Dan Froomkin: the Wash Post's meta-ombudsman

[Cocoa]

via Crooks and Liars...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/25.html#a6859

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/20/DI2006012001237.html

"On the specific underlying issue, it's worth pointing out that the flashpoint for all this was a flatly inaccurate statement by the ombudsman -- that was then left uncorrected and unaddressed for several days. That was a big mistake. The Web offers great newspapers the opportunity to correct their mistakes quickly and effectively. When we don't, I'm actually quite happy to see people getting angry. Furthermore, the fact is that the over-the-top abusive comments were in a tiny minority. From what I can tell, the vast majority of posts were passionate, articulate, reasoned, interesting."

Will the Ombudsman make a correction or simply delete his comment?

[Burried News]

1. Caldron caldron boil and bubble keep brewing up a brew of trouble.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. K&R

[babylonsister]

3. The web exposed this; WaPo not only lied about

Dems involved, but then lied about the quantity of over-the-top abusive comments, which Froomkin disputes. I'm loving it!
Stop lying and tell the truth!

[alittlelark]

4. Very well crafted... saying posts were GREAT....

too bad the WP was a little slow in checking their web-page..... uh, yeah.

Well crafted SH*T.

[RDL]

5. Duh, gee

what do YOU think the "ombudsman" will do?

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Ombudsman will get kicked upstairs.

[jsamuel]

7. good to hear

[Reader Rabbit]

8. Write to thank the man!

And don't forget to cc your message to Ms. Howell and any other WaPo bigwigs who need to get the message.

[Nordmadr]

9. That was a great article. While reading another article at

the Washington Post, I stumbled across the Ombudsman's reply to the controversy over her Abramoff info.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012100907.html

I can't believe they still have the bullshit still up.

Deborah is unapologetic and incorrect again in this article.

"But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004."

Yeah, but just because the Inidans gafe to Democrats too, DOES NOT MEAN ABRAMOFF WAS DIRECTING THEM TO DO SO! I have YET to se any documentation or proof to show otherwise. By saying "there is no doubt" that Abramoff directed funds to Democrats as well is plain and simple Republican spin on the facts. It pisses me off!

Olafr

[Festivito]

10. Kinda BTW we did Bush a favor, and this keeps YOU quiet.

People read the headline article.
Same people do not read the CONFUSING ongoing story.
The ongoing story takes time.
The titles confuse.
The placement is less seen.

YET:
The damage is to US.
The luck is to Bush.