Two Lies from Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell (Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps

Skimming this morning, I spotted two lies from Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell. No doubt there are others as well.

She writes:

Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff: [A] Dec. 29 story said the two were not personally close. DeLay had once called Abramoff "one of my closest and dearest friends" and said on Fox News recently that they were friends. Schmidt and Grimaldi said that their reporting showed that the two were politically, not personally, close....

On October 18, Sue Schmidt and Jim Grimaldi wrote: "Abramoff, whom DeLay once described as 'one of my closest and dearest friends'..."--with no caveats about how the closeness was not personal but political. On December 29, Sue Schmidt and Jim Grimaldi wrote: "DeLay, a Christian conservative, did not quite know what to make of Abramoff, who wore a beard and a yarmulke. They forged political ties, but the two men never became personally close, according to associates of both men..."--with no caveats about how DeLay nonetheless called Abramoff "one of my closest and dearest friends." At least one of these stories is false. Certainly both are, at best, "incomplete."

And another:

Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.

Abramoff gave money to Republicans only. Some Indian tribes that hired Abramoff as a lobbyist also gave some money to Reid and Dorgan. But is that "Abramoff money"? Only for a certain definition of "Abramoff money"--and not an innocent one.

Comments

[JO'N]

I think you need to close the italics around "Washington Post". Thanks.

[BCT]

3rd lie from the online WashPost:
"Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

I find it shocking that she spreads this falsehood right after a paragraph that says "Schmidt started checking Federal Election Commission records for Abramoff's campaign contributions."

Here is DC I'm constantly surprised at how many reporters truly believe that Abramoff personally donated money to Democrats. They look at me like I'm insane when I tell them different.

[Robert Waldmann]

There is a clearer lie in the article which you missed while skimming "Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

The last sentence unequivically states that Abramoff (singular) gave to the Democrats as well as to the Republicans. It took me five minutes to demonstrate that this claim is false http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2006/01/libel-in-washington-post-experiment-in.html. "Abramoff money" is vague enough that the claim about Abramoff money can be interpreted freely enough to make it true. "he gave" however is clearly libelous.

This has been caught by the daily Kos and by Americablog (I confess I learned it from Kos)

[Eli Rabett]

I am cancelling my subscription to the Sunday Post tomorrow, and telling them why.

Knock their subscription base down evan a few thousand and you get their attention.

[Colin]

Murray Waas
http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/
yesterday had a nice dissection of another piece of WaPo malfeasance. You need to scroll down to

"The Washington Post this morning gives major play this morning to an attack of Rep. John Murtha ..."

and he points out some more nice work here: http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_firedoglake_archive.html#113728226715081583

[sm]

I stopped my regular reading of the New York Times when I found out that they had held back the wiretap story for a year. I'm not saying I don't look at the occasional story there, but only when I'm referred to it by someone I trust.

If I'd been a subscriber, I'd have cancelled and told them why.

I'm beginning to feel the same about the Washington Post. There may be lots of good stories in there somewhere, but the big political stories are coming from a poisoned well.

People say "we need the NYT, we need the WP, who will collect the information, who will do the investigations?" but I think the price readers pay is a high one. The best way to lie is by omission, and these papers are omitting and distorting to beat the band. There are in fact plenty of important stories out there that aren't filtered through the courtier press; they may be more important than what's at the top of the page in these two papers.

Some people may feel a need to track the courtier press for reasons of their own, maybe good ones. But the ordinary individual reader is endagered by the cowardice and complicity of these two organizations.

Go to Google News!

[Howard]

i have had several email exchanges with deborah, and my conclusion is that she is entirely the wrong person for the job. as i wrote to her, the number one requirement of the ombudsman job is respect for readers. I don't see that in deborah's work to date....

[Dubblblind]

Howard Dean crushed Wolf Blitzer when he tried to go there with the Abramoff-Democrat connection. Crooks and Liars has it (with a little sloppy editing, there is an Iraq war segment at the beginning of the clip):

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/08.html#a6627

[cb]

"At least one of these stories is false."

Could be. But not necessarily.

Far be it from me to defend the inept Deborah Howell or odious Susan Schmidt, but it is not impossible for me to say someone is my closest and dearest friend when that person is not a close friend. [And if that person is not a close friend, the reporter quoting you should point that out, no? Schmidt and Grimaldi did not do so.]

And it happens. Is Brad, in making his claim, must be assuming Tom DeLay always tells the truth.

Nevertheless, anyone who took Michael Getler for granted needs to hang their head in shame. Anyone who has read the initial Deborah Howell columns knows that either she was a bad hire or that the paper wants the ombudsman column to be lightweight. I predict much more defining complaints by whether they come from the left or the right and not whether there is merit to the claim.

[George Wythe]

The displeasure with Deborah Howell's column is out of proportion, and perhaps misplaced. It is true that lying to smear the opposition party is disreputable, particularly coming from an "ombudsman". OTOH, it is in a different category from promoting a war of aggression, in clear violation of international law. No reasonable person would suggest a moral equivalence between Ms. Howell and Hans Fritsche, the journalist defendant at Nuremberg.

[liberal]

George Wythe wrote, "The displeasure with Deborah Howell's column is out of proportion, and perhaps misplaced. It is true that lying to smear the opposition party is disreputable, particularly coming from an 'ombudsman'. OTOH, it is in a different category from promoting a war of aggression, in clear violation of international law."

Bizarre.

[p.lukasiak]

Keep in mind what the purpose of the Howell column was....

to recast press Whore Steno Sue Schmidt as an intrepid "investigative reporter".

I think Howell gives both herself and Steno Sue when she wrote:...

Schmidt started checking Federal Election Commission records for Abramoff's campaign contributions. Lobbyists also file forms with Congress that give information on clients and fees. Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.

what this tell us is that Howell relied upon Schmidt for the "facts" in her narrative, and that Schmidt lied to Howell and Howell repeated the lie --- despite the fact that anyone who has paid ANY attention to the Abramoff story knows that Abramoff gave money only to Republicans.

Remember, this is SUPPOSED to be a column about how the Post "broke" the Abramoff scandal story --- but Howell is completely CLUELESS about the basic facts of the scandal. How is that possible?

[Anna Haynes]

Brad, when you spot these things, do you email Ms. Howell asking for an explanation?

please

(I want to see her response, or if she's still stonewalling you, I want to know that.)

[Calton Bolick]

Well, Howell is, to quote Romenesko, "getting hammered on post.blog for stating that Democrats took money from Abramoff." I looked, and boy, is she. Can't imagine how she could possibly ignore THAT.

Check out

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/01/new_blog_maryla.html

and see for yourself, or join the pile-on.