Washington Post ombudsman cites arrogance of journalists, 11/2/08

Washington Post, Deborah Howell: "Every day I hear from readers who tell me the reason The Post's print edition is losing readers and advertising is that

• (1) The Post is too liberal,

• (2) The Post has gone downhill with three buyouts in five years or

• (3) The Post is arrogant. Or all of the above.

Those notions are simplistic, but each holds a grain of truth. Let's consider them:

• (1) Neither the hard-core right nor left will ever be satisfied by Post coverage -- and that's as it should be. But it's true that

• The Post, as well as much of the national news media, has written more stories and
• more favorable stories about Barack Obama than John McCain. Editors have their reasons for this,

• but conservatives are right that they often don't see their views reflected enough in the news pages....

• (2) The Post newsroom has suffered from the buyouts, although they have helped the bottom line....

• (3) Arrogance. It is a disease easily caught by journalists, who can overlook its symptoms.

• We believe that we have a collective "nose for news" and the judgment to know best what readers need to know and how to present it.

• We believe in our own wisdom and experience and in the purity that keeps us out of politics and special-interest groups.

• We have our own rules, and we don't change them.

• We seldom ask for input from readers.

• We believe that if it weren't for us, the world couldn't be as well informed and democracy wouldn't operate as it should.

But this sounds self-important to readers.

• That arrogance can come into play in political coverage. While much Post coverage has been straightforward and some of it is excellent, the predominance of horse-race coverage has not satisfied what readers wanted to know about the candidates.

Tactics, strategy and polls are important, but last week readers were still begging

• for coverage of where the candidates stood on the biggest issues.

They asked for such coverage beginning in the primary season.

• They didn't get much information from The Post. Reporters have even complained to me that suggestions for issues coverage
• have been turned aside.

Even for the "Potomac Primary" on Feb. 6 for voters in Maryland, the District and Virginia, readers only got one large graphic box on issues -- on voting day. Too little, too late.

• With The Post spending millions to cover the presidential race, more needed to be done on the candidates' proposals and what independent experts thought of them."...

I appreciate the efforts of the ombudsman in this article. She works for the Washington Post and as such can only say so much. I'm amazed she was as forthcoming as she was. In other words, the paper is in the tank for whomever they want to be, full steam ahead; second, the public has been treated as a joke with appalling lack of coverage. While obvious it's nice to see it written about.

• Although it's too late to correct. (sm)

P.S. Check that. The correction will come when the Washington Post is forced out of business. Arrogance, like other afflictions, has consequences.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon