Deborah Howell, a trailblazing newspaper editor who led the innovative Washington bureau of the Newhouse News Service before serving as ombudsman of The Washington Post, died Jan. 2 in an accident near Blenheim, New Zealand. She was 68.
She was on vacation with her husband when she stepped out of a car to take a photograph. She was struck by an oncoming automobile. In New Zealand, drivers use the left side of the road, and her husband said he thought she looked the wrong way.
Ms. Howell, who published two Pulitzer Prize-winning projects when she was a top editor at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, was a powerful presence in American journalism and was a particularly inspirational figure to women in a field long dominated by men.
She was among the most well-connected people in the business and prided herself on ferreting out the complete list of Pulitzer Prize finalists -- supposedly a closely guarded secret -- before anyone else. She also had a sharp eye for talent, and many of the journalists she nurtured in Minnesota or at Newhouse have become nationally recognized figures.
More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010102147.htmlfrom wikipedia:
Abramoff column controversy
In January 2006, Howell became involved in a dispute with some of her readers over the contents of one of her columns. In her January 15 column defending the reporting by Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt on lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Howell claimed that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties,"<6> referring to the Republicans and Democrats. Many readers took exception to Howell's statement, pointing to Federal Election Commission records that showed Abramoff had given money only to Republicans and none to Democrats. <7>
After receiving many angry comments at the Post's blog, Howell responded: "A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff 'directed' contributions to both parties." <8>
This did not satisfy some readers of the blog, who responded that although Abramoff's clients did give money to both parties, there was no evidence that Abramoff "directed" contributions to Democrats and furthermore, that Abramoff's clients had given less money to Democrats than non-Abramoff clients.<9>
As the demands on the blog for a retraction and correction continued, the management of the Post decided to shut down and pull all comments from the blog. Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com, explained this by saying that there had been "personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech" by "a significant number of folks". Some readers were skeptical of his claims and brought forth a mirror site of the blog that showed that there were relatively few posts fitting Brady's description. Brady responded by saying that the comments never showed up on the blog because management had been removing the them as soon as they were posted.<10>The Post has since restored 948 comments.
On January 22, 2006, Howell discussed the controversy started by her column the previous week. She repeated the statement that Abramoff had directed his clients to donate to both parties, but this time referred to her original assertion as a mistake and agreed that the Abramoff scandal is "not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal." Howell went on to describe some of the "abusive" comments and e-mails she received, saying "I'll read every e-mail and answer as many legitimate complaints as I can ... But I will reject abuse and all that it stands for," adding, "... I have a tough hide, and a few curse words (which I use frequently) are not going to hurt my feelings." The kicker for the column summed up her attitude about the whole matter: "To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind. Keep smiling. I will."<11>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
