobody's reading their rag any more. They'll discover that the Democrats have taken back the House and Senate and launched impeachment proceedings against the president, and realize they've missed the whole story.

[Sydnie]

4. Time to check Millbank's checking account

Just which governement agency paid him for his comments?

[Me.]

6. So, Columnists Needn't Rely on Truth or Facts

when writing their columns? Interesting, though not surprising, given the absence of both by both reporters and columnists for the most part. Seems like more of what Frank Rich calls "utter destabilization of reality" in his column today. Milbanks now becomes part of the legions of floozies and snake oil salesmen touting their wares.

[Joy Anne]

7. No, you aren't hallucinating

I saw more than several pass through just our state RapidResponse network on that very subject.

[Logansquare]

8. Conservative media uses a special algorithm that turns Thousands into

"several" or "hundreds," in the case of protests. Now DUers, if you just addressed a letter to Milbank's email directly, please rewrite it and send to the editorial board. Dana isn't going to forward any to them.

[Catrina]

10. I think we should just

flood the ombudsman's email box with cancellations and promises to boycott any advertisers they have ~

We should start a thread asking how many DUers alone, sent letters, and ask other websites, like Dailykos, how many there sent letters.
Then, instead of bothering anymore with the Post, we should send letters to a different Washington Newspaper, about the Post's coverage of the hearings, and about the paper's lies regarding how many letters they received.

I will no longer read the Post and I will write and tell them so, not as long as Howard Kurtz and Dana Millbank continue to receive a paycheck for writing WH propaganda there.

[ldf]

11. more of the same

from the Washington Piss.

:grr: