Jim Brady, Executive Editor of washingtonpost.com, seems to be terribly
upset about "personal attacks, profanity and hate speech." He claims "comments on this blog were shut off because of the tone of it, not the substance." (Background on this entertaining flap can be found in many places, such as
here.)
With all due respect, I think the facts strongly suggest that Jim Brady is full of shit. He seems to be complaining about messages that simply never existed.
This archived copy of a WaPo blog page is a record of 238 comments that were posted on 1/19, between (roughly) noon and 4 pm. (This archive was apparently created at approximately 4 pm on 1/19; this is evident because two messages posted minutes later are not captured in this archive; more on this below.) These 238 comments are roughly 99% profanity-free. Brady would have us believe that during this period, there were many other comments which were highly profane, and were deleted, and therefore don't appear on the archived copy.
Note what Brady
said about this archived copy: "that screen shot is only what was live, not what we blocked. There's no way for you to see what we blocked ... you were reading the ones that were posted live. There were a few hundred others that were removed the site altogether, and those would not be on the page you're looking at."
The interesting question is this. When and how were those messages "blocked," and/ or "removed?" Note the following possibilities:
A) Maybe WaPo pre-screens messages (as is the practice on a small number of independent blogs). This means that messages do not immediately appear. They appear only after being approved by a moderator.
The trouble with A is that it's not what happened. Anyone who has posted on WaPo blogs has noticed that their message appears immediately. There is nothing to indicate that message pre-screening has ever been done on any WaPo blog, recently or ever. So A can be dismissed.
Note that Brady is being a major bamboozler by trying to imply that messages were pre-screened (that's obviously what he's implying when he says "blocked"). Note also how confused he is, because he alternately says "blocked" and "removed." These are not the same thing. Note also that even while he's trying to suggest they pre-screened ("blocked") messages, he also admits they didn't: "pre-screening is something we've discussed." In other words, they've discussed it, but they haven't done it, at least not yet.
B) Maybe profane messages were posted during this period (1/19, roughly noon to 4 PM), but were deleted later (after 4 pm), and that's why these messages are not present on the archived page.
The trouble with B is that it doesn't matter what happened after 4 pm. We have a record as of 4 pm. If no messages were deleted before 4 pm, then the record is complete (and it demonstrates that the messages posted were 99% profanity-free).
C) Maybe profane messages were posted during this period, and appeared briefly on the blog, but were promptly deleted. Therefore they do not appear on the page as of 4 pm (because they were deleted before 4 pm).
The trouble with C is that it seems very, very unlikely. If C is true, it means that one or more persons at WaPo were paying very close attention to the messages as they were posted, even though new messages were appearing very rapidly (at a rate of roughly one new message every 60 seconds). And that moderator(s) was ostensibly deleting a fairly large number of messages, ostensibly soon after these messages were posted publicly.
But if many messages had appeared, and then were deleted (ostensibly a few minutes later, and certainly no more than 4 hours later), it seems extremely likely that commenters would have noticed this, and spoken up about it, as follows: "I was responding to an earlier post, and now I see it's gone. What's up?" Or: "why did you delete my post?"
Trouble is, there is only one person making such a complaint ("why was my comment removed," 2:39:52 pm; "why was my comment removed;" 3:49:13 pm). So it does appear that in fact one message (out of roughly 238) was indeed deleted some time after it appeared (probably soon after it appeared). But there is almost a complete absence of complaints about deleted messages. This tends to indicate that only a very small number of messages were deleted shortly after being posted (perhaps only one).
Note that the archived page only covers four hours in the life of one blog article. This controversy encompasses a number of WaPo blog articles, which generated many hundreds of responses. However, the archived page contains over 200 messages. That's a fairly large sample. There's no reason to think that what happened in this four-hour period is not typical of the entire matter. And thanks to the archived page, we're in a position to closely analyze what took place in that period.
THE MESSAGES WAPO WANTS TO HIDE FROM YOU
In the latest twist on these WaPo shenanigans, they have now "returned" posts that were previously removed (see "Some Comments Returned," 1/20, 6:32 pm). So the article "Deborah Howell Responds" now appears with 198 comments, posted 1/19 between 11:41 am and 3:55 pm.
Therefore we now have the terrific opportunity to examine the list of 198 comments that WaPo has now made available, as compared with the archived copy, which includes 238 comments. WaPo deleted 42 comments (the numbers add up when you take into account that the new WaPo page includes two posts that appeared minutes after the saved archive was created). A review of the deleted comments shows that the use of profanity is quite light. Words that Brady whined about ("she shouldn't have to read people publicly calling her a 'b----' or a 'wh---' ") are nowhere to be found. A few of the comments are nasty, but many others are just sharply critical. Decide for yourself.
And again, Brady would have us believe that the most profane messages somehow were deleted before they could be captured in the archived copy. I've explained why this alibi seems to be a crock of shit.
Finally, here in their entirety are the messages that WaPo deleted (i.e., messages that appear in the archive copy, but do not appear in the official version that recently reappeared on the WaPo site):
Right100, and Ms. Howell,
Please, please take this comment to heart.
As much as you would like to believe otherwise, You are both compatriots of a political faction that is working to undermine the American system of government. Right100, I will take your best wishes in the next election cycle literally, for all of our sakes, your included.
Posted by: Right100 is an ass | Jan 19, 2006 3:52:10 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
I ask again, why was my comment removed?
I said that maybe you weren't a liar.
That maybe you weren't even first class at obfuscation.
But I DID say you were INCOMPETENT.
Is that it? Being called incompetent yanks your chain?
Posted by: garyb50 | Jan 19, 2006 3:49:13 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
The graph that Howell links to has been repeatedly shown to be meaningless and misleading (by independent sources, and even by conservative ones).
The document she links to has been shown to be misleading and manipulated (the joys of Photoshop!) Whoever produced this hack job (Willis?) needs to be fired and/or sued.
Why is the Post so intent on lying about this story?
Brothers and sisters, we have lived to see the day when the Post is to right of even Rich Lowry at the National Review! Katherine Graham, may her soul rest in peace, fortunately has not.
Posted by: Mike Wolf | Jan 19, 2006 3:45:00 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Deborah, you've made a mistake, when pressed about the mistake you don't apologize, you excuse yourself
tribes giving money to politicians has nothing what so ever to do with the republican influence machine
democrats ARE NOT implicated in this scandal
you have to distance them from this scandal and apologize for making the association.
by the way
how did wapo think you might be qualified for this position?
it would seem you are as unqualified as a brown was to fema
Posted by: me to me | Jan 19, 2006 3:44:11 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
I have another point.
In your earlier post on this issue, you confessed to receiving talking points from one of the right wing think tanks.
I applaud you for telling us where you get your information, but I'm a little curious if this is good journalism.
Specifically, shouldn't reporting on this story begin with public records? After consulting public records, wouldn't it be appropriate to contact any Congressmen which you mention in the story for comment. You tarred Reid and Dorgan but gave them no chance to explain themselves.
After consulting with the Congressmen directly, I see no problem contacting the official party offices for a statement.
Finally, at the end of the chain, you could talk to outside institutes.
Does this sound like a reasonable way to approach this story?
If it is not how you did your reporting, I would find it helpful to know more about your process---of course, any contacts that require confidentiality *cough* *Rove* can be respected.
Posted by: Marky | Jan 19, 2006 3:41:26 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Whatever you do, Debby, don't let on that you were shopping at Nordstrom instead of doing your job.
Posted by: Brownie | Jan 19, 2006 3:40:40 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
With only 15% of Americans reading the newspaper, you sure are trying to push that number down aren't you? Katherine Graham must be rolling in her grave. You're a dispicable ombudsman; and until they get rid of political hacks like you, I'm done with the post.
Posted by: rick | Jan 19, 2006 3:34:01 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
With only 15% of Americans reading the newspaper, you sure are trying to push that number down aren't you? Helen Graham must be rolling in her grave. You're a dispicable ombudsman; and until they get rid of political hacks like you, I'm done with the post.
Posted by: rick | Jan 19, 2006 3:33:33 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Tom3 | Jan 19, 2006 3:25:16 PM
------------------------------------------------------
What about Ginger? Did she abstain? Oh gosh, what did I just say?! I hope no one takes that to mean I'm implying Ginger isn't abstinent. Gosh, there I go again. Abstinence. Is that the word? Oh well.
Buh Bye Deborah. Been nice. Do write. See ya.
Posted by: | Jan 19, 2006 3:31:49 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Howell,
You are an embarrassment to your paper.
Do the right thing and resign.
Posted by: Michael Buckley | Jan 19, 2006 3:29:00 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Let's see, here's your logic:
- Donor A was a donor to Democrat B;
- Donor A is extorted/conned into hiring Republican C;
- Donor A reduces its share of donations to Democrat B;
- Republican C is shown to be engaged in a gigantic criminal enterprise;
- your conclusion: Democrat B and Republican C are in a criminal enterprise together.
The mendacity blows the mind. And I hope you do know you're being dishonest -- if this comes out of stupidity I'm even more frightened about how low our media has reached.
The only real story in town regarding corruption is the K-Street Project -- which over more than ten years sought to not only illegally funnel money to the Bush Republicans, but also to illegally abuse Congressional power in order to punish campaign donors to the Democratic Party. Abramoff, Delay, Santorum, Frist, Rove, Reed, Norquist and the other players in the K-Street project engaged in corruption and extortion in a completely unprecedented scaled in the pursuit of their goal to establish a de facto one-party rule. Contrived 'balance' in reporting on this is an unprofessional and cowardly lie. Why are the media afraid to factually and fairly report this story?
Posted by: Mike Wolf | Jan 19, 2006 3:25:23 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Is it my imagination, or has the WaPo now bottled out completely and removed the Technorati links from it's pages? I found these really helpful in locating other sites that had commented on the articles and had insight and information to add.
Or is that why you removed them? My god, you're cowards.
Posted by: Avedon | Jan 19, 2006 3:25:19 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Debbie, there's a HUGE difference. Abramoff was trying to buy influence. That's what lobbyists do. How on earth do you buy influence if the recipient doesn't know the money is from you? Unless you have proof that the Democratic recipients of tribal donatios knew it was actually being directed by Dirty Danny, you can't make an honest comparison.
Posted by: Farty McBreakwind | Jan 19, 2006 3:23:42 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Deborah, what's all that fuss about up there? It took me forever to scroll down across it to get to this comment box. Good luck with that.
What I'm writing about is to ask you if you see Sally Quinn this afternoon, tell her to call me. It's urgent. We need to finish up planning our Spring Cotillion. Thanks. You're a dear. Kiss Kiss
Posted by: Fannie | Jan 19, 2006 3:18:36 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Been following this shameful episode through the various media and I do hope the Post is seriously considering the swift termination of this imbecile...
Posted by: Ratpuppy | Jan 19, 2006 3:09:58 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Howell,
You are a disgrace to your paper, to journalism and to the very concept of an ombudsman. It is time for you to resign. Take the pain. Eat the rat.
Posted by: G. Gordon Giddy | Jan 19, 2006 3:05:33 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Howell: "A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties."
WHAT??? ARE YOU KIDDING.
So, in your 'opinion' the tribes are agents of Abramoff?? They took marching orders from him???
Really, again I will say it; no wonder the WAPO circulation is going down faster then DARTH CHENEY's.
You are a transparent agent for the GOP. Sickening.
Posted by: sutioc | Jan 19, 2006 2:59:46 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Do tell, what happened to the Deb Howell who was once so worried about doing a good job as a journalist that she cared about details and made corrections for SCHOOL LUNCH LIST errors, which affected, say, 1000s of people?
Now, she doesn't care about political lies and shell games that affect the whole nation. What was her price?
Posted by: WhaHoppa? | Jan 19, 2006 2:59:24 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Howell wrote: "One of those lists can be viewed in this online graphic, while a graphical summary of giving by Abramoff, his tribal clients and associated lobbyists can be viewed here."
Howell's intellectual dishonesty (and her support of the Post's twisting of this story) is astonishing.
The "online graphic" that she refers to, when compared to actual FEC filings, ( http://www.capitaleye.org/... )demonstrated precisely the opposite of what Howell claims. The list, which Howell says shows Abramoff "directing contributions" to Democrats, shows that....
- While Abramoff supposedly "requested" $2000 each for Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland, and $5,000 for Tom Daschle, the tribe in question gave Carnahan and Daschle NOTHING, and Cleland on $500.
- Every GOP incumbent who was running for re-election that is mentioned on the list got at least $1000 --- the total "contribution" to the GOP names found on this "graphic" exceeded $15,000.
Perhaps more to the point, the Post went out of its way in "photoshopping" the graphic to make it appear that Tom Daschle was a recipient of Coushetta tribe funds "directed" by Abramoff (the FEC filing shows he wasn't), they "whited out" the line directly below Daschle's name -- in which some kind of "contribution" was directed to Tom Delay through the lobbying firm of Williams and Jensen (that is the firm whose address is 1155 21st St NW, #300 see http://www.williamsandjensen.com/... ) -- a firm where Tom Delay's former chief of staff found a very lucrative job the same year that Abramoff is "directing" $20,000 to that firm.
The other graphic, which makes it appear that there was a substantial increase in donations from Native American tribes to Democrats thanks to Jack Abramoff, disguises one key fact --- these tribes had been giving to Democrats for years-- the "increase" in contributions for Democrats is a reflection of Abramoff getting these tribes as clients, NOT an increase in tribal contributions to democrats per se.
Ms Howell needs to explain why she thinks the "graphic" she linked to is evidence that donations were "directed" to Democrats when the FEC filings prove that this document was virtually ignored when it came to Democratic politicians, but GOP incumbents listed on the "graphic" all received funds that year.....
She also needs to explain why she won't admit that she lied about Jack Abramoff giving money to "both parties", and giving money to Harry Reid and Byron Dorgan.
It didn't happen -- and it is inconceivable that Howell could have "done her homework" on the Abramoff scandal and yet have written what she wrote. How has to acknowledge that she was careless and incompetent -- that her sole purpose in writing the original column was to defend "Steno Sue Schmidt" and here efforts to disassociate Tom Delay from Abramoff, and to suck up to the GOP that wants to make the WHOLLY REPUBLICAN Abramoff scandal into something "bipartisan."
Its bullshit, pure and simple. Howell lied, and she continues to lie.
Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 19, 2006 2:59:15 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
As a longtime reader of the Washington Post, I am appalled at Deborah Howell's performance as the paper's ombudsman. I am a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and I can not imagine an editor at my former paper allowing such poorly researched material to get into print--whether as a news story, opinion column, or God forbid, an ombudsman's essay.
There is NOTHING of an ombudsman in Deborah Howell's approach to her job. An ombudsman's role is to represent the voice of the reader in the paper; to examine the paper's--and its writers'--intentions in the articles that the paper prints. Ms. Howell does none of this; she has a palpable agenda, and her tone is authoritarian (certainly not authoritative). I can only imagine how she came to be hired for this position, but it reflects very poorly on the Post that she has performed in such a careless and biased way so soon in her (one hopes, brief) tenure.
The Post need a REAL ombudsman, not some hack who sees her job as lecturing readers on the errors of their points of view, and whose own point of view is so transparent and partisan.
Posted by: Kevin J-M | Jan 19, 2006 2:51:15 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Methinks we're dealing with someone who cannot admit to a mistake. Which, by the way, sounds very similar to a certain someone now "leading" our country. A mentor perhaps?
Face reality: As a pig with lipstick is still a pig, a blatant lie gussied up with a shiny new verb is still a blatant lie.
An ombudsman nobody believes. Congratulations Washington Post.
Posted by: Rick | Jan 19, 2006 2:39:18 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "told his clients that Democrats were just as crooked as Republicans, so the clients should make" contributions to both parties.
It's all there, in the graphic.
Now, on to my next column, where I will criticize the Post not for failing to cover the demotion of the U.S. prosecutor investigating Abramoff's dealings in Guam, but for failing to mention that Decmocrats stood by while a U.S. prosecutor was pulled off an investigation in Guam.
/phony ombudsman
Posted by: Ottnott | Jan 19, 2006 2:16:27 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Howell,
Why don't you write a note saying you've heard not only from critical readers who think you're a bought-and-sold GOP conduit, but also from readers who think you're practicing responsible journalism.
You can say the proportions were about equal.
Just think: It'll be just like telling the Abramoff story all over again.
Posted by: LMAO | Jan 19, 2006 2:10:21 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "begged his clients to make" contributions to both parties.
No, I don't have any evidence that Abramoff did that, but did you see the shiny graphic I linked to?
/phony ombudsman
Posted by: Ottnott | Jan 19, 2006 2:06:46 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
"directed"?
WTF, Deborah?
Posted by: Ottnott | Jan 19, 2006 1:59:49 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Hey, What's this about Okrent getting payola after shilling for the GOP---link?
Posted by: Marky | Jan 19, 2006 1:59:48 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
I'm just gonna start calling Howell "Mrs. Daniel Okrent" and get the obvious out of the way.
Same thin skin, same complete lack of respect for the people she's supposed to be representing, same unending right-wing spin, not matter how ludicrous it makes her look.
Same big fat paycheck with a right-wing front group when she finally quits - if she's not getting it "under the table" now.
You have no credibility left, lady - and neither does the Post.
Posted by: dave | Jan 19, 2006 1:52:08 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Howell, I look forward to the Washington Post printing a pie chart of this spreadsheet:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/...
When one sees $172,933 contributed to Republicans and $0 contributed to Democrats, one can reasonably conclude "the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties" requires a full retraction.
As an ombudsman, does your job not entail representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens?
Please read the comments above and the comments to follow with the interests of the Washington Post's readship in mind.
Posted by: bartkid | Jan 19, 2006 1:42:10 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Howell, does the RNC just leave plain brown envelopes stuffed with cash on your doorstep, or is there an offshore account involved? I'm really curious how they pay you off to lie and obfuscate. Or can you be bought off for just not being scowled at by Republicans at D.C. dinner parties?
If you think that you don't need credibility in order to stay in your position, there are countless unwashed masses who will work tirelessly to prove you wrong. I would say "for shame," but in your case, it's already proven to be a waste of breath.
Posted by: wapo_has_no_clothes | Jan 19, 2006 1:28:50 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Does flat-out lying and refusing to issue retractions affect the public perception of the value of your brand?
The people who watch the bottom line might want to know:
>>>The Washington Post Company
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071
202.334.6000
TWPCoReply@washpost.com
Ann McDaniel
Vice President
Rima Calderon
Director - Corporate Communications
>>>Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
P.O. Box 17370
Arlington, VA 22216
703.469.2500
Tim Ruder
Vice President - Marketing
>>>The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071
202.334.6000
Eric Grant
Director of Public Relations and Contributions
Lisa Bolton
Public Relations Manager
Posted by: Shystee | Jan 19, 2006 1:12:25 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
The GOP, via hacks like Howell, has gotten away with this crap for way too long.
You're exposed, Ms. Ombudsperson.
Quit, or enjoy laughing-stock status.
Posted by: Awake American | Jan 19, 2006 12:57:37 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
"It's obvious that Ms. Howell has an agenda, to wit, to make sure that the readers are confused about the main targets of Abramoff's campaign contributions, so that it is not viewed by them as just a Republican scandal."
by lib
And indeed, not just Ms. Howell and Steno Sue, but also the LA Times. And the press will do ANYTHING to make it an equal affair of the Democratic and Rebuplican parties. To whit, front page LA Times: 'Culture of Lobbying May Resist Reform' and inside, 'Democratic Legislation similar to GOP.' Nice. The hedes tell the story.
Posted by: Max Renn | Jan 19, 2006 12:54:01 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Hacktacular!
Posted by: Karin | Jan 19, 2006 12:52:38 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
More obscurantism from Ms. Howell. She says it would have been better to have said that Abramoff "directed" these contributions by his clients, but in fact there is no evidence that he directed these contributions. These tribes had contributed to democrats for years before their association with Abramoff, and we know that their contributions to democrats declined during the time they were represented by Abramoff. There is every reason to believe that contributions made by these tribes to democrats were made DESPITE Abramoff, not because of any direction received from Abramoff.
While Howell and the Post tar dems for taking contributions from these tribes, Bush gets a pass on his decision to return contributions from Abramoff but keep contributions made by his associates and clients. From Howell's and the Post's perpective the question of whether Abramoff "directed" contributions all depends on who received the contribution, not who made it.
Ms. Howell, you are a disgrace. Go peddle your RNC talking points somewhere else.
Posted by: Thomas C | Jan 19, 2006 12:43:11 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Howell,
Your failure to print a direct retraction of your completely false statement is highly unprofessional.
Also very disturbing is that you used your previous article to promise that Democrats would be the subject of more "Abramoff-related" scrutiny in the future.
On what basis is the Post pursuing stories about connections between Abramoff and Democrats? Abramoff's crimes involve only Republicans, as far as we know. For you to report on criminal activity of Republicans, and Democrats accepting legal campaign contributions ---not from Abramoff---side by side is the worst sort of journalism.
Whatever legal activities Abramoff's clients were involved in has as much relevance to Abramoff's crimes as the fact that he is writing a commentary on the Talmud---precisely none.
If you want to improve the reporting, then why don't you distinguish between those actitivities of Abramoff which were illegal or suspected to be so, and those "Abramoff-related activities" which have no taint of scandal whatsoever.
Oh, and you should resign... but if you don't, I think your lack of credibility and professional standards leads me to inquire whether you have received any compensation from any organization besides the WaPo for any of your "journalism-related actitivities".
Truthily yours,
Marky
Posted by: marky | Jan 19, 2006 12:40:59 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Howell,
Your failure to print a direct retraction of your completely false statement is highly unprofessional.
Also very disturbing is that you used your previous article to promise that Democrats would be the subject of more "Abramoff-related" scrutiny in the future.
On what basis is the Post pursuing stories about connections between Abramoff and Democrats? Abramoff's crimes involve only Republicans, as far as we know. For you to report on criminal activity of Republicans, and Democrats accepting legal campaign contributions ---not from Abramoff---side by side is the worst sort of journalism.
Whatever legal activities Abramoff's clients were involved in has as much relevance to Abramoff's crimes as the fact that he is writing a commentary on the Talmud---precisely none.
If you want to improve the reporting, then why don't you distinguish between those actitivities of Abramoff which were illegal or suspected to be so, and those "Abramoff-related activities" which have no taint of scandal whatsoever.
Oh, and you should resign... but if you don't, I think your lack of credibility and professional standards leads me to inquire whether you have received any compensation from any organization besides the WaPo for any of your "journalism-related actitivities".
Truthily yours,
Marky
Posted by: marky | Jan 19, 2006 12:39:56 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
This is pure B.S.
Posted by: res | Jan 19, 2006 12:39:35 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
You're a hack, Howell.
Posted by: Old Hat | Jan 19, 2006 12:29:28 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Wow, I didn't think there was anything you could do that would be worse than ignoring the lie you printed about Abramoff's dealings but you figured out something worse. You defended the lie and dug yourself deeper into an ethical morass from which you are unlikely to drag yourself out of. Step One: Stop lying. Step Two: I really think you should hire an assistant ombudsman to keep you in line. Anyone who knows the facts and hasn't signed any pledges to be faithful to RNC spin would probably be a good minder for you. There's no doubt that you need the help.
Posted by: eRobin | Jan 19, 2006 12:26:43 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Howell's pants are on fire.
Posted by: NTodd | Jan 19, 2006 12:11:57 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
The point, Ms. Howell, is that there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any of the money "directed" to Democrats by Abaramoff via his clients was in exchange for votes or favors granted.
The mere fact that some of Abramoff's clients gave oney to Democrats doesn't equal "Abramoff funneled bribes to Democrats through his clients, wink wink, nudge, nudge say no more."
You clowns in the media nee dto start reporting the fricking truth for a change, and not sucking up to the whiney rigtwing establishment.
Posted by: Hesiod | Jan 19, 2006 12:04:04 PM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE 1/21, approx 3:10 pm ET
WaPo is still flogging the "profanity" alibi, even though it appears to be utter bullshit.
As this diary points out, today WaPo admitted that Howell was wrong.
However, WaPo is still parroting Brady's highly questionable claim, that there was a deluge of profane comments. WaPo claims there were "hundreds of posts, many using profane or sexist language ... many of them used language unsuitable for a public forum."
It's clear that there was a deluge of critical comments. However, it's far from clear that there was a deluge of "profane or sexist language." I think the facts posted above suggest that Brady and WaPo are greatly exaggerating this aspect of the situation.
The 42 messages cited above would presumably be drenched in examples of "language unsuitable for a public forum." Here's a complete list of what I found upon conducting a thorough inspection: bullshit, B.S., fricking. Those horrifying profanities are found in 3 of the messages. In my opinion, the other 39 messages contain no examples of profane language or "language unsuitable for a public forum." (One or two comments are faintly sexist, but that's a stretch.)
In other words, it seems that WaPo is still trying to bullshit us.
WaPo says "the general expectation is that reporters and readers alike will act like guests in someone's home." The general expectation I have, as either a host or a guest, is that people around me are not trying to bullshit me. When I notice that someone around me (either a guest in my home, or a host in a home I'm visiting) is trying to bullshit me, here's what I'm likely to say: "with all due respect, I think you're trying to bullshit me, and here's why I think that."
So here's my message to WaPo: I think you're trying to bullshit me.
Speaking of using language appropriately, the brilliant Frank Zappa can be seen discussing profanity here.
Another update, approx 4:15 pm
Today Salon quotes Leonard Downie, WaPo Executive Editor, saying this: "what I find shocking ... is the kind of personal and violent -- violent in language -- attacks on her, using language that I cannot believe people would be using in a public space." He also suggests that the blog was "overwhelmed by obscene comments."
Again, this seems to be utter exaggeration, now coming from top management at WaPo. It seems likely that no more than a handful of such messages were ever submitted to the blog. The facts clearly indicate that WaPo is suppressing messages that are most definitely not "violent in language" or "obscene." (Thanks to jbeach for the tip about Salon.)
BTW, the Salon piece includes a good summary of facts regarding the "Dems took his money too" nonsense.
Yet another update, 1/21, approx 5:00 pm ET
When Howell tried to defend herself a couple of days ago, she claimed that "the Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts." In connection with that assertion, she made reference to this graphic.
Trouble is, there are problems with that graphic. Some of those problems are described by Paul Lukasiak (see above, "2:59").
And Brad DeLong has made this point: "the document to which she links appears to 'direct' $220,000 of contributions to Republicans, and $4,000 of contributions to Democrats."
One more update, 1/21, approx 7:00 pm ET
A ingeniously simple, visual explanation of this "Dems took dirty Abramoff money" nonsense is here.
Another excellent and simple analogy here.
And another thing. Howell's new column is thoroughly dissected by densityland, in an outstanding diary here. Howell appears to be stunningly dishonest.
Some more. Why not? This diary is cited in a blog post at metacomments, who makes an important point: the right-wing did not win control of the media by being nice; they did it by being a pain in the ass. And Howell did not respond to "nice." She only responded after she got whacked with a two-by-four (which is still infinitely more benign than being waterboarded). So sometimes being a pain in the ass is the right thing:
Whenever a wingnut or a "nice liberal" or a "nonpartisan" or a self-satisfied media jackass tells you that you are "incivil," what they are really saying is "we are afraid of you acting as a large bloc of concerned citizens acting together."
Wherever we are warned off for being "incivil," THAT IS A SIGN THAT WE HAVE FOUND A SPOT WHERE THEY ARE WEAK AND AFRAID.
The proper strategy is thus to be rude and incivil -- oh, not for the sake of rudeness and incivility themselves. Gosh. That would be crude. Heavens! No.
Instead, we need to be rude and incivil for the sake of the truth, for the sake of our self-respect, and for the LOVE OF FUCK, for THE SAKE OF OUR MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLIC AND THE WELL-BEING OF OUR PLANET AND THE GENERATIONS TO COME TO WHOM WE HAVE A GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING RESPONSIBILITY TO FIGHT AND NOT BE A BUNCH OF GODDAMN USELESS "POLITE" WEENIES. GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING POLITE APPEASING DOUCHEBAGS CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES WITH A MOTHERFUCKING CIRCULAR SAW SIDEWAYS UNTIL THEY PISS PURPLE.
Indeed.
APPENDIX: Summary of archived posts (where to see 1005 posts that WaPo deleted)
(This is an update of information I had originally placed here.)
The above diary focuses mostly on one particular batch of messages that Wapo deleted, but were nevertheless archived elsewhere. What sets that batch apart is that WaPo has reinstated most of those messages (all but 42, hence the title of the diary). Of course what's interesting is that this gave us a chance to analyze how WaPo defines "profane."
It turns out that there are several other "bootleg" archives of messages that were once posted on WaPo blogs, but which WaPo recently hid. Below is a a summary of all those archives that I'm currently aware of.
Note that WaPo has promised to restore some selection of the missing posts ("over the next few days, we'll go back through them and restore the ones that did not violate our rules"). They've made good on a portion of that promise, sort of. My diary above goes into detail about that. If and when WaPo makes good on this commitment with regard to the messages represented in the various other archives I'm noting, that will be a further opportunity to analyze how WaPo defines "profane."
Please note also that I think these archives are quite complete (at least with regard to the periods they cover). In other words, I don't think many messages were deleted before the archives were created (my rationale for this belief is explained in my diary). Therefore I think these archives demonstrate a dramatic absence of profanity, in contrast with claims made by Brady and Howell.
Certain messages posted on 1/15 can be found here. This archive covers the period from 5:26 pm to 10:39 pm. Included are 348 posts, totaling about 28,000 words. A careful analysis shows that about one-tenth of one percent of those words could be remotely construed as profane. They are: bimbo, bimbo, BITCH!, BS, chickenshit, cock-up, fart, fellate, ferGodssake, freakin', freaking, frickin', friggin', HECKOVAJOB, hooker, hooker, man-whore, Ombudsbroad, poopy-pants, screw, screw, screwed, screwing, screwing, scumbags, suck, sucked, SUCKED, sucks.
Certain messages posted on 1/15 to 1/16 can be found here. (Credit for providing this archive is owed to Echidne.) This archive covers the period of 1/15 10:40 pm to 1/16 3:07 am (this file starts precisely where the aforementioned file ends). Included are 132 posts, totaling about 11,000 words. A careful analysis shows that less than one-tenth of one percent of those words could be remotely construed as profane. They are: crap, crap, godawful, Shitty, suck, suckup.
Certain messages posted on 1/16 can be found here. This archive covers the period from 2:52 pm to 8:45 pm. Included are 50 posts, totaling about 3,000 words. A careful analysis shows that about one-tenth of one percent of those words could be remotely construed as profane (it's remarkable how this ratio remains constant). They are: Heck, heckuva, Heckuva, hell.
Certain messages posted on 1/17 to 1/18 can be found here. (Credit for locating that archive is owed to Mike McConnell.) This archive covers the period 1/17 1:25 am to 1/18 3:21 pm. Included are 237 posts, totaling about 25,000 words. A careful analysis shows that about one-tenth of one percent of those words could be remotely construed as profane. They are: balls, bs, bull, bullsh-t, cahones, cock-up, Crap, CRAP!, crappy, DebDoesDallas, doofus, Heck, Heck, heckuva, Jesus, Jesus!!, piss, screw, screwed, screws, scum-journalists, SCUMMY, scums, scums, shitload.
Certain messages posted on 1/19 can be found here. This archive covers the period from 11:41 am to 3:52 pm. Included are 238 posts, totaling about 25,000 words. A careful analysis shows that about one-tenth of one percent of those words could be remotely construed as profane. They are: bullshit, crap, crap, crap, damn, fricking, Heck, heckuva, heckuva, Heckuva, Heckuva, screw, screw, screwed, screwed, screwed, screwed, shit.
These known archives that I've pointed to (in five separate files) include a total of 1005 messages. These archives, in aggregate, span a period of about 57 hours. These messages probably represent a substantial portion of the total messages posted during this controversy, and then subseqently hidden by WaPo. In aggregate, the messages include about 92,000 words. The number of those words that could be remotely construed as profane: 82. At least 98% of these messages contain no profanity whatsoever (and this corresponds strikingly with a profanity rate acknowledged, conveniently enough, by WaPo itself, as I documented here).
I think these archives help to demonstrate that Howell was bombarded with criticism, not with profanity, at least with regard to blog posts. Email is another story, but that's beside the point. I have a feeling that Howell did indeed receive profane emails, and somehow this turned into an excuse to hide many hundreds of distinctly non-profane blog posts.
Howell's new column seems to show that she is utterly ignorant about the difference between an email and a blog post. This is perplexing. It's hard to imagine that she's actually that naive. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that she's deliberately trying to conflate the two categories, in order to get away with something. Trouble is, I can't think of any other possibilities.
Why did WaPo claim they received hundreds of profane blog posts, when there is little or no sign that such a thing happened? Why did WaPo delete 100% of the messages posted (although a small portion have been reinstated), even though 98% of those messages are entirely profanity-free?
WaPo is in a bind. They have promised to reinstate the non-profane messages. Trouble is, 98% of the messages were non-profane, and now ample evidence of that is publicly available. WaPo should now be expected to reinstate almost all the messages they deleted. But then they need to explain why they deleted them to begin with.
By the way, WaPo may try to claim that many other profane messages were posted, but then quickly deleted, and therefore do not appear in these archives. In my diary here I've explained why I think that's very unlikely (that such deletions occurred, in any significant numbers). Aside from that, if one accepts the idea that WaPo was able to quickly and successfully throw overboard the most profane messages, then what's the problem? The result was a body of messages that was 98% profanity-free. Why did they need to abruptly delete all these messages, after they had been sitting on a server for several days without leading to a breakdown of Western civilization?
By the way, WaPo may try to claim that the effort of quickly and successfully throwing overboard the most profane messages was simply an effort they could not maintain. Fine. Then simply close the blog to further posting. An inability to sustain the screening effort does not suggest an excuse for dumping many hundreds of non-profane messages that had already been accepted.
The simple reality behind all this is screamingly clear. WaPo is not threatened by profanity. They are threatened by the truth. All the fuss about profanity is a fucking alibi. Thanks to the subversive magic of internet archives, that alibi is now highly transparent.