Posted on 07/17/2010 2:01:26 PM PDT by jonascord
I'm not going to post any of the body of the text, since I don't know if the Wapo likes getting it's nose rubbed in it.
The article is a really, REALLY, weak self-serving excuse of why it has taken a year plus to mention the New Black Pathers voter intimidation case.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, you can’t expect too much from them. It’s not like they’re a REAL newspaper anymore. They used to be great, but......sad what has happened to them.
Alexander, the Post ombudsman, is not an employee of the Post nor is he paid by the Post.
The Washington Post cover a story where the leader of a racist organization is on the record saying that White and white babies need to be killed?
Shirley, you jest.
And what’s funny is that the DUmbasses on the Left consider the State Run Media to lean conservative.
The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide.
I like how this guy casts the story as a "controversy" and says it screams for clarity, as though it's just been a factless melee so far. Here is the MSM's definition of controversy: any story that is first covered outside the mainstream media. It is not a settled story until the MSM has brought its unbiased professional reportage to bear on it.
"Bringing clarity" to this story will really mean something like tamping it down. After all, the Post doesn't like this story, since it threatens their man Holder. If it had been a story that the Post had liked, then its mission wouldn't have been bringing clarity, but rather bringing it to the public's attention, because of its great import and urgency, of course. And this would have meant getting out of the starting blocks early, revealing the facts as they were dug up, likely before all the facts were in.
But here the Post has decided that its role is to bring clarity, which means sitting back and waiting (and hoping the story fizzles on its own) till the last minute to give a balanced wrap-up, putting the story peacefully to bed -- unless of course the Post finds some dirt on the civil rights council or Christian, in which case it will need to Brought To The Public's Attention!.
But he is certainly carrying water for the Post.
If you (the reader of this page) go ahead and read the comments there, you'll see some of these people too.
How does that change anything? I am missing the significance of this
“Alexander, the Post ombudsman, is not an employee of the Post nor is he paid by the Post.”
You mean he is stupid enough to write these obvious lies and not even get paid for it. I want to meet this clown. I’m sure if he is that naive and/or stupid I’ve got some organizations he can make donations to.
It’s the punchline to a joke.
You have that right! They want go down that road again.
The ombudsman - Alexander - in this case has done a pretty good job putting the feet to the fire of the Post about its blatant support for Obama and its liberal bias. He didn't see the point in one case. Is that enough to heap scorn on him? No. Should the Post have covered this earlier, but chose not to? Yes. It's the editors’ fault, not Alexander's, that they didn't cover this.
They might want to but they won't.
“The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.”
“The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology”
These two statements were pretty much deserving of scorn. He accepted the explanation and did not challenge the editor. He did not acknowledge that all the Washington Post coverage decisions are based on ideology.
well,then. lol
This is the second time I have seen this. It was funnier this time and I almost peed my pants the last time!
If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed.
You should have posted this - or not bothered... well, if we're allowed to post from them. It's NOT weak. This public editor is standing up to the "blinders on" set.
The last thing I want to do is get Jim Robinson in trouble. I tried to be circumspect in posting this. I suppose it falls under the heading of an opinion piece, but FR was sued by the Wapo/ LA Times group for allowing complete articles to be posted, and are under edict to permit only “edited” submissions. The posting system even warns you about Washington Post submissions. I chose a cautious approach, with the suggestion that readers go and taste the swill for themselves...
I'm wondering how true that is--to me, "second" looks a bit high. ;)
You’re right in not posting this... sorry about my comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.