Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell defends discrepancies between a Post editorial (”A Good Leak”) and the paper’s own reporting as a difference in “views.” Media Matters demonstrates “the editorial did not merely advocate a position; it did so with numerous false statements.”
Does Howell know she’s the ombudsman for the readers, not an apologist for the paper?
April 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmom·buds·man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mbdzmn, -bdz-, -bdz-) n.
A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pm#1 – No.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pmShe also doesn’t know she’s an idiot.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:33 pmOuch!
April 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pmWhere’s the link to the Wash Po article by Howell?
April 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pmWhere’s the link to the Wash Po article by Howell?
here
April 17th, 2006 at 2:48 pmthe stupid fool doesn’t understand that even though it is a editorial and that that is a Opinion commentary, tyhe opinion is supposed to be based on facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 17th, 2006 at 8:00 pmBut I guess that wapo no longer needs to be a factually based source!
billjpa