BREAKING: WASHINGTON POST OMBUDSMAN WHITEWASHES WOODWARD-GATE

[Halliburton]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/11/washington-post-ombudsman-lets.html

That pretty much sums up my sentiments exactly.

here's her email: [e-mail]

Keep the heat on!

[depakid]

1. Just goes to show what I've been saying for a long time

and I repeat it over and over- because it's true.

The Post is no longer a reputable paper. What credibility they once had has long since been squandered.

They've become little more than a mouthpiece for the far right (and/or the beltway elites)- and they've proven time and again that have no problem at all publishing false statements of fact and deliberately slanting their news copy.

Even the Wall Street Journal tries to leave that sort of thing to the Editorial page.

Not the Post. I don't know how many stories people will need to see before they finally come to that conclusion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. It is all of it

our papers are rags nothing more or less... wait for it... I know it is coming...

:popcorn:

[fooj]

9. Kick and recommend!

Peace.

[depakid]

11. The Post is just protecting its lead

in the race to the bottom. They saw that the NY Times was gaining on them, so had to do something....

I swear, Katherine Graham must roll over in her grave at least once a week. At least she didn't live long enough to see how far her paper has fallen.

Pretty sad, really- or pathetic, in Woodward's case.

[Hissyspit]

2. Did you email the Americablog post to the ombudsman?

If you didn't, Halliburt, I will. Starting it off with a statement from me to her: "You're kidding, right?"

[Halliburton]

5. yeah I called her a disgrace

and then sent her the link

[Hissyspit]

7. Great! I still can't get over my initial reaction: You're kidding, RIGHT?

[missouri dem 2]

3. It's going to be harder and harder to sell that old lie about the

"liberal" news media.

[liberalnurse]

4. We need to hammer the public with the

updated media title, Neo-Con News".

[fooj]

8. Just sent her this...

You might be interested in taking a look at this...

You've obviously misplaced your copy.

http://spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Code of Ethics
Ethics > SPJ Code of Ethics

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

By compliance, you have betrayed your country. Journalists are trusted as guardians of the truth. You have failed us. Miserably.


:grr:

[EFerrari]

10. What liberal media! fooj, have you seen this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5410364&mesg_id=5410364

If we HAD a liberal media, we would know this already!

[fooj]

13. Rat Bastards!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[EFerrari]

15. Let's help them go --- take a long walk.

:nuke:

I'll be asking for phone calls in the a.m.

They think they're slick. They don't know us, do they? :evilgrin:

[deutsey]

12. I gave up on the Washington Post a few years ago

Apparently, they just keep getting worse.

[Me.]

14. Such A Blatant Cover-up Has Me Asking

what is it Woodward knows and doesn't want to say? Who's he protecting? And why?

[girl gone mad]

16. My e-mail:

Subject: Stunned by your response to the Woodward affair.

Woodward's recent actions have demonstrated his disdain for the Post's readership and for the American public. The appearance is of a man who would much rather be held in close regard by powerful elites than be highly regarded by the rest of us.

I find it ironic that someone credited with bringing down the Nixon administration would engage in such Nixonian behavior. Woodward obviously conspired to withhold information from the public and the prosecutor until such time as that information became beneficial to his well-connected co-conspirator(s). Perhaps worse, he openly castigated Fitzgerald and belittled the entire investigation on at least seven (not 2, as Ms. Howell would like us to believe) occasions, without revealing his own personal involvement or his stake in the legal outcome.

Woodward has made clear precisely where his commitments lie. As of today, so has the Post. I think the question of the week was: "Are you committed to protecting Woodward, and thereby committed to protecting the White House or are you committed to informing the American people?"

You quoted another reader as saying: "This is a test of the paper's credibility as to whether your loyalty to Bob supersedes your loyalty to readers."

By your inaction, you have failed that test. You have no remaining credibility on matters relating to the White House, the Plame investigation and Bob Woodward.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. That's A Very Good Letter

Strong and coherent, without any excess rancor. Good job.
The Professor

[longship]

17. This article belongs on DU's front page.

Recommended and kicked.

[lonestarnot]

18. Agree!

[Loonman]

20. WaPo and NYT are both birdcage paper, now

Shame.