What is her major conclusion in her analysis of the coverage that GÇ£PostGÇ¥ reporters, columnists, and editorial writers have been giving Sen. George Allen in recent weeks? Speaking of the GÇ£PostGÇ¥ coverage of the GÇ£macacaGÇ¥ racial slur, Howell says, GÇ£Did The Post overplay the incident? Not initially, but the coverage went on for too long after he apologized.GÇ¥ Well, I think sheGÇÖs wrong about that, and wrong about a whole bunch of other things in her column. I think we should politely but firmly point out the flawed thinking in the column. More below.
In the column, Howell looks at coverage of three major events: (1) the GÇ£macacaGÇ¥ racial slur, which first broke into the press on Monday, August 14; (2) AllenGÇÖs Jewish heritage, which a TV reporter asked Allen about at the Webb-Allen debate on Monday, September 18; and (3) the GÇ£N-wordGÇ¥ piece published by Salon.com last Sunday. LetGÇÖs look at some of HowellGÇÖs comments on each one of these, and IGÇÖll share some of my reactions. In your comments below, please point out other flaws in HowellGÇÖs thinking (?!?) that I havenGÇÖt mentioned.
THE MACACA RACIAL SLUR
Howell says:
First, let's go to the macaca tape. Watch it on washingtonpost.com. It was definitely a news story. Allen rightly apologized for a lapse in judgment.Did The Post overplay the [macaca] incident? Not initially, but the coverage went on for too long after he [Allen] apologized. The news stories, handled by the paper's Virginia political reporters, did not go overboard. An editorial was well done. Then the columnists weighed in, along with Style reporters and editorial cartoonist Tom Toles. No one piece was over the line. But when you put it all together, it looked like piling on.
Some of my thoughts:
- Following what was already known about AllenGÇÖs racist past before the macaca slur (the noose, the Confederate flag, opposition to MLK holiday, Confederate lapel pin in his high school yearbook photo), didnGÇÖt this macaca slur deserve some serious, ongoing coverage? And thatGÇÖs not taking into consideration the GÇ£NationGÇ¥ article and photo of Allen and the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, which came out just two weeks after the macaca story broke into the news (and which still hasnGÇÖt received serious coverage from the GÇ£PostGÇ¥ or any Virginia media.)
- Why doesnGÇÖt Howell mention the numerous, different GÇ£explanationsGÇ¥ that Allen and his staff gave for the macaca slur?
- Gosh, wasnGÇÖt the PATTERN of AllenGÇÖs behavior worth reporting on?
- DonGÇÖt Virginia voters deserve a full picture of who their next senator might be?
- How much did Howell complain about the media coverage of, for example, Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky flap?
THE REVELATION OF ALLENGÇÖS JEWISH HERITAGE
Howell says:
[Post reporter] Shear's interview with Mrs. Allen -- which the senator's campaign staff did not want to take place -- told readers what happened from the point of view of Allen's mother. It was a needed and even sympathetic story. It was easy to empathize with her fear of revealing her Jewish background, especially because her father had been imprisoned by the Nazis during World War II. She [AllenGÇÖs mother] said she told [son George] Allen about it only recently, asking him to keep it secret. Allen frequently mentioned that his grandfather was imprisoned by the Nazis; it would be logical to think his grandfather might have been Jewish.
- Gosh, no mention of the fact that Allen and his staff lied to the media and the public that week about what George Allen knew and when he knew it?
THE GÇ£N-WORDGÇ¥ PIECE IN SALON.COM
Howell says:
This brings us to the story from Salon that said he used the N-word in his college days. Two people, including a college friend, made the accusation; others have said they never heard him say it. The Post couldn't ignore the story, but it should have noted that Salon is a liberal-oriented Web site.John Burpo of Springfield asked: "Why did The Post violate its own guidelines and standards to allow anonymous sources to attack Senator Allen with unsubstantiated allegations?" Using quotes from two anonymous sources who said that Allen had used the racial epithet added nothing to the story.
- Golly, horror of horrors, Salon.com is GÇ£liberal.GÇ¥ The dread GÇ£LGÇ¥ word. Boy, that should really discredit the solid investigating and reporting that the magazine did, right, Ms. Howell?
- ShouldnGÇÖt the GÇ£PostGÇ¥ and lots of other papers give the same scrutiny to AllenGÇÖs DEFENDERS that they have given to AllenGÇÖs accusers? (For more on that, see this excellent diary earlier this week by tomVA, Allen's teammate 'defenders': GOP operative, political appointment, corp benefactor...
- OMG!! Salon.com used ANONYMOUS sources to confirm a story!!! If the GÇ£PostGÇ¥ rejected stories that used anonymous sources to confirm information, how many of the stories it now publishes would be left out of the paper? You know, maybe half of its stories on the Bush Administration? (One note: Howell likely wrote the column on Friday, before the latest piece from Salon.com, where one of those anonymous sources went on the record.--so we can give her some slack on that point.)
SUGGESTED ACTION STEPS
STEP 1: Please go and read the entire column, and then telephone or email Howell with your thoughts on the GÇ£qualityGÇ¥ of her analysis. Be specific with your criticisms. Her telephone number and email address are at the end of the column. IGÇÖm NOT going to publish them here (and please donGÇÖt post them below in your comments) since I want you to read the entire column for yourself before you send her your comments. ItGÇÖs a real GÇ£piece of work,GÇ¥ and you need to read the whole thing to fully understand how she performs her job as ombudsman. (And one note: Unlike many of the news articles in the GÇ£Post,GÇ¥ Howell doesnGÇÖt have an online blog attached to her column, to allow public discussion of her column. Gosh, I wonder why?)
And remember, please be polite in what you say to her, so we wonGÇÖt offend her delicate sensibilities and give her an excuse to ignore our comments.
STEP 2: Read the full column, and then do a letter to the editor to the GÇ£Post.GÇ¥ Send your letter to: letters@washpost.com. Do NOT post your LTE on Raising Kaine or Daily Kos or elsewhere on the Internet before the GÇ£PostGÇ¥ publishes it. If they like your LTE, The GÇ£PostGÇ¥ will ask you if you have previously published it elsewhere, including on the Internet. If you have, theyGÇÖll reject your LTE. Save your words of wisdom for the folks who read the print edition of the GÇ£Post.GÇ¥ And, despite all the flaws in HowellGÇÖs column, keep your LTE short, no more than 150 words.
(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, here.)
I wrote to her a month ago stating that an AP feed story the Post carried was filled with errors and was basically a rehash of a USDA handout, citing local stories from Florida that contradicted the USDA. No response.
A lot of the Post writers are overrated or past their prime. She's one of them.
I suspect the issue here is that she received a LOT of mail in a coordinated response from strong RNC supporters (the RNC and its affiliated organizations have a history of doing this). A bunch of the letter writers probably weren't even Post readers, but if the volume of mail is large enough it can have an impact. Most media outlets are hypersensitive to charges of bias and her column certainly seems to reflect these sensitivies. I do think she over corrects in the other direction.
If people write, I would emphasize that the tone should be cordial.
Btw, the Washington Post ran a house editorial defending its coverage on Friday. It's important to keep this in mind as well.
In today's column, she makes it sound as if 100% of the complaints she was receiving came from the right. This reinforces the frame of The Washington Post as a left-wing newspaper. It also is incorrect. Many of us wrote to here (and the Post letters) complaining about things like the Post's total non-coverage of George F. Allen's close CCC relationships.
BB10 wrote an amazing piece, yet there is so much more to complain about in terms of Howell's and the Post's bias as represented in this column.
I would agree that she over-corrected in her response--she falls prey to the "false balance" approach that a number of news outlets resort to when they are confronted by a coordinated letter campaign charging bias (something news outlets are especially sensitive too--Fox News excepted).
I would point again to the Friday House editorial, which doesn't cut Allen any slack. I would also point towards Sunday's front page coverage of the Allen story, which ran the same day as Howell's piece--and received a much more visible placement. You'll note that the Post's national political reporter, Dan Balz, shared a by line on this front page story, so I don't think that the Washington Post has entirely caved in to right-wing charges of bias (at least not yet).
I think Max Blumenthal with the Nation, who broke the Allen CCC story is a great reporter--he clearly has done a lot of research on anti-Semetic/White Power groups. He appears to know what he is talking about.
I can also understand the reluctance of the Washington Post to run the same piece--the weight of the evidence raises some eyebrows, but there isn't a smoking gun.
You have Allen taking a picture with White Supremacists at a convention while Governor, you have a quote by a less than reliable CCC member saying that Allen sought him out for a photo, and you have Allen's history (including appointing a CCC member to a state office)--all of which certainly should raise some eyebrows.
Before a paper like the Post would run with this story though they would want to find a more active role on Allen's part. Has Allen received and sought substantial financial support from the group? What role did the group play in Allen's early political career? Can you get credible people to go on the record with their statements? Is there any hard documentation that you can tie a story like this too? Does Allen still have ties to the CCC?
The Nation points to a private meeting between Tancredo, who has active CCC ties, and Allen in 2005 over what was likely immigration--but once again--the CCC link is still conjectural.
The Nation's readers are likely to give reporters like Blumenthal the benefit of the doubt. The Posts readers, some of whom are strongly sympathetic to Allen, will demand a smoking gun (or something much closer). The CCC story right now is built on a lot of circumstantial evidence--which I find fairly convincing--but I can still see that there is no smoking gun.
The Post reporters (or perhaps the editors) definitely screwed up on that account. The only question about the photo was the degree to which Allen associated with the group, not whether the people in the photo had ties to the CCC; or whether there was any real debate over CCC's "hate group designation. I wouldn't see any reason for the Post to take issue with the Southern Poverty Law Center's characterization. Good point.