Larry Johnson: Crickets at the Washington Post

[babylonsister]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/26/crickets_at_the_washington_post

The Coffee House
Crickets at the Washington Post

I have tried repeatedly in the last two weeks to get a letter to the editor and a letter to the Ombudsman (perhaps Ombudswoman?) published at the Washington Post in response to their clear policy of advocating on behalf of Scooter Libby.

Here's my most recent letter to Deborah Howell, the incompetent ombudsman:

Dear Ms. Howell:

Instead of turning to someone who actually knows the truth you prefer to bury your head in the sand of ignorance. It is not just my word. You can ask a host of retired CIA officers who can verify that Valerie Plame was covert until her identity was compromised in the Robert Novak article. The willful ignorance of the Post is a disgrace to journalism. The number of people who can vouch for Valerie's identity is significant. Ask Tyler Drumheller, Chief of the European Division of the CIA Directorate of Operations. Ask Robert Grenier. Ask me. Ask Jim Marcinkowski. Ask Mike Grimaldi. Ask Brent Cavan. Ask Gary Berntsen. Ask Mike Gorbel. Instead of talking to CIA officers who know firsthand, you rely on Victoria Toensing, who has ZERO experience as a CIA officer. Hell, ask John McLaughlin. Ask Bill Harlow (oops, I forgot, he already told your reporters she was undercover and asked them not to report it.)

Your ignorance and cowardice on this is breathtaking.
Larry Johnson

What is so troubling about the Post is that it has been unflagging in printing puff pieces about Scooter. Last week, for example, the Post published the work of Byron York and Victoria Toensing. The only "rebuttal" allowed was a 150-word letter from Brent Budowsky. The refusal to fairly and accurately present the other side of this issue is a further sign that the Washington Post has lost its way as a journalistic institution. I am canceling my subscription to the Post. I encourage others to do likewise.

[eleny]

1. K&R

Thanks for posting this!

[peacetalksforall]

2. My fantasy is that Toensing will be a defendent in a case against her

for that article - or that she will called as a witness in a future trial so that she can lie under oath.

[peacetalksforall]

3. Good letter. Kicked Recommended.

[Captain Hilts]

4. It negates the excellent reporting the staff has done on this. Toensing was the last straw. nt

[gratuitous]

5. The Post no longer traffics in facts

The coin of the realm at the Washington Post is now "access." Sweet, elusive* access to be granted at whim by the purveyors of power in the official and unofficial corridors of the Center of the Universe. Mr. Libby is part of the Tribe, went to all the right schools, took all the right jobs, and now it's up to the Post to hold up its end of the bargain and defend Libby tooth and nail.

Deborah Howell, ostensibly the reading public's advocate at the Post, doesn't go for that touchy-feely Truth-Supported-by-Facts bullshit. Who makes money of the Truth? But currying favor, ah! there's gold in them thar shills.

*Or should that more properly be "illusive"?

[babylonsister]

7. Not entirely true, as witnessed by Dana Preist's Walter Reed piece. I

do wonder how long they knocked the idea around of printing it.

[gratuitous]

9. Well, Walter Reed isn't part of the Tribe

So reporting on conditions there isn't seen as a betrayal of any particular person, and here's the way to test this: Who has lost their job because of the exposé of the conditions there?

Compare and contrast to the number of U.S. Attorneys who have suddenly been cashiered, and ask yourself: Why would the administration give George Tenet a Medal of Freedom but fire Carol Tam?

[babylonsister]

10. No, but Dana Priest is part of the Post. That's the only point I was

making. I realize issues get muddied and facts get twisted when the topic has anything to do with the crooked admin.

[R_M]

6. The Post is not a paper friendly to us.

The Post has a conservative past. I was suprised when they endorsed Kerry in 2004.
I expect very little from them in terms of real reporting. I also expect very little from the NY Timesrag.

[Supersedeas]

8. and it is not just the Whorington Post either--the whole GOP/Media establishment

[depakid]

11. The woman's not ignorant, she's deceptive and has no credibility

Nor do rest of the writers and editors at the Post- ESPECIALLY on this issue.

At this point, I'd have to say it would be an embarrassment to admit that you worked for that organization, Dana Priest notwithstanding.

[Diane R]

12. We need Katherine Graham again. Her son isn't up to the job.

[NastyRiffraff]

15. Her son is no longer the publisher

That would be Bo Jones, whose primary interest is in "the bottom line"

Until October of last year, I worked for the Post. I wrote them recently that if I HAD a subscription, I would cancel it.

[EST]

20. Is there any chance, given that your are the proud repository

of vast and half vast insider knowledge, that there is some sort of secret code or action (burning a virgin on the front steps, maybe?,) that we could take to get enough attention and reception to explain what the real reason is that they are failing?

I have watched various press symposia wherein they (reporters, writers, management, cussers and liars) have answered questions from the interested audience.

Invariably, when confronted by such important questions as why do they think the printed press is dying, they retreat into humma-humma answers that, if they contain any facts at all, make it patently obvious that the responder has a concept of his business that is at total odds with reality.

How can we communicate into their muddled understanding that it's highly possible that we know more about it than they do? There are certain standards of journalism that I expect or I won't continue to buy their product. How do I get them to have an open enough mind to notice that we might just possibly have some valuable insights and that they have proven their own notions inadequate to fix the problems?

I realize that the most likely answer is that there is no way to communicate with them and that the only real answer is just to ignore them and let them fade away, victims of their own lack of imagination and echo chamber pig-headedness, but that prospect is such a sorrowful one that I cannot accept it without at least one more effort.

Thank you for your patience.

[NastyRiffraff]

21. EST, although I don't have vast...

or even half-vast insider knowledge, I can tell you that the PTB at the Post (and most likely most major newspapers) think of it as a business. Of course, it is, but it used to be that although people did look at the "bottom line" because it was necessary, they felt they owed their readers good journalism.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

Look, I understand the bottom line. You don't stay in business very long if you pay no attention to that. However, when the only concern is the bottom line, you get downsizing in the newsroom, playing to the entertainment audience, and in general, shoddy journalism.

To answer your question, unfortunately I don't know. Other than keeping the pressure on...writing LTTE every time you see something like today's Richard Cohen column, for instance.

Burning a virgin on the front steps prolly won't work. DC cops would take a dim view of that.

[w4rma]

13. losing? lost. The WP has been a propaganda paper for a while.

They print some great articles to give themselves some credibility. But, on the most important issues they bury them or otherwise obfuscate them.

[Supersedeas]

22. the GOP/Media establishment is well entrenched

[FrenchieCat]

14. the post also owns Newsweek.....

And partners with NBC, CNBC, MSNBC.

But WAPO is a bit above NYT in my book for the time being.

[Joe Bacon]

16. Boycott the WHORESHINGTON POST advertisers!

Hit the Post in the pocketbook and tell anybody that advertises with them that you will NOT spend your dollars with them!

[Virginian]

17. Yeah, support the advertisers in the Washington Times.

:sarcasm:

WaPo has so many advertisers, it would be practically impossible to boycott all of them.

[FrenchieCat]

18. You are better off writing to the Post's board of directors........

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-govHistDirectors

Notice how well they are doing financially.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-irhome

[autorank]

19. You're the man Larry! "Your ignorance and cowardice on this is breathtaking."

I've never had a positive experience with "that woman, Ms. Howell" either but I'm not a primary source expert like you and your peers.

I stopped buying the Post during the Clinton impeachment era due to an objection to pornography on the front page. My cats even objected to it in their litter box, which speaks to their good judgment.

Far be it from me to offer you advice, so this just positive experience: I'm no longer surprised by anything the Post or any other Corporate Media outlet does because I see them as a Division of Perpetual Power, Inc., the corporations with whom the press is allied and by whom they are owned. It's the PR shop for fake capitalism (you know, our current system, "Free enterprise for the poor, socialism for the rich"). I'd love a meritocracy but we've got a bloated, pampered, elite without imagination or ability.

Occasionally, helpful marching orders are given, but this is only a half measure.

The Post should be ashamed that they don't have at least one reporter to get off his or her lazy ass, take a cab and do on interview with you.

Keep giving them the Truth and I hope they think it's Hell.