Whose Ombudsman?
I've been aware for a while that there are many who have little faith in the Washington Post's current Ombudsman. This is Deborah Howell who has only somewhat recently replaced Michael Getler who replaced Geneva Overholser. I read the Ombudsman column regularly and had been disinclined to comment. The column is thankless job I'm sure. At the same time I don't want to let pass several problematic turns in the column recently. First: several months ago a bizarre assertion that Abramoff directed money to democrats, implicitly, as much as to republicans. Latter adapting the line that what she, and the Post, meant was that maybe some money from Abramoff's network of lobbyists ended up with some democrats. This caused a infamous online ruckus, The Post seems to blame it on Ill-behaved bloggers,
American Journalism Review - Coping with Jerk Swarms. The American Journalism Review notes in passing that Howell demonstrated some hesitancy in correcting the initial assertion. Since she (and the AJR;
American Journalism Review - Too Transparent? ) is inclined to go easy on herself, forgive me if I also settle easily on the notion that this tasted like an attempt to position this as a story would unfold as an equal opportunity scandal. An assertion more obviously spin now than it was then. But it was still pretty obvious at the time. A confection on a paper tube straight from the White House's cotton candy spinner. Subsequently Ms Howell attempted to describe a baffling distinction between the Washington Post and the washingtonpost.com so she could beg-off explaining how a unqualified and avowedly partisan Web logger briefly got hired by the Post as a columnist. Frankly unless she could have demonstrated that washingtonpost.com has its own ombudsman and that the average reader should know this. I can't understand what she thought she was saying. It was one of the weakest things I've ever seen in print. Only shortly after this came "the Good Leak". A no less than astounding editorial
A Good Leak . PRESIDENT BUSH was right... dredging up old discredited Iraq war WMD foundationals only a day or so after a news division article had reexamined this and still found it wanting. So egregious was this that the New York Times ran an editorial headlined a Bad Leak in a seemingly obvious counterpoint
A Bad Leak - New York Times. Howell offered spirited nationalizing justification largely along reiterating lines of the original editorial [Two views of the Libby leak case. 16Apr06, b6] , using the "wall" between the editorial and news desks as means of simply waving off the news story's facts, and side-stepping the implicit hypocrisy of labeling a leak good (or bad) in a very public manner, without having a general principle behind it. The only thing seen was an ad hoc punishing leak dripped out to keep the bigger lid on a little longer. As with any large city daily incidents that might be questioned still occur. On one Sunday a puff piece by a pair of experienced writers
Donations for a Congressman, Profits for His Wife . Tuesday a incredulous Letter to the Editor
An Unethical Arrangement for a Lawmaker's Wife, the following Saturday an editorial opening daylight between the Doolitles and the Washington Post's earlier apparent approval faster than Starbucks opens coffee shops
The Doolittles' Rich Deal : How one congressional couple collected campaign checks...-- and put $215,000 in their pockets . It doesn't seem that Ms. Howell even noticed that happening. I haven't seen her refer to it. The day that several Washington Post Reporters won pulitzers she rightly named
A Day to Celebrate in the Newsroom. I found myself wondering that considering that since there are those who feel Dana Priest should be prosecuted for printing what she did for that story; whether someone from the Post ought to weigh in on whether that was a good leak or a bad leak. All this sent me to a dictionary to find out what an ombudsman is and what they do. Ombudsperson is clearly a valid substitute. Ombudsman (from the good folk at Merriam-Webster):
1. A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization.
2. A government official, especially in Scandinavian countries, who investigates citizens' complaints against the government or its functionaries.
{ Ombud means "commissioner, agent," coming from Old Norse umbodh, "charge, commission, administration by a delegacy," }
An impartial mediator working for a common good seems a fair assessment of the nominal usage. But I suppose the real question is: who does she think she's working for?
8:05:43 PM  ;;
|
|
