Washington Post Ombudsman regrets newspaper's "Obama tilt"

[breakingnewz]

In an article already online and set to appear on tomorrow's print edition, Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell responded to readers' complaints that the Washington Post was biased towards Barack Obama during the campaign that just ended. Excerpt:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barcack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.



Her investigation revealed that:

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.


Howell believes the WAPO was too soft on Obama:

"Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."

Link to article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

[WinkyDink]

1. Wah, wah, wah.

[Coexist]

2. Oh noes!!11 fox news if fare and balansd!!1

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Welcome to DU

:eyes:

[kywildcat]

4. whatever

"...The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."
about as much scrutiny as Bushes cocaine use as an adult?

[zbdent]

41. Did they even acknowledge that Cindy McCain stole her drug stash

from her own "charitable organization"???

I doubt it ...

[Demeter]

5. What Bull

As if they did any such work on McCain or Sister Sarah.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

6. Maybe there were more negative articles on McCain because he did more negative shit?

I'm sick of this idea that both sides should be treated exactly equal, regardless of how crazy the Republicans act or how fucked up their ideas are.

[breakingnewz]

18. But that means the media is fair. Don't those on the left claim that the corp. media is right-wing?

?

[MadBadger]

26. Are you lost Freeper?

[yourguide]

63. Jesus

the freeperville site must still be down.

attn: rethug trolly, Obama is coming to your house personally to take your guns. And when you are screaming at him just remember to address him as Mr. President.

enjoy your pizza.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. You just outed yourself.

Troll.

[MadBadger]

30. I dont think the OP is trying to hide. s/he outed him/herself another time in the thread

Referring to the crownd of Krauthammer and Gerson as "WE"

[breakingnewz]

37. Ad-hominem attacks or "shooting the messenger" arguments are weak

Logicians say that ignoring the allegations posed in a debate is a losing strategy, and "ad-hominem" attacks are long known for being "fallacies", or bad arguments.

[Xipe Totec]

42. Which is why you focused on this one reply

Instead of all the other replies on this thread that tore you a new one.

Nice try.


Now go reply to the substantive ripostes.

[democracy1st]

74. you're weak freeper you guys have 90% control over radio and all you do is complain

[Xipe Totec]

32. Do you like pizza?

[Cosmocat]

47. F in A !!! AND, you NEVER get this shitte in the other direction ...

They reported it fair and square - BO's campaign was 10 times more professional and disciplined, McCain's campaign was a trainwreck.

This is like saying the sports section should give equally negative/positive coverage of baseball teams - "gee, we just did not do our job this year because we had 10 positive articles about the Pirates and 50 about the Phillies, and we had 50 negative articlesa bout the Pirates and 10 negative articles about the Phillies.

WELL, the freakin Phils won the World Series and the freakin Pirates had their 15th straight losing season.

This is the NEVER ENDING crape about the "librul media meme."

It is tired, and it is BIASED to Rs.

[cliffordu]

What was that saying about the horse they rode in on???

Apply liberally!!!

[Xipe Totec]

Did the Post do anything on McCain's first wife?

No?

Did they delve into Johnny's accident prone aviation history? No?

Well why are Obama's undergraduate years such a scrutiny worthy subject?

[annabanana]

7. This is EXACTLY the kind of false equivalences that have plagued

the media since the first false cries of "liberal bias" came screeching from the lips of Newt Gingrich and the advent of the scorched earth policies that have poisoned political discourse for the last few decades.

If more articles were favorable to one candidate than the other, might it not be the case that they were merited?

As has been shown time and time again, "the Truth has a liberal bias".

[AlCzervik]

8. the wapo should have done their jobs when Bush started breaking shit, so fuck you wapo.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. She is the same reporter who tried to link Abramoff to both Dems and Republicans despite evidence

"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,"<4> 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. <5>

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." <6>

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. <7>

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.<8> The Post has since restored 948 comments."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Howell#Abramoff_column_controversy

[ROh70]

12. This journalistic hack needs to be brought down and exposed for the fraud she is.

[democracy1st]

75. thanks she GOP all the way

[ROh70]

10. What bullshit. Did the Post investigate McCain's infidelities?

His crappy military record? All the special treatment he got because of his father? The stories about a possible cover-up of possibly murderous behavior by McCain? McCain's role in covering up his wife's addiction to prescription drugs? All those stories of McCain's explosive temper, fights or near fights with senate colleagues? The nasty way he ditched his first wife for a younger, richer, heiress?

[ShortnFiery]

11. The Editorial section within the Whoresington post just had a Novak commentary supporting,

of all demons, Newt Gingrich in 2012.

There was NO Obama favoritism within the Whoreshington Post.

Since the Matriarch died, the paper has tilted Neo-Con right wing. Body and soul.

Doubt me? TWO words: Charles Krauthammer :evilgrin:

[Xipe Totec]

13. Ugh, did you have to mention the Sludge Hammer?

What a re-:puke: he is!

[ShortnFiery]

16. That's the cretin's home base. It drives the point home. But excuse my bluntness.

:-) :hi:

[breakingnewz]

15. Eugene Robinson, E.J. Dionne, Richard Cohen, to the left

Ruth Marcus is down the middle, and George Will hated McCain and his VP this year.

On the other hand we have Michael Gerson and Krauthammer.

[ShortnFiery]

17. And let's just emphasize that both Michael Gerson and Krauthammer were VILE and gave little

objective data to their "far left" assertions toward Obama. They are poison to the GOP. As long as they follow these men, the republicans will remain out of touch with the Average American's concerns.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

21. We?

[MadBadger]

22. Who is this "WE" you are referring to Freeper TROLL?

[Xipe Totec]

25. Keep digging - you're doing great! n/t

:rofl:

[Earth Bound Misfit]

31. Pizza's almost ready...

[WeDidIt]

14. LIAF

[onetwo]

19. The race could've been between Charles Manson and Mother Teresa...

...and people would STILL have complained about the media not being equally positive/negative towards both candidates.

Maybe, just maybe, one of the candidates deserved more praise than the other. It isn't Obama's fault that McCain couldn't follow his lead on running a disciplined campaign and picking a qualified running mate. It isn't the media's job to "balance out" the coverage by doling out equal amounts of positive and negative press.

McCain/Palin was the inferior ticket -- deal with it.

[ebdarcy]

20. You know what makes me happy? Saying President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama.

That makes you happy too, right?

BTW, welcome to DU.

[ProSense]

23. "Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got..." Howell appears upset that GOP spin failed.

WaPo Getting Pummeled On Obama Home Loan Story

Howell is an idiot. The author of the WaPo article referenced at the link above should have been fired.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. She also says Abramoff gave money to both Dems and Republicans, although that's not true

When she got called on it, she said she meant "directed money"

[breakingnewz]

29. The fact that she's not perfect shouldn't discredit her article

Humans make mistakes every once in a while.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

34. The mistake was pointed out to her and she refused to correct it.

Instead she attacked those who criticized her.

[lib_wit_it]

72. Not like you would know about humans, breakingnose. Speaking of breaking...

Let me break it down for ya:

McKKKain did a lot of stupid shit = a lot of negative stories

Obama did a lot of cool shit = a lot of positive stories

See how easy that was? Now even your kind can understand simple concepts!

Now doggone it, go fuck yourself.

You betcha!

[Egnever]

76. LOL

I doubt that one will last but hillarious just the same...

You betcha!

[renate]

27. my guess is that she'll get a few more letters pointing out the flaws in her logic

Besides the obvious likelihood that the reason there were more good things written about Obama was that there were more good things to say about him, does not her own admission that "The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain" suggest anything to her about McCain?

Dumbass.

[blogslut]

33. Ahhh, lil Debbie

Been waiting a long time for that one, haven't you princess?

[TZ]

35. OH NOEZ--we need a do over

The Washington Post ruined the election!
Wow talk about bitter bitter bitter grapes..And I am not just talking about the reporter. The posting of this article seems pointless except to stir up shit!
Imagine the Post reported on actual policy and issues not personal attacks...:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

36. I wrote back to her!

At [e-mail]

Dear Ms. Howell,

Your late admission of tilted positive Obama coverage by the WAPO boggles my mind! Just in case you don't recall, you already did overly negative coverage of Barack Obama during the primaries. To have re-ashed Rezco, etc...during the General Election (which is what the McCain camp was begging news organizations to do) would not have contributed significantly to the political discourse of this country, which is why I suspect it wasn't done.

While the McCain campaign was busy calling Barack Obama a Radical, a Socialist, a Communist, a Terrorist, unpatriotic and un American, and lying about every single policy position held by Barack Obama, why would you provide John McCain positive coverage? He had not earned it. By the way, I heard no such derogatory personal name calling of John McCain or Sarah Palin coming from the Obama camp, and that should matter.

Please do not rewrite history now as John McCain got what he deserved. He not only maligned Barack Obama, but he maligned the media as well, as did Sarah Palin.....over and over again, while refusing to take questions via new conferences.

If this is advanced warning that your news organization will closely scrutinize the President-Elect from this point on, let me ask why did you wait till now for an Epiphany that this was to be your job all along? Why now, considering that George Bush got a pass for nearly 5 years of his entire term in office? The country is currently involved in two wars (one which your paper helped push), and is in a dire economic straits. Advanced justification of future unwarranted scrutiny would be counterproductive to the rebuilding of our teetering country. How will that be anymore "helpful" than having gone along with pushing us into an unnecessary war that cost us thousands of American lives and billions of dollars?

What is coincidental, Ms. Howell, is that I was watching coverage of Mr. Rothenberg and Mr. Charlie Cook on C-Span earlier today, and they also spoke of media bias and how the media favored Barack Obama during the election. Below is the letter I wrote to them in response, and please consider it as also addressed to you:

Dear Mr. Rothenberg and Mr. Cook,
I watched your Friday conversation with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I was somewhat taken aback by your analysis of the conventional Media and their role in our 2008 elections. You insinuated that the media was in Barack Obama's corner during both the Primaries and the General Election. As you did so, you gave credit to liberal leaning members of the press as well as to SNL. However, you conveniently forgot to make mention of the month-long 24/7 coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments, which was nothing more than a direct attempt at derailing Barack Obama's candidacy.

Mr. Wright was turned into a caricature resembling Satan without respect to any reasonable context by the media . Willingly omitted from press coverage of Rev. Wright was his military service to this country, his presidential commendations, or even his presence in the Operating room with LBJ or his participation at the White House Monica Prayer Breakfast with Bill and Hillary Clinton. In addition, Rev. Wright's lifelong work with poor communities and on the issue of Aids were never mentioned. In other words, the media and how it "chose" to portray Rev. Wright spoke louder than your words did on Friday as to who the media favored during the primary contest.

I would also include Obama's bitter comments, which again were played again and again without context, with the irony being that what he was saying was perfectly true, however sad. Even Obama opting out of Public Financing was distorted and then repeated as though there was no other truth, when in reality, Obama had never "promised" to opt out, only to discuss opting out. Furthermore, why should we forget the endless pundit conversations of "Hard Working Whites" view of Barack Obama, the infamous "Bradley Effect", discussion on the Hispanics and Jews questionable view of Obama, the problem with Clinton voters, and lastly, the never ending reminder of Obama's race (although he is bi-racial, something rarely emphasized). In short, the media skewed context, omitted facts, invented certain narratives, and did so against Barack Obama, not for him. Those who would say otherwise ignore all that occurred at that time in a disingenuous way.

During the General Election, John McCain ran an ironically self named "Country First" campaign which was nothing more than a personal negative campaign against Obama, in where he was called a Terrorist, a Socialist, a Communist, and an unpatriotic American willing to lose a war to win an election. That is why coverage of John McCain and Sarah Palin was negative; because they had nothing positive to say on what they would do to help the country. How was the media supposed to report on the McCain-Palin childish and dishonorable name calling? Even the media's measure of what stands for "negative" confused those of us who had been following the elections closely. Often time, Obama's use of negative ads were equated to those of McCain's, although the negativity was not of the same sort whatsoever.

People in your position, who have a chance to provide an accurate analysis for historical context should want to speak the truth as to why Barack Obama won, now that this election is over. The truth as to why is out there, although you did not really pinpoint it; voters saw beyond the media bias and determined that "Not This Time" would they allow a superior candidate to be swiftboated, nor their vote to be swayed by a media proven untrustworthy.

I would suggest that you review conventional media reporting, and put into context what was reported and how. Fox, a 24/7 "News" network who attracts viewers by the millions, was also the network of Barack Obama hate. The 2 hours of positive MSNBC coverage daily did not make up for Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Anderson Cooper, David Gregory and Joe Scarborough. The print media was probably the fairest of the conventional news agencies that reported on our elections, but as we know, is it the electronic broadcast media which reaches the majority of households on a daily basis, and therefore normally has the largest impact.

To conclude, Barack Obama was the superior candidate in the general election contest, and that is why he won, despite the conventional media's best efforts to portray him only as Charismatic, but altogether inexperienced, elitist, and rather suspect overly confident (uppity) pol. It was perhaps the downfall of our economy that made those who initially didn't want to see Obama get elected understand that without the superior candidate becoming President, the United States might not pull through. That is when the media coverage of Barack Obama took a turn toward the positive, and not a moment before. Why? Because a depression would negatively affect those with the most to lose; the corporate elites.

So I would respectfully request that you to make a true determination as to how the media reported on the elections without your "Liberal Media" filter for the sake of accurate history. You see, there were too many of us watching who know better.

Respectfully, to all of you....

[Xipe Totec]

40. Excellent!

:thumbsup:

[PretzelWarrior]

38. she tends to lie a lot. see my link to MEDIA MATTERS

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601150001

[PretzelWarrior]

39. here's more. she's a right wing hack

"KEEPING the so called mainstream liberal media bias in check". whatever

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601100004?f=i_related

[democracy1st]

78. thanks great job at pointing that out

[fugop]

43. You know what's awesome?

What's awesome is that, in the words of Olberman the other night, "YOU DON'T MATTER ANYMORE!" That's what I think whenever I read one of these idiots. I start to get all fluttery inside at first, thinking, "Oh no. Is this the next thing the media will obsess over?" And then I remember who the president is and I cheer and say, "HEY MEDIA IDIOT! YOU DON'T MATTER ANYMORE!"

Oh, damn. It just feels so good to know the adults are back in charge ....

[FarLeftRage]

44. IBTL...

Enjoy your pizza! :popcorn:

[Orsino]

45. Had something to do with Obama's sucking a whole lot less.

And with Deborah Howell's being a corporate whore.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

46. It occurs to me that maybe it wasn't bias

Maybe there were just more negative things to say about McCain...

[PBS Poll-435]

48. Do you need this?

[ErinBerin84]

49. politico did a "self examination" recently in which

they tried to investigate if they had any bias...they concluded that McCain and Palin just sucked, and therefor there were more negative things written about them...there was even an internal "politico memo" to the writers to find more negative stuff about Obama/Biden, but it was hard...and McCain just fucked up on a regular basis, so they had to write about it.

[martiko]

56. Wow. Even Democrats like you believe the media is fair

What a change from 2004 and 2000 when the "corporate" media was the big bad wolf. Weren't they, the "corporate" media, supposed to praise their masters of the right?

[ErinBerin84]

59. um......ok.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

62. Welcome to DU!

:hi: Enjoy your SHORT stay! :sarcasm:

[PBS Poll-435]

64. !

:spray:

:rofl:

[FarLeftRage]

65. BreakingWindz...er snoooz???

Is that you here a trollin again???

[Earth Bound Misfit]

68. ....

:rofl: :spray: :popcorn:

[seabeyond]

50. mccain palin made mistake after mistake in campaign. is reporting it a tilt OR

supplying the news.

must obama have things made up about him to supply a negative article not cause he deserved it but because they were reporting a negative from mccain campaign?

or does the newspapers NOT report mccain negative cause obama hasnt made a mistake

[Phred42]

51. SO? Grampy and his choice of Barbie would have finished the destruction

of this country started by Reagan and sent into overdrive by W.

This was a clear choice for a democratic future and at least a CHANGE (no guarantee but a CHANCE) to get out of fascist police state created by the republicans.

How FAIR do we have to be to rabid insane and greedy Fascists?

STOP THE MADNESS.

[Swede]

52. So on your 24th post you post this bullshit.

Not a good start. Pizza is on the way.

[PBS Poll-435]

54. Actually...

It was like post #4.

Lots of replies in both threads of our newest FRiend.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

58. This was posted as early as his/her 12th post...

I thought there were rules that prohibit newly registered members from making OP's?

[moondust]

53. Of course the WaPo is the only investigative body we have.

So if the WaPo doesn't dig deep enough then obviously nobody will. :sarcasm:

[Sidney J Mussburger]

55. You disrupted poorly

[CatWoman]

57. make that

"piss poorly"

:)

[TK421]

60. Talk about crying over spilt milk....give it up already!

[PBS Poll-435]

61. The OP

is no longer with us.

:cry:

[Earth Bound Misfit]

66. Yeah, but we have another one...

Post# 56. Looks like a busy night for the Pizza delivery guys.

[PBS Poll-435]

69. I noticed that one....

:D


Some Cheetos-eating, basement-dweller is probably getting a little aggravated.

"Howz do they keep figuring me out?

[TK421]

67. Wait...wait...I gotta get a Kleenex...just, give me time man!!#

:sarcasm: nope...there is no comfort here!!!!

DIE!!!! :toast:

[Earth Bound Misfit]

70. Another one bites the dust.

2 in one thread. Is FReepervile down tonight?

[Danger Mouse]

71. Here lies a disruptor.

They disrupted poorly.

[democracy1st]

73. freeper post McCain's campaign was hate filled and weak

[d_b]

77. drug use as a teenager

:rofl:

[baldguy]

79. Parity does not equal balance.

There were more pieces about McCain's negativity BECAUSE HE WAS MORE NEGATIVE!

[truthisfreedom]

80. This is news? Freep post.