Well, that is how it is done.
Over the past few days, there has been a groundswell of bloggers and Washington Post readers wondering why Deborah Howell has not attached a correction to her earlier "inartful" column, after writing a column attempting to correct the paragraphs that brought on a blogstorm.
Today, the Editors of the Washington Post posted a new statement on their blog standing by their previous statements. While they do stand by their use of the word "directed", they do decide that now is probably a good time to put that word in a bit more context.
Flip if you wish....
Update [2006-1-26 18:37:47 by justmy2]:Updated title...
Deborah Howell's original column on January 14.
In the fall of 2003, a lobbyist called to tip Schmidt that Abramoff was raking in millions of dollars from Indian tribes to lobby on gambling casinos. Schmidt started checking Federal Election Commission records for Abramoff's campaign contributions. Lobbyists also file forms with Congress that give information on clients and fees.
Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.
...The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.
So far, Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the investigations hasn't put Democrats in the first tier of people being investigated.
But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over.
The Post Editors on January 26, 2006
Abramoff was one of Washington's most prominent Republican lobbyists and his political pedigree and alliances were overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. No Democrats are among the half-dozen lawmakers who The Post's sources say are under scrutiny by the Justice Department. Abramoff convinced a number of casino-rich Indian tribes that had been historically Democratic donors to expand their political giving and to make most of their contributions to the GOP.
Hmmm...well that reads a bit differently....
Let's see....
A) His alliances were "overwhelmingly conservative".
B) Not only were there no Democrats in the "first tier" of the investigation, there are NO Democrats being investigated.
C) He talked his clients into giving money to Republican instead of Democrats.
Game, Set, Match.
Now see, that wasn't hard at all. It may have been a bit painful when you are so used to stenography, but it didn't hurt that much did it. Welcome back to the world of journalism. Maybe the editor's should be the ombudsman's ombudsman.
Of course, they still insist on using the word "directed" and will never back away from that. They are too entrenched. Add to that, important diaries here have begun to clarify exactly how donations wound up in Democrats hands. There is no need at this point to give up the high ground or exaggerate unnecessarily. As long as context is provided, if the term directed is bandied about, I will accept it at face value. The truth shall set you free.
I believe after reading this, that it is clear all of our voices were heard loud and clear. The bar has now been raised. And you all have yourselves to thank for following through and holding the media accountable.
The blogstorm has served its purpose. Stay focused and stick with the facts, and slowly but surely the media will begin to earn the money they are paid, instead of simply taking talking points, from either party, at face value.
Job well done. Now, if we could just get the Ombudsman to add a correction to her column like any other journalist would, we could lay this to rest.
oh..and by the way...
Chris Matthews, come on down. You are the next contestant on Was the RNC Price Right!
Join the Chris Matthews google bomb