Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(32,026 posts)
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:26 AM Mar 2016

Washington Post Stealth-Edits Reagan Obituary, Covertly Removes Tasteless Lead Without Note

Want an idea why the public’s trust in media is down 34 points since the Washington Post changed the course of history following Watergate? Here’s a simple microcosm in easy-to-absorb bullet-point fashion:

– Lois Romano, clearly a left-leaning journalist with an anti-Republican agenda if her Twitter feed is remotely any indication, is chosen by the Washington Post to write Nancy Reagan‘s obituary. Like many obits for notable figures, this was written in advance to be ready for the moment (very common practice in print and broadcast journalism, no problem there)

– Upon publication on WashingtonPost.com Sunday morning almost immediately following the announcement of the passing, some — including me — see Romano’s obit as a trashing of Mrs. Reagan in Kitty Kelly-meets-Perez-Hilton-like fashion. Particularly disgraceful is Romano’s opening paragraph — the most important part of any column in terms of setting tone — in which she wrote the following (emphasis mine):

Nancy Reagan had an undeniable knack for inviting controversy. There were her extravagant spending habits at a time of double-digit unemployment, a chaotic relationship with her children and stepchildren that could rival a soap-opera plot, and the jaw-dropping news that she had insisted the White House abide by an astrologer when planning the president’s schedule.


– A few hours later I write this column critical of Romano’s obituary. The Mediaite column gets retweeted hundreds of times and has been read over 20,000 times on Mediaite at last count. Romano is clearly aware of the Mediaite column, as some appear to have sent it to her via social media while she’s been active on her account.


Full: http://www.mediaite.com/online/washington-post-stealth-edits-reagan-obituary-covertly-removes-tasteless-lead-without-note/
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Washington Post Stealth-Edits Reagan Obituary, Covertly Removes Tasteless Lead Without Note (Original Post) alp227 Mar 2016 OP
Welp. Then they really wouldn't have liked what I had to say. ebayfool Mar 2016 #1
True and Already Said erpowers Mar 2016 #2
author thinks they should've come later alp227 Mar 2016 #3
Yip, "gossip" was looked-down-the-nose-at when posted here UTUSN Mar 2016 #5
Alt headline: Blue_Tires Mar 2016 #4
Between shabbily hypocritical puff pieces and unnecessary snark Hortensis Mar 2016 #6
Reagan's timing was impeccable, as his record of accomplishment shows AxionExcel Mar 2016 #7
Yeah. So? lpbk2713 Mar 2016 #8
Kitty Kelly-meets-Perez Hilton? 6000eliot Mar 2016 #9
That's part of an editor's job. DavidDvorkin Mar 2016 #10
adding edit notes too alp227 Mar 2016 #11

ebayfool

(3,411 posts)
1. Welp. Then they really wouldn't have liked what I had to say.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 02:07 AM
Mar 2016

I did laugh at the mediaite comment section, though!

snip/


Uncanny_Valley • 4 hours ago

Joe Concha, this was a great article.
Now, please write one about the journalistic manure being produced 24/7 and hurled around at The Washington Times, The National Review, American Spectator, The New York Post and others...or maybe you only criticize the New York Times, The Wapo, and other liberal papers and can't touch conservative papers.

Avatar
Stonehenge Uncanny_Valley • 39 minutes ago

Don't hold your breath; Concha is from the Bill O'Reilly school of journalism.


Lovebandit Uncanny_Valley • 3 hours ago

Spoken like a true leftwing D1CKWEED...LOL


Uncanny_Valley Lovebandit • 2 hours ago

Small-handed right-winger


Yup. The GOP has changed the American lexicon!

erpowers

(9,350 posts)
2. True and Already Said
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 04:28 AM
Mar 2016

I do not completely see what the author of this article is angry about. Everything said in the opening paragraph was true and most of it has already been mentioned even by people close to the Reagan's. The only thing I have not heard so far is mention of her strained relationship with her children and stepchildren. However, many people have, for years, been aware that at one point Nancy Reagan had a strained relationship with her children and stepchildren.

Does this author think certain details of Nancy Reagan's life, even if just about everyone knew about them, should not be included in her obituary? Does he think they should come later in the obituary?

UTUSN

(70,700 posts)
5. Yip, "gossip" was looked-down-the-nose-at when posted here
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 02:38 PM
Mar 2016

But the definition of "gossip" does not equate with "UNtrue." Kitty KELLY's books are journalistically sourced and vetted. Her opening to her Nancy bio is classic: (paraphrasing:: ) Nothing in her birth certificate was true - not her name, not her date of birth, not her father's name..."

It was delish when Peter LAWFORD and other Hollywoodites told how Nancy's talent as a starlet had to do with that other, related profession/not-thespian, plus Nancy fulfilling her Climber crush with her SINATRA trysts. And this pic is chock full of dysfunction: Betty FORD seeking shelter from Big-Babs; Rosalynn being shunned the way the Boys shun Jimmy; Hillary appropriately glomming onto Ladybird; Big-Babs acting like she's the only Top Drawer one in the middle of trailer trash. And, of course, Nancy just HATING having to hang with the gals instead of the Boys.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
4. Alt headline:
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 01:18 PM
Mar 2016

"No-Name Mediaite Writer Becomes Darling of Right-Wing Punditsphere for a Day"

I saw nothing factually wrong with the lede, although you can argue whether or not it was appropriate to lead off with the negative stuff, which is usually reserved for obits for bad people or criminals...

Either way, that blogger can go fuck him or herself with that manufactured outrage...

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
6. Between shabbily hypocritical puff pieces and unnecessary snark
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 02:47 PM
Mar 2016

or harshness is a middle ground where truth can be expressed in a restrained manner, respectful of death and existence of mourners if nothing else. I'd err on the side of truth, though. Obama expressed truth in a balanced presidential manner when he "paid his respects" to the death of a justice at the Supreme Court but declined to attend Scalia's funeral.

AxionExcel

(755 posts)
7. Reagan's timing was impeccable, as his record of accomplishment shows
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 05:08 PM
Mar 2016

...not that I support much of anything at all that he advanced. To the contrary. But all the same, he was remarkably successful in his initiatives, moving them in the public and legislative sphere adroitly. But obviously Nancy's astrologer could not have had a darn thing to do with that. So don't even think it.

lpbk2713

(42,757 posts)
8. Yeah. So?
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 05:16 PM
Mar 2016



If the obit was prepared some time before she croaked would that not give others at
the WaPo the opportunity to give their critiques and suggest any alternate input?

alp227

(32,026 posts)
11. adding edit notes too
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 12:02 AM
Mar 2016

Especially since the Post serves the public with national/political news, Post owes explanations for visible edits

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Washington Post Stealth-E...