From tmorange
Sent Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:27 am
To letters@washpost.com
Cc jimbradyva@aol.com
Subject Blog Rage
Dear Editor,
While I agree that the tone and language of our discourse should be kept civil and that liberals do nothing to advance our cause by adopting the vituperative language more commonly associated with the far right, Jim Brady's piece in this morning's Post ("Blog Rage") seems to overlook the larger context in which these disagreements take place.
Readers' difficulties with Deborah Howell did not just magically arise with her comments on the Abramoff scandal. Instead, they marked the breaking point for many post readers who were fed up with what appeared to be Howell's increasing disregard, even contempt for the real concerns of real readers. (Dafna Linzer's January 4 piece was just one case in point.) The ombudsman is supposed to be the people's advocate and is obligated to take the concerns of readers into genuine consideration, not dismiss them.
Second, you are of course familiar with the extent to which the mainstream media has increasingly abrogated its duty to question facts and assumptions, particularly those spoonfed to it by a notoriously deceitful and manipulative White House such as this one. (Judith Miller's case is hardly unique in this respect.) When distortions and lies get reported as fact, and when those who point this out are met with shoulder shrugs, dismissal, contempt, or silence, frustrations build unvented.
Showing posts with label washington post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label washington post. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Saturday, February 11, 2006
VandeHei misleads
From tmorange
Sent Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:38 pm
To letters@washpost.com
Cc ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject Vandehei misleads
Dear Editor,
Why is it that the Post continues to put misleading characterizations that are favorable to this administration in its end-of-story background paragraphs?
In "Cheney Says NSA Spying Should Be an Election Issue" (February 10), Jim VandeHei's penultimate paragraph reads:
"In recent weeks, Bush has shifted his public focus away from Iraq and trained it on winning public support for the program. Some Democrats argue that Bush is breaking the law by spying on people in the United States without a warrant and without congressional or judicial oversight. Bush contends that the Constitution and the 2001 congressional war resolution give him the authority to take such steps to track down terrorism suspects."
The second sentence in this paragraph is misleading at best, if not factually inaccurate. It's not merely "some democrats" have questioned the legality of this president's domestic surveillance program: leading Republicans such as Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham and Chuck Hagel, along with the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have all questioned this program.
I have written about this practice before and received no reply. One would think that in light of the great controversy that this practice generated then, the Post would be more careful; instead, the practice brazenly and shamelessly continues.
When will the Post be responsible and accountable to its readers?
Sent Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:38 pm
To letters@washpost.com
Cc ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject Vandehei misleads
Dear Editor,
Why is it that the Post continues to put misleading characterizations that are favorable to this administration in its end-of-story background paragraphs?
In "Cheney Says NSA Spying Should Be an Election Issue" (February 10), Jim VandeHei's penultimate paragraph reads:
"In recent weeks, Bush has shifted his public focus away from Iraq and trained it on winning public support for the program. Some Democrats argue that Bush is breaking the law by spying on people in the United States without a warrant and without congressional or judicial oversight. Bush contends that the Constitution and the 2001 congressional war resolution give him the authority to take such steps to track down terrorism suspects."
The second sentence in this paragraph is misleading at best, if not factually inaccurate. It's not merely "some democrats" have questioned the legality of this president's domestic surveillance program: leading Republicans such as Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham and Chuck Hagel, along with the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have all questioned this program.
I have written about this practice before and received no reply. One would think that in light of the great controversy that this practice generated then, the Post would be more careful; instead, the practice brazenly and shamelessly continues.
When will the Post be responsible and accountable to its readers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
