1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Washington Post Ombud Admits They Blew It

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by zeke12, Dec 9, 2007.

  1. Not on this administration, they haven't been, 'yab.
    They have been the prime freaking enablers. And that pearl-clutching about people who say nasty things about them? Have these bastards ever covered a high-school team? We have tougher people than these foofs on this site every Friday night.

    Here's some more utter horseshit from today's paper.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801502.html?nav=rss_print/asection
     
  2. PHINJ

    PHINJ Active Member

    The Post deserves everything it's getting on this. The paper has been living off reputation for at least 15 years.
     
  3. I'll quit responding to this ridiculousness after this post. But...have you recently read the Washington Post? Excellent sports section - excellent Wizards coverage, excellent Georgetown coverage, excellent Redskins coverage, excellent Capitals coverage; some of the best columnists in the country - a usually-interesting Style section, first-rate coverage of local politics, one of the very best op-ed pages in the country, and super-comprehensive federal politics stuff...all written better than pretty much anything anywhere.

    The Bush Administration hasn't been the shining-est of eras for either the editorial board or the national politics folks - and, Fenian, Robin Givhan writes a lot of goofy things - but the paper as a whole is, I think, indisputably one of the best we've got.

    (I will now quit reading this thread.)
     
  4. jlee

    jlee Well-Known Member

    I've heard of broad strokes, but you're using a mop.

    Any specific reasons for why you feel this way about the Post? Honestly, I'm interested.
     
  5. OK, see you later.
    Writing (and printing) utter horseshit is not mitigated by the fact that the reporter in question specializes in it.
     
  6. Well, excellent Capitals reporter; but those columnists you mention don't write about hockey unless someone nearly gets crippled or the national ratings are published.

    The scary quote from the Howell piece above was by the assistant managing editor for politics: "The Post has a responsibility to confront seemingly credible rumors and that was one of the reasons for the story."

    OK, so confront them -- with research, interviews, analysis. Just don't do it on the front page of the news section when, clearly, the "rumors" weren't credible in the least.
     
  7. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Fenian picked up on it right away - when I saw his original thread, I cringed.

    It was a mistake, and I still don't get why it happened.

    But anybody who reads the Post is educated enough to know it was a mistake. Net effect = zero.
     
  8. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Hate to sound like a letter to the editor, but;
    I've been a loyal reader and everyday subscriber to the Washington Post for 30 years and an avid reader of the New York Times for even longer.

    The Post has an outstanding sports section.

    That's about it.
    Op-Ed is not nearly as eclectic as The Times and is downright monotonous at times. George Will and Bob Novak? About as relevant as Ed Meese and Ollie North. David Broder? Sorry I just don't buy he walks on political water. I don't mind the agenda driving the columns, but he's said everything he needed to say over10 years ago, he brings nothing new or interesting anymore. Cohen and Robinson are the same way, the same whining but nothing new. We all get the point Eugene, you're a liberal and non-left wing liberals are racist and hateful.
    The last must read Op-Ed columnist was Michael Kelly, and he is truly missed for much much more than his columns.


    Style Section? Some excellent writers, Tom Shales (TV) Stephen Hunter(Movies), Howie Kurtz(Media), Reliable Sources, and whom ever writes the occasional reviews of magazines. Ghivan is a wonderful writer, but her specialty isn't an interest of mine.
    They are all outstanding, though Kurtz isn't as great as he used to be. Maybe he's spread too thin or maybe he just doesn't have the hunger anymore.
    When the features are good, they are great, but it's far too few and too much time in between.

    I don't think The Post staffs itself sufficiently to be an outstanding local paper. Washington D.C., as a municipal government gets a good amount of attention, but with all the crap that goes on in the failing schools, increasing levels of violent crime, infiltration of gangs, and the scandals and thievery that seems to go everyday, they are weak. Only Colbert King rings any bells and he only writes once a week. Coverage of Maryland & Virginia State politics and local Maryland & Virgina coverage is spotty, especially given the sizes of the outlying jurisdictions their relative wealth and issues. The city of DC makes up a minority of their readership and is a minority of the areas population, yet they devote the majority of their coverage to that city.


    Internationally and National non political news, the Post probably does it better than almost any paper not called The New York Times, but it's a far cry from what they used to be.
    Their forte is supposed to be politics, but it lacks intellectual depth. It's a very superficial coverage and focus is on process, which is easier to write than substance. They don't staff House and Senate committees like they used to nor do they staff agencies like they used to.

    I'm on the verge on canceling The Post and just reading The Times, getting what local news I want from the web.
     
  9. Can David Broder walk at all?
    I think he's Matlock myself.
     
  10. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Or, confront them and say they're false when they're false. The bullshit concept of balance is ruining newspapers.

    Ruining them.
     
  11. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    So true. While there are 2 sides, at least, to every story. Many times there's the right side and the wrong. It's not biased to call the wrong side, wrong.
     
  12. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Funniest line in the article:

    "Even Tom Toles..."
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page