Here's a goody for y'all:
Ask the Post
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
Wednesday, May 9, 2007; 11:00 AM (Eastern)
Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell will be online Wednesday, May 9 at 11 a.m. to discuss her weekly column and her role in improving public understanding of the newspaper and journalism.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
HERE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
GO, GO, GO, GO!!!!!!!!!!
Correction: This was Deborah Howell's first chat in WaPo's series known as "Ask the Post." She has participated in other ombudsman chats related to her columns.
Update:
Howell's first online chat provides a few clues for dealing with her and ombudsmen or public editors. So getting past her distinctly pollyannish views, there are some nuggets worth reading.
First of all, the news:
Washington, D.C.: Can you provide your point of view on the recent Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray story that stated there was an agreement by Democrats to concede to the President, even though no such agreement was made. A correction was subsequently made, and Mr. Weisman commented at another Web site that he thought the correction may have been unnecessary and continues to stand by the story.
(snip)
Deborah Howell: I will write about this Sunday.
Stay tuned for Sunday and hone your skills at getting through to Howell.
In response to one commenter who wrote:
RE: Froomkin: It is a journalist's JOB to be skeptical and question those they are covering(trust but verify). He is one of the few reasons I ever read your paper. Please pass this along to the editors as well.
Howell responded:
Will do. Being skeptical is a most important quality in a reporter. Maybe the No. 1.
I take from this that criticism of WaPo coverage using this frame of a reporter's skepticism being absent might make an inroad to Howell's thought patterns.
BECAUSE she also said:
I've never seen or heard anything here that makes me believe The Post is scared of doing tough reporting on the administration.
Obviously, we need to be more specific. (I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but we've either given up on Howell or don't use the right methods.)
BECAUSE she can be hard-headed:
(she's done with this!)
D.C.: Ms. Howell, on 1/15/06 you wrote the following: "So far, Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the Abramoff investigations hasn't put Democrats in the first tier of people being investigated.
"But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over."
My question for you how long we are supposed to stay tuned. It has been sixteen months, and -- apart from a bit player at the Interior Department who turns out to be a Democrat -- all I see is a raft of indictments and guilty pleas of Republicans.
At what point will you issue a retraction for the apparently baseless suggestion that Democrats were part of the Abramoff corruption schemes?
Deborah Howell: A correction to that appeared within a few days.
I'm searching for a way to get through to her because as a lifelong journalist, but never involved with opinion sections, I thoroughly disagree with her take here:
Melville, N.Y.: I was appalled that the Washington Post would publish op-ed pieces from Liz Cheney, the vice president's daughter, that read like Republican-party talking points. And then omitting from the short bio at the article's end her relation to the vice president. What do you think?
Deborah Howell: The Post publishes op-ed pieces from many points of view. The editorial page policy is to identify the writers by their work or what they have published. I don't think it was hiding anything not to say Liz Cheney was the vice-president's daughter.
She's nitpicking to protect the editorial page policy and deserves getting feedback on this. It is germane. Just as Howie Kurtz's appearances on TV are germane to his media coverage.
A further clue to dealing with Howell:
Question:
How many reporters did The Post assign to cover the White House during the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
(snip)
Deborah Howell: I wasn't here during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but I was a daily reader. I don't think more reporters were assigned to that story than are assigned to cover the Bush administration. I have read The Post daily for 17 years, and I think they're tough on all adminstrations.
Howell is not the only ombudsman or public editor to opt out because they weren't on duty, so to speak, during the perceived offense. So, specificity and currency would do us well.
Why do I think Howell is worth the fight?
She is the ombudsman of WaPo. She's timid, looks to the rules and thereby can be persuaded. I once entertained the thought of using my education and years of journalism experience to become an ombudsman because of the educational role it can play. I'm disappointed in Howell because she takes affront and wants to protect the newspaper. It's how you use being affronted -- as an opportunity to learn and then educate others, or stewing in your affrontery.
She does admit she's 66 and may retire when her contract is up. Well, don't blame it all on her age. I'm 68, not timid and very willing to fight for what journalism should be, for a vision. Think Bill Moyers.
The upshot is, don't give up. Howell still needs to hear from us just what's wrong with WaPo news coverage. Disagree with Fred Hiatt in Letters to the Editor, but direct reasoned rational criticism to Howell.