WP Ombudsman's LAME "explanations" for last week's editorial

[Sparkly]

You may remember this outrageous WP editorial from last week, "A Good Leak," full of old spin and lies about Joe Wilson:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

The editorial was in conflict with the news story on the matter, which ran the same day, as I posted here:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sparkly/3

Today Deborah Howell, the WP Ombudsman, came up with a column every bit as lame as predicted: "Two Views of the Libby Leak Case." Two views?!?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401393.html

She explains:

Editorials and news stories have different purposes. News stories are to inform; editorials are to influence.

We noticed. But shouldn't the facts in the news stories "influence" the editorials? Well, no.

In fact, the editorial writer had not read the Gellman/Linzer story. 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.

Also, she takes convoluted pains to explain, the editorial was based on old information. So that makes it okay.

Unbelievable.

[Gman]

1. When you defend the indefensible you look like a fool

Deborah Howell looks absolutely ridiculous trying to defend utter stupidity. Her article is so absurd I couldn't even click to page 2.

[Pithy Cherub]

2. Dear Failed WaPo Ombudsman Howell:

It is better to be thought a fool than to type it on your keyboard and confirm it publicly...again! :eyes:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. My letter to Ms. Howell

About that wall. . .

I still get chills when I recall the words of Ronald Reagan, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

When I think of the WaPo editorial positions, the lack of factual support therein, and your own lame excuses and pathetic efforts at glossing over a serious problem on the editorial side of what used to be a great paper, I can only say this. Where are the wall builders when we need them?

With each passing news cycle, the editorial side of your paper, you included, show a growing amount of ignorance, willful deceit and even deliberate misrepresentation. The idea that your editor would go back to 2003 facts (which even then were uncertain at best - and which now are clearly shown to be false) to support a clearly political leak intended to harm people here, and claim that this was a "good leak" boggles the mind. Have you a clue of how foolish you look? and the unknown editor who scribed that amazing piece of garbage?

To all editors, you included, and before any more inane ravings come out from your editorial side, I can only say this, "Ms. Howell, please repair your wall and seal it permanently."

sincerely, a former subscriber.


ROnnie did a lot to screw up the country. But, he did give us Rumsfeld, Cheney and a great line about the Berlin wall. So we have that to thank him for.

[donco6]

4. Amen - great response. eom

[marylanddem]

5. She's full of shit. end of story.

[acmejack]

6. but, but, it's "fraught with fraught"

How freakin' clever, Debbie...

[Arugula Latte]

7. So we should keep reading newspapers as compared to the 'net ... um , WHY?

Putting aside the immense lameness of the entire argument, if we're going to get days-old content in a newspaper ... what's the point?