WAPO says nastiness (not dissent) is reason it shut down comments

[ProSense]

Paper Shutters Blog After Ombudsman Post

Thu Jan 19, 7:28 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Washington Post shut down one of its blogs Thursday after the newspaper's ombudsman raised the ire of readers by writing that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to the Democrats as well as to Republicans.

At the center of a congressional bribery investigation, Abramoff gave money to Republicans while he had his clients donate to both parties, though mostly to Republicans.

In her Sunday column, ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties," prompting a wave of nasty reader postings on post.blog.

There were so many personal attacks that the newspaper's staff could not "keep the board clean, there was some pretty filthy stuff," and so the Post shut down comments on the blog, or Web log, said Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com.

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_re_us/post_abramoff

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

1. What Do You Expect Them To Say?

That they shut it down because 95+% of the comments were pointing out the fallacy and stupidity put forth by their new Ombudsidiot?

The reaction was exactly what would be expected. To be intelligent and think they would do otherwise is illogical. Shame on you for thinking with intelligence.

[Burried News]

2. Interesting how this little story has appeared in almost every paper.

May more people go to Skinner's post yesterday and read the thread for themselves. The bloggers had far more talent than the Ombudsman and it was painfully obvious to the Post. Now they want to say they pulled the plug for good reason? No they pulled it because they can't compete - they just don't have the talent.

The MSM isn't embarrassed by their lies but they are enraged by their lack of talent and inability to compete fair and square.

WaPo you just can't cut it any more. We know it. You know it. And it's just a matter of time before everybody knows it.

[bettyellen]

3. link to skinners thread, in case anyone missed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=185787

[spooky3]

4. WaPo to restore some comments--MediaMatters has a good update

"Washingtonpost.com executive editor Jim Brady later said in an online chat that the Post would "go back through them and restore the ones that did not violate our rules.""

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601210001#5

(scroll down until you get to the Howell story)

[tsuki]

10. Is that all the comments that praise Howell? I read the comments,

and if calling for "personal responsibility" to report the truth violates their rules, then they needn't bother. It is much more "honest" of them to cry "foul," and delete the blog.

[spooky3]

5. this Yahoo writeup is slanted--it reports only the WaPo's

side of things.

[twenty4blackbirds]

6. no investigation into claims

Skinner's log was pulled from the WP -- I read absolutely no evidence of the "so many personal attacks" referred to by Jim Brady.

Cover up! :mad:

(granted there was a few...not the same as 'so many' though) (unless they'd like to define what number is 'so many')(one?)

[rurallib]

7. Same reason W don't let common folk into his appearances

they can be stinky and nasty, but never because they might dissent.

[wiley]

8. More Filthy than Lying

and ruining people's lives, misinforminig the public repeatedly and taking no responsibility for one's actions. Besides, I read the blog. It wasn't filthy.

[Lindacooks]

9. Awww, did they get their widdle feelings hurt?

Poor babies. And I do mean babies.