Wash Post ombudsman on Milbank's lie, and my email to her

[Enrique]

Her column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR2008080802933.html

An anonymous secondhand quotation from Sen. Barack Obama at a closed House Democratic caucus meeting on July 29 caused an uproar among partisans; it is an excellent example of how the pernicious use of unnamed sources, so pervasive in Washington, can backfire on journalists and sources.

(...)

Readers and partisans -- about 160, of which the best was some guy named Enrique -- said the quote was taken out of context or misinterpreted. Their anger was mainly focused on Milbank, who used the quote as part of a sharply written critique of Obama as his party's "presumptuous nominee."

(...)

Several lessons can be learned here. For reporters: Anonymous quotes should be used sparingly; this one wasn't worth it. If you weren't there, be careful about judging the context. Treat readers well; we need them.

Lessons for sources: Stand up and be named. Be sure reporters understand the context if they weren't there. Lesson for Milbank's editors: Label his column commentary. Lesson for the Obama campaign: Let the press in when your candidate speaks to a large gathering of elected officials.



My response:

Dear Ms. Howell,

I appreciate your addressing the Milbank column today. After reading your piece, I found myself thinking I might have been wrong about Milbank's column, but also feeling quite confused about the whole thing. But then I went back and read it more carefully and realized I was confused because both yourself in your piece and Milbank in his online chat constructed red herrings. Effective ones, I think.

First your own: you frame the issue as being about the use of anonymous sources. In fact, that is not the issue. If the source had been named, the issue would have been the same. Weisman included the clause "came not just for him" in his paraphrase of Obama. Milbank left it out. That's all the difference in the world, and whether the source was anonymous or not doesn't matter in the least.

Now to Milbank's online chat, he says that the misquote issue only arose after some folks "pushed back," but that is not the case at all. Weisman's original column includes the key clause "came not just for him" but Milbank left it out. That would have been an issue whether or not anyone complained about it.

Now in addition to the red herrings, there are some omissions in your piece. You fail to address the fact that Milbank's misquote exactly fit into an established "narrative" about Obama written by the McCain campaign, starting with Karl Rove's calling Obama a snooty country club guy. This is an important omission because McCain-friendly pundits are really making Milbank's column a big part of this campaign. It's becoming the "Gore is a liar" of 2008. (By the way, what role did your newspaper play in that "Gore is a liar" nonsense? Was Milbank part of it?)

You also fail to evaluate Milbank's claim that the democrats are somehow whitewashing what Obama said. In addition to the fact that Weisman's original post includes the phrase "came not just for him," I recall Obama many times making statements that exactly match what the democrats said when they "pushed back", that is, Obama was being self-effacing. I'm completely confident that Obama was being self-effacing that night, despite the interpretations of the source, Weisman, Milbank and Rove.

The final point might be out of your area to comment, but there is the question of why these people interpreted a comment that was in all likelihood self-effacing as "arrogant". A possibility is that they are seeing him as "uppity," if you catch my drift. Or else cynically smearing him as uppity. These are strong accusations I know, but from what I have seen I think that's the way it is.

Sincerely,

Enrique

[bigtree]

1. big fat rec

thanks

[Kahuna]

2. Good work. I'll answer for Howell about Milbank and Gore. The answer is,

yes. Milbank was one of the gangleaders in smearing Gore as "unlikeable" and "too smart and wonkish." Milbank is a tool. Always has been . I'll be glad when people realize that and stop treating him as if he is neutral. He is not. He just pretends to be.

[mwb970]

3. I used to like seeing Milbank on Countdown.

Now I'm glad KO KOed him.

[WhiteTara]

14. he's a slimy subtle POS

and I always cringed when KO brought him on.

[gaiilonfong]

9. Dana LogCabin RetHUGlican Milbank has been smearing Dems for years

He was one of the MAIN disgusting Gore haters........probably was attracted to Al and Dana being a self-hating LogCabinite went after him daily....he also amplified the "I invented the internets smear"

Milbank attended logCabin reTHUGlican meeting in St Paul before moving to DC!

[ColbertWatcher]

17. Log Cabin? More like...

...Log Closet Republicans.

[annabanana]

4. Excellent analysis.

I will be surprised if there is a response.

[Enrique]

6. well, she bent over backwards to miss the point here

so apparently she is intent on not really addressing the issue.

No doubt that she'll be hearing from a ton of people though. 160 people contacted her about it and I can't imagine any of them being satisfied with her answer. Confused maybe, but not satisfied.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Bravo...But Little Debbie Isn't Paid To Correct...

She's paid to "keep the peace"...paper over when another one of their stenographers stinks up the joint...she brings the shovels and scoops it under the rug...ya see it's gone, but it sure smells!

Her "report" on Milbanks showed how little respect she has for the paper's readers...but she did this in the past during the Plame coverage. She's more concerned with covering Milbank's ass...and keeping peace around the office than any concern for accuracy or journalistic honesty or standards. Ya see, your letter will get filed (sadly I expect circularly...but I'd love to know if you get a response from her), while she has to live with Milbanks...she can ignore you, but not him.

I'll be interested to see if Keith Olbermann follows up on this...I noticed Little Debbie failed to mention that this article was the reason he was kicked off MSNBC. But then Milbanks thinks he's too cool for the room and the rest of us...and Little Debbie agrees.

[gaiilonfong]

10. Lil'Debbie is jes another putrid reTHUGlican operative

but your analysis is right on the mark about what she has done in the past and will continue to do!

[deminks]

7. K&R&Bookmarked

:kick:

[Judi Lynn]

8. Really good message to her. She'd be doing herself a favor in taking it seriously. K & R.

http://www.bachehasalam.com.nyud.net:8090/images/donkey_kicking_bucking_sx.gif

[RedShoes]

11. Isn't that SHE really a HE? on the serious. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

27. The e-mail recipient (the ombudsman) is a SHE.

WTF is "on the serious"? I think I have a new expression to "hate on."

[POAS]

12. A big K&R

[me b zola]

13. K&R

[EFerrari]

15. Good job, Enrique!

[bluedeminredstate]

16. Wow, great letter!

"Some guy Enrique", you wrote an terrific response! Great job!

:)

[Hekate]

18. Well done, well written! Kick for excellence, "Some Guy Enrique"

:hi:

Hekate

[pleah]

19. K&R

:thumbsup:

[autorank]

20. Bless you. Milbank is a one nasty little hit man. Check this out.

From: The People, the Press, and Impeachment

Press Coverage - General Indifference and Tepid Denial by the Dwindling Elite

The mainstream media continued to lag far behind everyday citizens by ignoring the big issues while ridiculing those who take the lead in addressing vital concerns.

Class Clown Dana Milbank of the Washington Post

Dana Milbank successfully defended his title as class clown of the Washington press corps in a column that was so divorced from reality one wonders if he even attended or watched the hearings. He began with this:

"It seems that we are hosting an anger management class," Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas told his colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee yesterday morning.

"He had a point." Washington Post, July 26, 2008

He continued by endorsing Republican committee member wise cracks and disparaging Chairman John Conyers'(D-OH) handling of the event.

Milbank wrote a 2005 hit piece on Conyers in which he mocked the hearings held by the Michigan Democrat on the Downing Street Memo. Labeled "Secret and Personal - for UK Eyes," the July, 2002 secret report by a British foreign policy aid described meetings with Bush-Cheney representatives which included plans for war based on political not security reasons.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin.

Matthew Rycroft, July 23, 2002, reported in the London TimesOnline, May 1, 2005

Milbank failed to note the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries suffered by U.S. soldiers. He missed the 1.0 million plus dead Iraqi civilians resulting from the civil strife caused by the invasion. And one wonders if he even knew about the 5.0 million Iraqi children orphaned by the war.

These highly relevant facts were an inconvenience to Milbank who brushed them aside for his humorous approach to the national tragedy enabled by gross violations of the Constitution and a total lack of common decency. The facts are also more than inconvenient for the paper that supports his tasteless humor, the Washington Post, which has so faithfully supported the aggressive and violent foreign policy.

Maybe Milbank and his editor should read their own poll on the public assessment of their man: "Nearly 6 in 10 -- 58 percent -- said they have doubts about Bush's honesty, the first time in his presidency that more than half the country has questioned his personal integrity." Washington Post, Nov. 4, 2004

[SleeplessinSoCal]

24. But he's so funny. Humor trumps facts nearly every time - apparently.

[autorank]

28. He lays an egg by being wrong on the facts. I don't think many people read him.

Actually, he did make me laugh once. When talking to Olberman, KO asked what he knew about Jeff Gannon and why the WH press corp didn't spot him. Milbank looked like he'd been given a double dose of castor oil and just grimaced. Now that was funny;)

[Stardust]

30. I can remember Dana dismissing the DSM and the hearings. Unfortunately,

he was right about the issue not being considered very important to those who could or would act on it, but I've never trusted him since. It was a mystery how KO kept having him on. I mean, couldn't Keith see Dana's agenda?

[vanlassie]

21. Readers and partisans ???

So you can either be a "reader" or a "partisan"? WTF does that mean? If you don't agree in lockstep with their writers, you are a "partisan?"

And what lack of respect to call Enrique "some guy."

"One of our loyal readers"....."a reader"......"a gentleman"....but "some guy?" Are you kidding me?

Sheesh. This so called ombudsman is sure showing her bias....

[otohara]

22. But There Is A Tape

Wasn't there?


This is typical media spin, blame the source, protect your columnist and screw the readers, we ain't apologizing for nothing.

[Major Hogwash]

23. Hold their feet to the fire!

Maybe once they notice that we aren't going to just swallow every bullshit thing they print, they can return to use a little sumpthin we call "journalistic integrity"!!!!!!

[arthritisR_US]

25. excellent, well done! nt

[McCamy Taylor]

26. Dana Milbank LIED that Bush did not lobby for an Enron bailout BEFORE its collapse.

Recall that almost immediately after 9/11, House Republicans put together an "economic stimulus package" that would have given enormous infusions of cash to companies like Enron---even though no Republicans or WH officials were supposed to know that Enron was bankrupt. This was at a time when Enron employees could not sell their stock but execs were dumping theirs. The WH sent cabinet members to lobby the Senate trying to get it to pass the same legislation, but it stalled then finally killed it---and the very next day Enron went bankrupt, proving that the Republican House and White House engineered bailout was Enron's last hope.

A few month's later, when the White House was being investigated to see what it knew when about Enron, Dana Milibank wrote a piece for the WaPo in which he said that the WH had never argued for the passage of the HOuse bill that would have given funds to Enron. THis was a bold faced lie. There was documentation of the speech given by a member of the WH to Congress about that bill on the internet--- it was removed about the same time. I wrote the WaPo ombudsman. Nothing was ever said about it. So, the WaPo has been covering for Milbank who has been a Bush poodle almost from the beginning.

[Joe Bacon]

29. Why waste any time with the Whoreshington Post?

It's nothing but Pravda on the Potomac. Nothing but endless GOP propaganda. :puke:

[PCIntern]

31. Am I losing my marbles, or did the Post edit out the reference to Enrique?

My ADD/PTSD may be acting up, but I don't see the quote in the column when I clicked on the link.

[Enrique]

33. sorry, that was just a joke

she didn't really single me out, lol. I wasn't trying to fool anyone. Sorry! :spank:

[The Wizard]

32. I wonder how the WAPO's

circulation is doing since their editorial board decided to propagandize for the GOP.
Dana Milbank is a stooge for the Bush cartel, and it's the only reason he's employed by the WAPO.
Good for KO for showing Dana's partisan slant.