Maryland's Legislature has just performed a COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS ACT, in attempting to increase the amount Wal-Mart spends on health care. They simply don't have the authority to do what they purport to have done. ALL State Legislatures have been completely pre-empted from injecting themselves into private sector health plans since 1974, when Congress passed ERISA. The most recent authority for what I am saying is AETNA vs. DAVILA, 542 U.S. 200, (2004). In DAVILA, a unanimous Court held that a Texas statute was pre-empted by ERISA. The Maryland statute is without any effect!!!

The fact that ERISA pre-empts any attempts by any state legislatures to directly mess with a private sector ERISA plan is not in any way a close call. A recent published Opinion by the Ninth Circuit brushes aside the arguments made against an ERISA health Plan. Cleghorn vs Blue Shield 408 F3d 1222 (9th Circuit, May 23, 2005)(Relying on ERISA and Aetna vs. Davila). The only way for Maryland legislators to effect change in in the Walmart ERISA Plan is to lobby the U.S. Congress, and convince George W to sign the bill. Good luck with that effort!!

What exactly are the qualifications for the job of public editor because I think I'd do great. I do whatever I am told by anyone in authority, regardless of the facts or reality. Oh, and I can tie my own shoes.

Seriously, Deborah Howell needs to quit and just work for her republican paymasters instead of trying to pass herself off as a journalist. Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff? Where would the proof of that be exactly Deborah? Democrats took money from Indian tribes, which last I checked is hardly illegal.

What is illegal is bilking the tribes of millions of dollars and then funneling it to all branches of the GOP noise machine. Hench the Abramoff indictments which will soon lead to more Republican congressman being indicted. How many FBI personnel are focusing on Democrats taking money from Abramoff?

If Ms. Howell needs work, I hear AccounTemps has some secretary and janitorial openings, positions much more suited to her skill level.

I too would like chapter and verse on Abramoff supposedly giving money to the Democrats. Where would you find that primary source? Quoting others who are mistaken doesn't count. Where is the source???

Could Ms. Howell please provide some evidence for her assertion that any Democrats have taken Abramoff money? Reid and Dorgan? Didn't the money they got come from the Indian tribes? Are the Indian tribes now considered agents of Abramoff? Does Ms. Howell have evidence that either Reid or Dorgan has committed a crime?

One last question. Whose cousin is Ms. Howell that she managed to get hired by the Post?

First, way to go Maryland Democrats! It's about time someone had the nerve to stand up to that un-American corporate turd Walmart. It is utterly reprehensible to not provide adequate health care to their employees, and completely unacceptable for them to dump the problem (and the cost), on to the state of Maryland.

Second, why on earth is the Washington Post allowing its ombudsman Deborah Howell to get away with allowing these GOP lies to masquerade as "news"? Does it not occur to an editor to actually check the facts in these outrageous stories? I have seen the FEC list of donations made by Jack Abramoff, and there is NOT ONE DONATION ON THERE MADE TO A DEMOCRAT. NOT ONE!

I expect this kind of nonsense from Fox News, aka GOP TV...but I really thought the WaPo was better than that!

Yeah, Deborah, find the list of campaign money to Congresscritters by Abramoff and post it! He only gave campaign money to Republicans, including GWB. Indian tribes can give money to any congresscritter they wish just as you could. The Tribes who gave money to Abramoff got ripped off. Do try to get some of the story right. This is a Republican scandal, my dear, whether you like it or not.

Deborah Howell wrote in her article "Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff" that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." This is false. In fact, Abramoff did not make any contributions to Democrats.

Worse, Howell fails to understand the context of the Abramoff scandal. Abramoff is a Republican lobbyist, pursuing Republican political interests. He is at the heart of the "K Street Project," a Republican initiative to integrate lobbyists into the political power structure. Thus, the Abramoff scandal is a distinctively Republican scandal.

Covering the Abramoff scandal as if it were a bi-partisan affair does your readers a disservice because the facts belie such an angle. It is bad journalism to search for false equivalency.

Please issue a correction.

Why does the Post persist in claiming that Abramoff gave money to Democrats? Name one.

The Republican Party is trying to share the guilt by claiming, among other specious concepts, that Democrat Brad Carson is somehow tainted by taking money from the Cherokee Nation. Guys, he IS a Cherokee. Anything wrong with that?

"Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

Sadly, No! Checking facts must take too much time. :(

According to the Federal Election Commission, Abramoff has given money only to Republicans. Is the Washington Post implying that Abramaff has lied to the FEC? Has given money under the table to Democrats? Isn't that a bit story? Shouldn't it be on Page 1?

2nd, according to the Washington Post, Abramoff has been a close friend of Grover Norquist and Tom DeLay for 20 years, and has been a key figure in Republican Party financing for most of that time. If such a person shovels 95% of his money to Republicans, is it really right to say he has given (or bribed) "both sides"?

Cranky

Is Deborah Howell on the take? Has she gotten a sweetheart mortgage on her house? She seems to uncritically publish GOP talking points without ever considering that she might be repeating lies.

Abromoff is a GOP bagman. He has never personally given a dime to a Democrat, yet she has repeatedly parroted the GOP line that he is a lobbyist that works with both Democrats and Republicans. His Indian clients have given Democrats money, but that was true long before Abromoff began representing Indian gaming interests. Brad Carson has gotten money from the Cherokee Nation because he is a CHEROKEE. There is nothing nefarious in the 26K he received. Why would she possibly point to this as an example of dirty money unless she is GOP parrot? Abromoff is under indictment for screwing the Indian Tribes. She is pushing a story that is counter to the facts. Is it obvious to everyone except for her?

I need a paper I can trust. I need a paper that investigates and reports the truth. Blindly repeating information you are fed by political operatives doesn't cut it. Deborah Howell seems like she is on the take or just incredibly gullible.

The Maryland law doesn't do a thing to WalMart's health plan; it simply says that those corporations that spend less than x on health care will be taxed.

Deborah Howell wrote in her article "Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff" that he "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

This is not true.

Please post a retraction for her error.

Taking money from Indian tribes is not the same as taking "Abramof money".

Please cite what "Abramof money" went to a Democratic candidate or stop saying it.

My 5th graders need to cite references for assertions but not a major metropolitan newspaper?

Tell us which Democratic candidate precisely has received "Abramof money". No need to vague it up.

Chuck

Not only should Deborah Howell issue a correction, but she also needs to explain why she brought this disinformation to print.

Was she given this information by someone outside the Post? Did she research this herself?

Most anyone who's seriously following this story knows that Abramoff didn't money to any Democrat. How could she or the Post's editors not know this?

The next time you guys have a meeting about the decline in readership, refer to this whole business, I have a feeling it may be related to that somehow.

Tell Ms. Howell that it's comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Glad I could correct that for you.

If Deborah Howell made a campaign contribution to a candidate for public office, and that candidate used that money for an illegal purpose, could criminal liability be imputed to Ms. Howell as well?

Of course not. Yet that is the twisted logic that Ms. Howell has employed for finding that Democrats are tied to the Ambramoff scandal because the Indian tribes that Ambramoff gave money to ultimately exercised their to discretion to make campaign contributions to Democrats.

Come on, Ms. Howell. Is your inability to understand that simple logic the result of a lack of intellgience or a deficit in integrity?

Willful blindness is no excuse.

Dear Ann

Congratulations on the new blog. If you want it to have any credibility though, I think you should consider a bit of triage w/r/t your public editor.

Deborah Howell's "reporting" is an outrage and a reflection of what is going so wrongly in this country right now. Journalism is NOT op-ed column writing--inserting or omitting information that is blatantly false is unacceptable. The Post allowing it to happen when there is an obvious plitical bent by the journalist is a disgrace to the fine reputation of your paper.

PLEASE STOP THIS!!

Howell state that reporter Schmidt look at federal elections commisiion records and found that Abramoff gave substantial cotibutions to both parties. now Howard Dean said he had the same records checked and not a single democrat recieved a campaign contribution from Abramoff.
Which is it ...I tend to believe Dean, but I also can't believe your fact checking of reporters and editorial supervision would made that bad of an error.
That 3 years later your ombibusman would reaffirm your report seach of fec records and not state that Dean was lying?
what going on???

Dear Deb' I'm on your side in this fight about "Abramof money", us republicans don't need facts,we know that facts are just pesky little things, eh.

It seems I'm late to the party.

Is there evidence that Mr. Abramoff has given campaign donations--directly or indirectly--to Democratic lawmakers?

Personally, I have no idea.

Of this, however, I am certain. The Washington Post has not published evidence to that effect. For Ms. Howell to now insist that it is true is without foundation.

Please be so good as to correct this mis-statement.

Thank you.

I find it amazing that the WaPo allows such irresponsible reporting to take place under its name. And being done by the "Public Editor", no less. Could you please dust off the job description that Ms. Howell is supposed to be following?

I would like nothing else than for her to be re-assigned. Our confidence in her ability to pursue the facts and defend the public's interest is gone. A simple correction would do nothing for the future.

Who is responsible for checking on her work? The blogs?

> Howell state that reporter Schmidt look at
> federal elections commisiion records and
> found that Abramoff gave substantial
> cotibutions to both parties.

Americanblog downloaded the full records on Abramoff contributions from the FEC web site. All (R)s. Zero (D)s.

Which is what one would expect of the person who has been buddies with Grover Norquist since college. Of course, that info is based on a WaPo story so may be suspect ;-)

Cranky Observer

If Deborah Howell had any brains, the story about Abramoff would have been factually correct.

If Deborah Howell had any bravery, she'd correct herself in public instead of making still more excuses.

How about it, Deborah? Will you admit the error in your story?

As a Canadian anagrammatist would note, it's no coincidence that the ombudsman's name is 'labored howl, eh?'

Darn the lack of preview. That is Americablog.

Cranky Observer

I know this isn't the subject of this forum, and I know others here have already asked the same question, but I'd like to add myself to the chorus of people who are confused by Howell's contention that Abramoff gave money to Democrats. I haven't seen any evidence of this. Could Howell be confusing receiving the money from Abramoff with receiving money from Abramoff's victims? I find that hard to believe, but that is the only rational conclusion to draw from what she has written.

Surely the Washington Post is capable of doing more than regurgitating competing talking points and doing actual reporting. If Deborah Howell is incapable of judging the factual merit of charges made against Democrats on the Abramoff affair, one imagines there are more qualified journalists out there who could take her place. The fact that she uncritically presents RNC talking points in her position of the ombudsman undermines the very journalistic credibility that that position is designed to foster.

Fire Deborah Howell for once again repeating GOP lies as truth. The woman has no shame!

Take a cue from Barney Calame at the NYT for a clue on how an ombudsman is supposed to behave.

An ombudsman represents the readers, not the agenda of any administration, think tank, or other.

This is why I don't buy the Post anymore.

Instead of telling us that the Democrats were on the Abramoff payroll why don't you show us, Ms. Howell?

It is well documented that Abramoff gave money to Republicans exclusively (all you have to do is a little bit of research).

And please don't tell me you subscribe to the reasoning that the Native American tribe donations are "by definition" donations from Abramoff -- because that's just stupid.

The actual facts WRT Ms. Howell's
"error" have been available for some
time and discussed widely.
That she would not know is simply
not credible.
This person should be fired for
incompetence, but I am sure she
can find a home in the Bush administration
where incompetence and loyalty to Bush
are the defining characteristics.

Re: Howell's Deceit

Does Ms Howell take calls from anyone other than Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove?

Just wondering.

Here's an idea, since she is supposedly the "Public Editor", I think WaPo should maintain a public record of every telephone call, fax, email, (lunch with Ken), ... that Ms. Howell receives, participates.

Get the picture?

You folk have a serious credibility problem anyway and Ms. Howell is moving you toward zero, rapidly.

Peace,
UL

Dave asks:

"What exactly are the qualifications for the job of public editor because I think I'd do great."

I'm sorry Dave, but I've been informed by highly placed sources within the WaPo that Judy Miller has Ms. Howell's job sewed up.

Sorry about that.

Deborah Howell: Do you know the meaning of the words "fact check"?

In light of the facts recently exposed that the Bush administration has paid illegal "pundit payola" to numerous purported jopurnalists, it is incumbent upon all members of the public media to investigate and root out said corruption.

The absence of an investiagtion should be considered complicity in the devious plot to undermine democracy by subverting independance of the Fourth Estate.

Continued patently dishonest writings such as Ms. Howell's recent lie that: "Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." are clear signs that this corrupt campaign to influence members of the press to push and advocate for a particlar party and leader are still under way.

This corruption must end. Ms. Howell must be investigated to assure the readers that she is not on "the dole" of the administration, the Republican Committe or personally beholden to the likes of Karl Rove.

Until proof of corruption free journalism is presented, I as will many other descerning Americans will resort to alternative and less corrupt sources for truth and ideas.

-Greg Boggis

Canadian anagrammatist.What about:

who bored a hell

The reputation of the WP continues to be sullied by its editors. Its reporters seem too devoted to their own self promotion to actually risk real journalism. Is access to liars so important that you dare not refute their lies? What is the worth of printing obvious and proven falsehoods and pretending they are the truth?

Deborah Howelle and Bob Woodward have both proven their willingness to put themselves, and the needs of the party they support, ahead of journalism. Countless WP editorials and articles have dedicated themselves to promoting absolute lies in favor of a corrupt administration.

When does it end, Ann? What does it take for the WP to reform itself?

"Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts..."

...and a retraction, where appropriate.

I am dismayed and discouraged that your Deborah Howell prints such blatant factual errors, illuminated by so little insight into the structure of the Republican Money scandal of which Abramoff was but a part.
What can we do when we turn to the Post for information, and get reporting worthy of the grocery store pennysaver? Sad.

It would be nice if your ombudsperson checked her facts before regurgitating RNC talking points. Ambramoff give nothing to Democrats. Your newspaper owes its readers a correction, and a more trustworthy Public Editor than Ms Howell.

I'm standing in line with the rest of these outraged folks who are sad and dissapointed by the public editors piece. I hope to see a retraction, or at least an explantion of what is obviously factually incorrect. Otherwise you are no different then the Weekly World news.. actually, i take that back they are entertaining.

I am dismayed and discouraged that your Deborah Howell prints such blatant factual errors, illuminated by so little insight into the structure of the Republican Money scandal of which Abramoff was but a part.
What can we do when we turn to the Post for information, and get reporting worthy of the grocery store pennysaver? Sad.

Please name ONE democrat that received money from Jack. Not money from other entities. Money from Abramoff. Just one name please.

I teach freshman composition at a humble, small-town community college, where I require that my students provide evidence to back up their assertions. After getting that first paper back, they know better than to make a statement of fact without presenting at least one legitimate source for it and preferably two or three.

Apparently that is too high a standard for the Washington Post, if Howell's antics are any indication.

There was a time when the Post was a truly world-class newspaper. Now it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for White House talking points.

If you ever find yourself wondering why people in this country have grown to hate the media so much, well, here's your answer.

A Post subscriber or buyer, no matter what their political leanings, should expect factual accuracy in any story or column printed in the paper. Articles should be fact checked before publication. Any factual errors that make it into print should be addressed by publishing corrections and/or apologies. This is not an ethical gray area, but rather the least a reader should expect from any professional news publication.

By tolerating and, indeed, parroting the factually inaccurate assertion made by several Post reporters that prominent Democratic lawmakers have received money from indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Post "Public Editor" Deborah Howell betrays both an indifference to journalistic ethics and a disdain for the Post's readership.

Ms. Howell's continued employment by the Post stains its hard won reputaion as a reliable news source.

I thought the Post was in the business of printing the news ... with regards to today's column by Deborah Howell filled with GOP lies, I guess I was wrong.

FACTS!
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing!

Everyone needs a catchy theme song, but perhaps Ms. Howell should pick a different one. And perhaps the WaPo needs a different public editor.

In light of her inability to fact check, perhaps Ms Howell should go back to the University of Texas and get another BJ.

Just when I felt there was a national newspaper that could be trusted, Deborah Howell proves the wapo can't be. Pathetic. I work for an Indian tribe. Indian tribes are free campaign contributions to give to anyone they want. If you dont like it, take it up with the FEC. What should be in question, is who did ABRAMOFF give to? And why? Get your facts straight, Ms. Howell. Quit appearing as if you are shilling for the White House. Haven't we had enough of that in this country since 2001? Thanks.

washington post, please get OUT OF USA.

I grew up in the Washington, D.C. area loving the Post, and went into journalism because of its example. It is sad and very disappointing to see the Post public editor consistently advance the argument that the Post's job is to report talking points, not to determine the truth of a situation.

WaPo, what were you thinking when you decided to hire someone who is so willing to amplify GOP talking points? Deborah Howell is no ombudsmen, Byron Calame is an ombudsmen. Please make a correction on her comments that the Democrats received money from Jack Abramoff (no evidence) and fire your ombuds(wo)man.

Can someone rein in Deborah Howell? No Democrat got campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff. He was a Republican for heaven's sake. Indian tribes were bilked by Abramoff. They are the victims of the Abramoff scandal. Getting contributions from Indian tribes is not the same as getting money from Jack Abramoff. Will the Washington Post wake up and tell the real story? I'm really disgusted with the guality of your political reporting.

Remember how Judy Miller got all her scoops? I.E., lunch with Bush administration officials (cough, Scooter Libby).

Q: Who is Ms. Howell dining with these days?

Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties. - Washington Post ombudsman, 1/15/06


WRONG!!! Abramoff made NO DONATIONS TO DEMOCRATS!!!!

Pretty Sad when the ombudsman is always wrong.

The Post is losing integrity under her...

Just unbelievable !!!
First John Harris' attack on Dan Froomkin (which already involved the Ms. Howell), and now this !
To the Washington Post editors,
I used to subscribe to the NYT, but stopped even reading them online until I discovered the WaPo 4 years ago. Why did I switch ? Because, you had retained a shred a credibility, tiny but bright. But your continued hobbled reporting and editorial standards look more and more like a charade, and less and less like a hard hitting journalism. Your newspaper simply CANNOT AFFORD the mediocre or the hacks at critical positions. Fire John Harris! Fire Deborah Howell!

You might save your paper yet.

Ms. Howell, the truth does NOT have two sides to it. When the repubs whine to you that their side of the story is not being presented, laugh at 'em and hang up if they have no facts on their side.
It is absolutely despicable that an editor who is supposed to represent the public would allow herself to be "played" like this by repubs trying to bend facts.
If you, as a reporter, can't be bothered to research the facts - then you should either resign or be fired.
And I haven't even gone into how you have probably libeled the Indian tribes.

What is the point of having an ombudsman if that person is unwilling or incapable of independently verifying the facts.

No Democrats has recieved a dime from Mr. Abramoff. A quick search of the FEC records show that all of Mr. Abramoff's recipients were Republicans, yet Ms. Howell conveniently left that information out of her article.

Is this what being a quality ombudsman means? I would hope not.

Of course, I have every expectation that Ms. Howell will return to her column next time with stories of how the Democrats received money from Native America gaming interests and that proves the Democrats are knee-deep in the scandal. Actually, it doesn't. Campaign donations from Native American gaming interests are perfectly legal and no one is claiming otherwise, except the spin machine of the G.O.P.

Abramoff does not own Native American gaming interests, nor does he own the casinos in question. Unless Ms. Howell has evidence to the contrary, no Democrats are involved with this scandal. If Ms. Howell does have the evidence, she has an obligation to WaPo readers to publish it in the newspaper and also here online.

Otherwise, she is a pathetic Public Editor and should be replaced.

"Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and *** NOTHING *** to Democrats, federal records show."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arVHles5cKJc&refer=us

I am at a loss after reading Howell's column (link at end) Is there any chance that WaPo has some previously undisclosed drinking game, where everyone takes a shot of Jack Daniels everytime they type Abramoff's name? I'd like to believe this, as opposed to some of the other reasons that might exist for the *fuzzy* logic that is evident in the column and some of the recent articles.

1. If you report people are close friends, then a bit later report that they are not close friends but mere political allies, you need to a) HIGHLIGHT IN A
BIG WAY that you have changed the facts you are reproting and give
the reasons for that revision (yes, Tom and Jack have both publically mentioned they are close friends and we have reported that, but based up x________,
Y________ & Z______________ we now believe that to be incorrect and based upon a____________, b__________ &
c______________ we believe that they were only tied together politically (economically, via K Street,
through relationships with Reed and Norquist or in other, non-friendly ways.)

2. At what point did the Washington Post determine that their editorial policy should be -- if we manage to scrounge *some* complaints from *both sides* we are
doing our job? Did you ever consider replacing that theme with, "if we manage to report substantive, relevant, facts about important issues and only use
credible sources for factual support - we've done our job?" Facts tend to make somepeople happier than others. Readership is not declining because people don't love to read and love papers - they are still almost a ritual for many. Readership declines because you don't provide
the service you should. I can very easily turn on the tv and listen to people interested in making "both sides" unhappy and collecting ratings points by stimulating contention without exposition. If I can't get more than that from you, why bother? Since when do you have to get the talking head 30 second soundbytes incorporated into what should be a fact based story? You are not a needed workproduct and that is directly tied your efforts to seek equalization of
dissent and weigh all dissent equally. A losing business, moral and ethical credo.

3. The Abramoff story is not about to whom Indian tribes contributed money. It is about Abramoff directing payments or setting up funded opportunities that were directly tied to obtaining specific results. Saying that "Abramoff gave to both parties" is flat wrong. Personally, he did not and his emails reference Republicans, unless, I guess, you would like to claim some other status for Norquist. THere is nothing so far to indicate that all Indian tribe contributions to Democrats, or, for that matter, to a large number of Republicans, were "directed" by Abramoff in exchange for specific responses. There is nothing so far to indicate that Abramoff arranged for outside hiring of any staffer or Admin. members who were not Republicans (and,certainly, there have been quite a few Republican staffers and ex-Admin officials who did not get the private source jobs through Abramoff). Dig deep and tell me if you can imagine a more irresponsible reporting and column approach than to approximate all
Indian tribe political contributions with improper behavior, and all politicians, Republican and Democrat, who have received such contributions from Indian tribes with payola. FACTS. Remember them? If your reporters find out specific ties to things like Abramoff and Norquist and Reed and Rove or whoever, lining up a lucrative job for a Democratic staffer or big campaign contribution etc. to a Democrat - report. Don't just say "imply" or worse yet, MIS-REPORT that oh yeah, it's Democrats and Republicans both. I
want to know about elected officials whose votes have been purchased by special interest, Rep & Dem alike. But you
are being more sophmoric than high school paper whose geek staff just wants the cool kids to like them.

Grow up, get facts, report them fairly.

Also, don't lose sight of the fact that when you are getting letters and emails and responses, it is not always a matter of "making both sides mad" (something
which seems to preternaturally) please your ombudsman,but can, instead, be a due to the fact that you are DISAPPOINTING readers.

Your readership isn't looking for a RAW is WAR wrestling match of competing articles
that cherry pick sources and facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400859_2.html

"But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over."

****************************

The story may not be over, but without better fact based reporting, I can't say I'll stay tuned to your "make everyone equally unhappy" concept of coverage.

Deborah Howell wrote

"Abramoff ... had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

This assertion is false, Jack Abramoff gave money only to Republicans. Ambramoff gave to Republicans on 111 separate occasions. He gave to Democrats on 0 (zero) occasions. Furthermore it is very easy to determine that Howell's claim is false.

I have a very slow dial up connection and a very vague recollection that some site called opensecrets has FEC data. I blush to admit that it took me 5 minutes to prove Howell wrong.

Some clicking got me here http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp
in 5 minutes over a connection so slow that two dixy cups and a piece of string are an attractive alternative.

"Never let a few facts get in the way..." Keep up the good work Ms. Howell. In the meantime, I will continue to verify 'your' facts.

When the ombudsman position was created, I recall that the position reported to the publisher, Mrs. Graham, to eliminate obvious conflicts inherent in being supervised by the editorial management of the Washington Post.

Is Donald Graham the supervisor of Ms. Howell? Who is the boss of Ms. Howell? That supervisor has a short to-do list on Monday -- fire Ms. Howell.
-

Shame on you Deborah Howell.
Are you a news person or a RNC reporter?

Curious . When the RNC call and complain Deborah, do they have your direct phoneline , while the DNC just leave a messge? Really , how do their complaints get to the top of the pile so Fast...and why is it so Easy for them to get you to include misleading details into your column...and why don't your editors care that you lie ?

I hope it's a LOT of money...and someday maybe Governorship of the Marianas....

to the WaPo management: a modest cost-cutting proposal: your probably expensive Ombudsperson is costing you way, way too much. Her egregious error in stating Abramoff gave money to both major political parties shows her journalistic ignorance and unprofessionalism. Gracefully ease her out and replace her with a really lowpaid intern. You would also get better integrity and reputation.
Of course, I could be wrong and maybe Ms.Howell is operating with some kind of outside subsidy (like Fumento or Armstrong Williams) and is willing to produce column-inches for the WaPo at almost no cost to the corporation...

I'm was very interested and mystified by Post ombudsman Deborah Howell's claim in today's column that corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff "made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." Every fact that I have seen has shown that Abramoff has only given contributions to Republicans, so Howell clearly has access to facts that have not been published in the Post or elsewhere. This sounds like a major scoop! I hope that tomorrow the Post will publish a list of all of these "significant" campaign contributions that Abramoff has made to Democrats, and show that these are equal to the contributions he has made to Republicans. This would definitely be new information.

What's with Howell? Is she really the shrill for the RNC that her writing indicates her to be? I am amazed that the Post hasn't slapped her down for the count for completely misreading the Abramoff scandal... Surely, the Post knows that Jack illegally gave money and party favors where "his heart was" (solely to Republicans) whereas some of his clients (like the duped and frauded Indian tribes) legally gave money to whomever. Now, the question to ask is where Howell is getting her money! If it's still the Post after today's muddle, their stock holders should fire the editor.

...and while I am surely just a babe in the woods and oh so new to this game of yours, might I suggest that 2-4 members of the RNC calling to complain can't possibly carry more weight than over 2 dozen complaints here , can it ? So then , I guess we can all expect a complete retraction of your previous false-hood , since it is US, the reader you serve , and not the RNC...or am I again just too sweet and innocent not to get how the game is played?

You've been caught , fess up .

Stick to your guns Ms. Howell! You simply must issue a report on how bloggers and their evil minions are trying to break down the walls of neutrality and objectivity at the Times! I mean the Post!

Evil evil bloggers and their evil evil minions!

Deborah Howell is not being played by the GOP; my guess is she is being paid.

The few remaining reporters at WaPo with any sense of professionalism, no matter what the focus of their work, need to stage a revolt from within to restore the credibility of WaPo to its readership. It should start with the firing of Deborah Howell, but not end there. Ms. Howell, supposedly the representative of the public, has become a "bad hair day" for WaPo every time she opens her mouth. It's not doing much to convince the readership that WaPo is any different from the Washington Times, and it's getting to the point where all WaPo reporters are suspect as possible BushCo mouthpieces, until proven otherwise. When will the remaining folks at WaPo, with integrity and skill in getting things right, force Deborah Howell to stop vomiting up hairballs all over the reading public? After that, do a thorough house cleaning.

Dear Ms. Howell,

I would like to speak with you about having the Post become our first MSM affiliate.

Thank you,

Roger El. Simon
CEO Pajamas Media

Dear WaPo,

I am outraged and appalled to find your newspaper mindlessly repeating Republican talking points that Democrats have taken money from Jack Abramoff, just like Republicans have.

On a larger level, you must surely realize that Abramoff is a *Republican* political operative. He has given many public speeches declaring his intention to form a permanent governing majority for the Republican party. He is also a chief architect of the K Street Project which pressures lobbying firms to fire lobbyists affiliated with the Democratic Party and hire Republicans instead. Finally, *all* of his personal donations have been given to Republicans. Jack Abramoff is a Republican partisan through-and-through!

More specifically, as evidence of Abramoff giving money to Democrats, you cite examples of Indian tribes contributing to Harry Reid and Byron Dorgan. Does anyone at your newspaper realize that Indian tribes are not paid agents of Jack Abramoff and that they might have reasons for making the donations that are entirely unrelated to Abramoff? This conflation is just appalling stupid and biased.

Shape up, damn it!

It seems Deborah Howell is too wrapped up in how the reporters got this story to notice some statements that are just not true. To wit:

1. "Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

If anyone on your staff had bothered to fact check that last statement you would have found that Jack Abramoff did not give a single contribution to a democrat. Some Indian Tribes gave contributions to democrats. Indian Tribes have been donating to democrats for decades. Jack Abramoff does not own any Indian Tribes (he just cheated them). And he never gave any of
that ill gotten money to any democrats. Why would he? They couldn't do anything to help him in his criminal enterprises. They're not in power.

2. "One of the troves that kept the story expanding was Abramoff's
e-mails. He was an inveterate e-mailer, and those e-mails found their way
to Schmidt."

Surely she would have told us all if any of those e-mails were to or from democrats.

3. "The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely
hasn't nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money."

Again, niether Harry Reid nor Byron Dorgan have ever received any money from Jack Abramoff. They have both received campaign contributions from Indian Tribes...actual Indian Tribes that live in their respective states.

Even I, who lives deep in the Ozark Mountainsand only have a dial up connection, easily found this information on a number of different web sites. This information is not classified, but is actually open to the public so we can see just who owns our politicians. Surely a the major newspaper that publishes in the nation's capital has researchers and fact checkers that could save you from such slanderous statements as "a number of Democrats, indluding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten campaign money." But then perhaps fact checkers and researchers were the positions that were done away with due to falling revenues. I can assure you your revenues will continue to fall as people continue to just stop reading newpapers that do not report the news, but
merely parrot what they were told by political operatives dressed up as "sources."

And you really could use an editor to help you learn to use the two letter state abbreviations without periods.

from the mountains....

Amen to everyone. It is astonishing that a newspaper of the Post's stature keeps mindlessly repeating this myth, even arguing for it with no effort to verify the facts, which are available to anyone who bothers to make a few keystrokes.

Get rid of Hamilton.

It is time to start cancelling subscriptions.

See you Tuesday.

Ms. Howell: Have you no shame? why not wait to see how far the crime spreads w/o being the smear knife?

Katie Graham must be spinning in her grave like a lathe.

Like a lot of Americans, I suspect, I always had a fondness for the Washington Post based on its hard-hitting Watergate reporting. I can't remember all the times I read "All the President's Men." I was willing to give the Post the benefit of the doubt. No more. Ms. Howell's outright factually wrong statement about alleged Abramoff contibutions to Democrats is the last straw. This is the current standard of Post reporting? As others have noted, Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave.

Ms. Howell's negligent or intentional conduct follows Bob Woodward's somewhat astonishing behaviour commenting for more than a year on the Plame affair, when in fact he had information relating to the situation. That at least explained Woodward's description of Patrick Fitzgerald as an out-of-control prosecutor. Scmuck.

The Post needs to clean house in a hurry. It's becoming the Washington Times Mark II.

Ms Howell's otherwise solid piece is marred by the erroneous claim that Democrats received compaign contributions from Jack Abrahamoff (which she mentions twice in her article). The Washington Post must correct this substantive error without delay. The notion that Democrats were equal and willing particpants in Abrahamoff's corrupt shenanigans has absolutely no basis in fact and does not belong in a paper of the Post's reputation. If Ms Howell's meant to convey to readers that both parties received contributions from Abrahamoff clients, she should say so and inform readers of the relative amounts received by Dems and Republicans. What's more troubling, however, is that Ms Howell seems to be missing the thrust of the Abrahamoff story. The salient issue is not which members of Congress received incidental contributions from Abrahamoff clients, but 1) which members were deliberatly involved in the effort to bilk huge sums of money from Indian tribes, and 2) which ones were active players in the Abrahamoff-Norquist-Reed K-street project. This is the story readers need to hear.

Please identify the Democrats who received contributions from Abramoff. I have seen nothing about them in the Post and I do not believe they exist. If there are none, please admit it, print a retraction and move on.

Ms. Howell,

Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.

Check this out: Abramoff Case Isn't A Bipartisan Scandal
January 12, 2006
Clarence Page
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-page0112.artjan12,0,4268086.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

This reporter from the Hartford Courant seems to get it, so it is possible for there to be someone in the mainstream media who can understand campaign financing without regurgitating GOP talking point that the Abramoff scandal is bipartisan.
Please fire Post ombudsman Deborah Howell and please, please, hire someone who can understand the concept of fact-checking. And meanwhile, please review the Jan 8 CNN transcript of Howard Dean clarifying the nature of the REPUBLICAN Abramoff scandal for the befuddled Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, always speaking out bluntly, candidly.

The reason I'm ceasing reading the Washington Post can be explained in two words: Deborah Howell.

How are we supposed to believe anything in the Washington Post when its own internal monitor prints lies about one of the major political scandals of our time?

What the hell is going on?

The only source Ms. Howell can possibly have for saying both parties got Abramoff money is that some Democrats got Indian tribe money. This is like my being a victim of a con man, then later giving money to a politician who seeks to put the con man in jail. By her logic, the con man and the politician are in cahoots.

I guess her reform would be that anyone who was a victim of a crime be barred from ever contributing to a politician.

I was willing to stick with the Post after the Woodward travesty, but even the Ombudsman and public editor can't be trusted to run factual news?! C'mon. One would hope that a major news organization would take seriously a climate in which more paid propagandists come to light each week. But sadly, the Post does not seem to put a premium on facts, rather on some misguided notion that 'balanced' reporting means never pointing to dishonesty by a Republican without alleging it by a Democrat.

I don't want to believe that Deborah Howell is being paid by the RNC to publish talking points, but what other conclusion can I come to? The RNC and whitehouse have paid high-level columnists, pundits, and think-tankers elsewhere and Howell's work looks very much like theirs.

It is now up to the Post to demonstrate that they are in fact independent and committed to factual and unbiased reporting. How and when will you do this?

Gee, Ms. Howell: Taking some flak today.

Clearly you are confused about the 4 'w's of journalism. Here is a hint they are not 'whitewash' 'withhold' 'wishy washy' 'whitehouse'.

How about not spouting GOP talking points and try something of which you have probably heard: OBJECTIVITY.

Now, I know this wil not lead to that big job over at FOX you want to get but it might help you sleep at night without the aid of Ambien.

Public Editor? Just what does that mean? I guess it wouldn't refer to the Native Americans whose money Jack Abramoff gleefully took or to readers concerned that the Post, in an effort to avoid cocktail party snubs, continue to try and paint this as anything other than >. Just because tribes donated to Abramoff does not mean that they were attempting to buy any favors. If Ms. Howell knows otherwise she needs to level with her readership. The Washington Post has a prominent role in the US media world and it's being made a laughing stock when even the public editor can only parrot GOP talking points. Oh yeah...and then there's that Woodward guy....

Issue a retraction, fire Howells, and get back to being a real newspaper.

"Q: Who is Ms. Howell dining with these days?"

And how many comped meals at Signatures did she consume?

I believe Ms. Howell to most upright and non-partisan, just like the love of my life, Ann Altmouse (http://altmouse.blogspot.com/). I just wish this blog had a preview so I could engage in some self-reflection.

Looks like a few people have weighed in before me but I'll add my two cents anyway. An ombudsman is supposed to oversee the integrity of his or her paper, not detract from it. For Deborah Howell to include flat out lies in any article that her paper publishes precludes her from holding a job in the news industry. For whatever reason a GOP wishlist talking point, that BOTH republicans and democrats took Abramoff money, was printed in your paper. This is a huge lie, just as if Paul Begalla had been accused of giving money to both parties. Abramoff is a died in the wool Republican and hasn't given one cent of his own personal money to democrats. As for Indian clients of his, I live on an Indian reservation and I can assure you, there is not any surprise to me that Native American tribes gave to democrats. Just because they were clients of Abramoff doesn't preclude them from giving to democrats. In fact, I suspect that a vast majority of Native Americans are far more likely to give to democrats as evidenced by the yard signs I drive past every day during election season.

Fire Her!

Dean
Keshena, Wisconsin

Deborah Howell wrote in her article "Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff" that he "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

Is this true??? I do not think so.
Why would she make this mistake?
How could she be so uninformed?

Clearly, Ms. Howell has a political agenda here. Is there some payola going on over at the FORMERLY GREAT PAPER??

Howell ---- you are no journalist.

Ms. Howell, here's a story that can help explain things to you:

http://tinyurl.com/7qg3f

Took me less than a minute to find.

"Be". I believe Ms Howell "to be". Or not to be. Aye, there's the rub, er the question, er somethin'...

Aren't Ombudsmen Offices supposed to be aagenda-free?

Obviously, WaPo, yours is not. What a disappointment you guys are. You should can Deborah Howell for incompetence and issue a correction.

Howell needs to issue a retraction re her claim that Abramoff gave money to Democrats. Howell is not entitled to her own facts.

I am just curious. What are the Washington Post's standards for accuracy and how are these standards applied to the public editor? Or, is this position exempt from such standards?

Is Ms. Howell incapable of doing even the most shallow fact-checking? Was there any research put into this story or did she just refer to Ken Mehlman's "fact" sheet?

Why would you allow such shoddy work to taint your product?

Is this truly the sort of negligent reporting that you want your paper associated with?

Why are you people going after Deborah Howell so relentlessly? Sounds like Democratic talking points to me. Ok maybe she's a little compromised, but balance that against a consummate professional like Howie Kurtz, who swift-boated, I mean exposed, John Murtha. He had the goods through a conservative web site, why the big deal about that site being a Republican stalking horse, about how the 'sources' are dead or incapacitated? Let's put things in perspective.
.

"The fish rots from the head"

Not only am I not ever buying the WaPo again, I am gonna go to the newstand everymorning and distroy the copies there in order to help stop the stream of LIES, MISINFORMATION, and UNAMERICAN spew that has come to characterize this paper.

No wonder you circulation is going down as fast as DARTH CHENEY's . . .

Katherine Graham is spinning in her grave. Shame on the post. Shame on Ms. Howell

In regards to the erroneous information printed in the public editor's column today re: Abramoff donating to democcrats: I am not comfortable accusing Ms. Howell of purposely misleading her readers or of being a schill for the GOP. However, it is very distressing that after several democratic leaders have come forward and tried to correct the misinformation somehow Ms. Howell still managed to repeat it. In times like these, when spin-free political news and information is so difficult to come by, it is imperitive that any person or organization that wishes to retain credibility scrupulously check facts before going to press. Not a single democrat has taken any money from Abramoff, and as many others have pointed out, there is an obvious difference between taking money from Abramoff and taking money from his victims. Campaign finance, lobbying, and political fundraising are complicated and confusing issues for the public. For this reason, it is important that your reporting be as accurate as possible so as to avoid confusing your readers and to avoid the appearance of bias. I am hopeful that in the coming days the Post will print a correction and perhaps even an educational article about fundraising and the K Street Project that will help the public understand what this story is all about.

Where does Deborah Howell pull the info that Abramoff gave money to the Deomocrats? Oh I forgot, the daily GOP talking points as all good little Republican operatives.

POST-clean up the trash.

I believe Ms. Howell to most upright and non-partisan, just like the love of my life, Ann Altmouse (http://altmouse.blogspot.com/). I just wish this blog had a preview so I could engage in some self-reflection.

Posted by: NTodd | Jan 15, 2006 7:46:32 PM | Permalink

Heh indeedy!

The Washington Post needs to fully explain how an outright lie was printed in the Public Editors column and needs to hire a Public Editor that has the public's trust.

Deborah Howell coverage of the 'bipartisan' Abramoff payments is news at its best.

Story idea for Ms. Howell: why not expose that chickenhawk Jack Murtha for the coward he is. I heard he stole his Purple Hearts from George Bush.

Can't wait for Froomkin to return so we can actually have an ombudsman here at WP. Hell, I'll even take Howie's column over Howell's latest GOP-fed apologia.

Where did Ms Howell get her information that Democrats received money from Jack Abramoff?
From Ahmad Chalabi?
From a guy in the distance, poking around in the sand, showing the MetAlpha unit where evidence of Jack Abramoff's supposed donations to Democrats are buried?
Looks like the NY Times isn't the only newspaper that needs to rein in its employees.

Story idea for Ms. Howell:

I understand there are people saying that man was descended from monkeys! You should get right on that and straighten them out!

The Post has hugely disgraced itself with this one.

Mrs. Howell is making the world worse.

Why should the Washington Post pay an ombudsman to pimp GOP talking points when the GOP will no doubt provide the Post with an ombudsman who will do its dirty work free of charge?

When the history books are written, Americans are going to marvel at the complicity of the media in this dark period of our history.

Shame on you, Deborah Howell.

Shame on you, Washington Post.

I think Debrah is being nice. She should look again in her magic mirror. She did not look closely as she would have found that Jack gave money *only* to Democrats. All the evidence pointing to Republicans must be wrong as Libs control all the facts and the media.

God Bless America. Now off to my KKK meeting...

Please correct Deborah Howell's misrepresentation of the Abramoff scandal tomorrow, without fail. This is the largest corruption case in US history, and ALL facts available thus far CLEARLY indicate it is a REPUBLICAN scandal, not a bi-partisan scandal.

Deborah Howell's apparent predispostion to propagate Rebublican spin on this is absolutely deplorable.

Until, and unless, facts are uncovered that implicate Democrats, you have an obligation to your readers to report the truth in this matter.

The federal government has been almost completely taken over by criminals. There has never been a greater crisis in our history.

WAKE UP AND START REPORTING AS IF THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY WERE AT STAKE!!!!!

Because it is.....

A simple retraction will not suffice. The Washington Post needs to take swift and decisive action to demonstrate that it is still (even after the Woodward debacle and in spite of Kurtz) an independent and reliable news source. It would be dishonest to publish misinformation like this and then publish a one-line errata at the bottom of a page several days later. That does not even things out.

First correct this eggregious error with a full-length piece. Then please open an investigation into why the office of the ombudsman has apparently been compromised and visibly reassure us your readership that this will not happen again.

Deborah Howell: A new reason to use the Post as a liner for my birdcage.

What are you guys thinking/doing? Your paper's reputation and, more importantly, our country's future, is at stake!

Wake up WaPo!!

Spreading the Murtha smear shows bad judgment and illustrates how the media allows itself to be manipulated. However, botching the Abramoff story at this point is completely inexcusable. It's been several weeks, there is no excuse for getting things WRONG.

If Deborah Howell is just going to serve the Republican Party by spouting out-and-out lies, please put a disclaimer on everything she writes.
I don't say this about a lot of things, but that Abramoff piece SUCKED.

Has Deborah Howell received any money from Jack Abramoff?

Retract.
Correct.
Fire.
Hire anew.

According to tangible evidence,Abramoff has not given monies to Democrats. Is Deborah Howell implying that Mr Abramoff has lied to the FEC? If so,who/what are her sources? She should be called in as a witness at the trial.

Ms. Howell needs to be fired. She is not fair nor correct in exercising her duties. From Michigan

considering the poisonous nature of Deborah Howell's deliberate misinformation, please do NOT use the WaPo as a liner for the domiciles of your feathered friends...

I want to add my two cents on the Howell screw up - combined with the recent "Swift-boating" of Jack Murtha by Howie Kurtz, this just shows that the Post is now nothing more than a shill for Ken Melhman's GOP and the Bush White House. While I doubt that Ms Howell will have the courage to retract her error, perhaps Len Downie could do a Times-like mea culpa and set the record straight.

It's good to see that all of the journalistic integrity built up by Pravda over all of those years in the USSR has been preserved and honored by these GOP-worshipping fact-free writers.

Of course, if you want a reality-based press, you're out of luck.

Using WaPo reporting techniques, it's easier to conclude that Ms. Howell received money from the Republican Party than that the Democrats received money from Indian tribes at the direction of Mr. Abramoff.

Much easier.

It is too bad that Ms. Howell -- alleged representing reader interests, is able to only represent the interests of the Republican Party.

She should go here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arVHles5cKJc&refer=us#

That's 10 seconds on the internet Debbie!

I look forward to your next piece...

"How Iraq really did attack the United States on 9/11"

What a disgusting display of partisanship and incompetence. The first two things you can expect from the Bush Administration, but the two last things you expect from a public editor.

Resign Ms. Howell, resign in shame.

It is quite clear from Howell's coverage that the only criticism she finds to have any merit is that which has originated from right-wing think tanks or former employees of Bush's re-election campaign. Any comments I have sent about legitimate concern I have about WP coverage has been responded to with dismissive sarcasm. From her responses to MediaMatters, I see this tone extends to any non-Republican outlet.

Just once, I would like to see Howell show that she does indeed represent her readers who do not happen to work inside the Beltway on bahalf of the current administration. If you are not a water carrier for this administration, Howell makes it quite clear that she sees her paper's duty as being the print equivelant of FOX News. Disappointing when after the fall of the NYT's, some of us have turned to the WP in the hopes of seeing journalism return to Washington. That is not possible so long as Howell is on the job, cracking teh whip for the conservative pundits she so desperately wants to please.

I have read the Post off and on since 1972, when my sister moved to the DC area.

It's extremely disappointing to read about the treatment by Mr. Harris of Mr. Froomkin, to read the endorsement of Judge Alito's confirmation (despite your repeated assurances that you, too disagree with his politics), and now to read that your ombudsman states, contrary to the facts, that Mr. Abramoff has donated equally (or indeed, at all) to the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

I do not ask that the Post share my politics. I do ask that the Post print facts. If you want to endorse Judge Alito, that's your business; ditto your shabby treatment of your own blogger.

Ms. Howell's bald statements which are simply false is too much.

Is Ms. Howell one of Abramoff's paid "journalists?" If not, then does she have some insider information regarding Abramoff donations to Democrats? Because no one else seems to be privy to this info. Of course, that's because her claim is untrue, a lie. Is your paper in the habit of employing journalists who either lie, or do not have the necessary skills to do background research? That was a rhetorical question - don't bother answering.

Is this really the way WaPo wants
to crash and burn?
Not speaking truth to power, but
telling lies to their readers?
Is it really worth the tax breaks you
are promised from the GOP?
Is it really worth the access to
lies directly from the Bush administration?
You can get those lies from Fox any day of
the week.

Is Ms. Howell one of Abramoff's paid "journalists?" If not, then does she have some insider information regarding Abramoff donations to Democrats? Because no one else seems to be privy to this info. Of course, that's because her claim is untrue, a lie. Is your paper in the habit of employing journalists who either lie, or do not have the necessary skills to do background research? That was a rhetorical question - don't bother answering.

I've read Debra Howell's ombudsman articles and, whoa, I don't think we have the same idea of fair play.

However, since keeping the GOP machine happy is an ongoing part of the Post's political coverage, I trust that it's an official part of management's business strategy. So, while I scan the Post now and again, I don't bother buying it anymore. I'm not mad at the Post for being part of the ruling machine but I don't want to support that kind of behavior. There are--a few--other, better, sources of news.

the Washington Post needs a meta-ombudsman.

Help! Help! Aarggghhhhhhhh

Please remove Deborah Howell from her position as Ombudsman from the Washington Post: she does not have the integrity to warrant remaining in the position.
Thank you.

Dear Deborah Howell,

It's not a lie if you believe it, right?

Resign NOW.

I was not aware that the purpose of the Washington Post was to print the GOP-contrived lies that the Washington Times is reluctant to. Thanks for pointing this out
Miss Howell.

P.S. We await the list of donations from Jack Abramoff to Democratic candidates.

Wow. I cannot believe that a paper with as much respect (though much is now lost) as the Washington Post could print something so completely...untrue.

You can find the real facts on this with 10 minutes of work; surely if I can do so with a dial up internet connection, someone at the Washington Post can do so.

Journalism 101. Retake it, please.

http://fbihop.blogspot.com

Dear Washington Post:
I will do Ms. Howell's job for half of what she makes. You would be saving 50% on the same position.
How do you know I'd do a good job? Well, I couldn't do much worse.

Deborah Howell's comments on the Abrahamoff scandal and her implication that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans are either the result of blatant ideological bias or an inability to grasp even the simplist of occurances. In either case, perhaps someone a little sharper/more honest should be found for this position. Over the last few years WAPO has been bleeding credibility - it is time to staunch the flow.

The founding fathers understood that a free and independent press is necessary to act as a watchdog to keep goverment honest. The job of the press is to speak truth to power. The Post seems to have abandoned this responsibility and now shills for the government, passing off falsehoods as truth and aiding and abetting the government in the very activities the press is expected to expose.

Shame on the Post. It is time to start cleaning up your act. You can start by cleaning up Ms. Howell and reporters such as Schmidt.

What have we come to?

I am so disappointed. Is fact checking no longer required at the WP?

It's a sad day when a person needs to turn to http://english.aljazeera.net over the Washington Post for accurate news coverage.

Just piling on here - The Post needs to make a very prominent correction to this.

And Ms. Howell should go. This is either gross incompetence or willfull cowtowing to Republicans. Either way, she needs to go.

I'm confused--Deborah Howell says Abramoff gave money to Democrats, but I've been reading very closely and there is not a shred of evidence to support this. Has she made a mistake? Will the Post please clear this up? Surely the "public editor"of a major or formerly major newspaper has an obligation to the facts?

I know what an ombudsman does, and so does the management at the Washington Post. Anyone else who knows the meaning of the word knows that Deborah Howell is not performing as an ombudsman anymore than is Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter.

In pushing her daily stream of unsubstantiated and opinionated statements as fact, Ms. Howell is operating in the same capacity as did Joseph Goebbels when he was Adolf Hitler's minister of disinformation.

In allowing Ms. Howell's screed to be published as if it were factual news rather than ideologically tainted opinion, The Washington Post might be pleasing its Republican handlers and advertisers, but it is also sacrificing its remaining credibility amongst those who know what the truth actually is.

Ms Howell might think that she is fooling people, but the people she thinks she's fooling are starting to see the Washington Post as a sinking ship, and as a newspaper having roughly the same kind of journalistic integrity as does the Washington Times or Fox Cable News.

Forget Howell. There's more truth at this site than she could ever hope to produce:

http://nocapital.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_nocapital_archive.html
#113720675152142094

The idea that "balance" is achieved by giving truth and falsehood equal time is one that is gaining a worrisome currency in mainstream media.

Is it fear of losing circulation? Of antagonizing management that is fearful of alienating the largest possible audience? Of being Swift Boated?

If Deborah, Howard, Bob et al. roll over, it is no longer the Post.

As a Maryland resident and a Washington Post subscriber, after the Bob Woodward Fiasco, Howard Kurtz swiftboating Congressman Murtha, and now a fact deficient Ombudswoman; unless the Post ceases being the GOP official news organ, one subscription is in clear jeopardy.

What happend to the former great newspaper called the Washington Post? What happened? Do you not check your stories?
Please give us the facts, not GOP spin.

Dear Ms. Howell,

I spent a lot of time putting that computer and internet connection together, that isn't easy when all you have are coconuts. After all that effort I cannot believe that THIS tripe is the result.

In the future please confine yourself to making coconut cream pies.

Sincerely,

And the Rest

Geez, guess all the rest of us missed one hell of a story--a Republican hack giving money to a Democrat. Somebody better alert the GOP.

I look forward to Ms. Howell's memoirs. I'm sure they'll be rife with facts.

To the Editors:

Could you please let us, your readers, know why Howie Kurtz reported the CNSNews unsubstantiated allegations about Jack Murtha, but never followed up on the National Enquirer's story regarding George W. Bush's drinking problem relapse?

The National Enquirer is a much more reliable and respected news source than Brent Bozell's CNSNews.

Dear Washington Post,

Did you learn nothing from the sad Judy Miller saga? Here's a definition of OMBUDSMAN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman

Note whose "interests" are supposed to be represented by this title?

Now go hire a real one.

This is why I stopped reading newspapers three years ago

A month ago I complained about Ms. Howell's disingenuous take on the emerging Froomkin fracas. At that time I criticized her judgement or lack thereof, hoping she would grow into the important job of Oumbudsman for one of the top two or three newspapers in the USA.

Her coverage in today's Washington Post of the relationship between Native Americans and Jack Abramoff is either unprofessional or purposefully confusing. Whichever of these may be the case, Howell has once again put a great newspaper in need of getting an oumbudsman for the oumbudsman.

Abramoff gave money to Democrats? I didn't realize Ms. Howell was a comedy writer.

C'mon WaPo, get it right!

Dear Wash. Post
"where there is no shame there is no honor".
Ms. Howell is not credible. Please, rethink her 1) job discription. 2) employement status.

You are staining yourself to do "balanced reporting" which always hurts the truth. Just go where a story takes and call a spade an spade. Sometimes you may hurt Democrates and sometimes you may hurt republicans. Stop stories like "while some democrats complain" or "on the otherhand republicans say". In Short have a spine and keep you Conscience clear (Harris, Howell etc)

I expect a minimally competent ombudsman to exert a teensy bit of effort into discerning fact from fiction when obvious inaccuracies are exposed. As many have indicated, the FEC makes it simple for even the marginally computer-literate to determine the source and destination of campaign contributions.

Of course, if she is not merely incompetent but pursuing her own ideological agenda, then I take it all back.

I have subscribed to the Washington Post for the past three and a half years. Howell's column has never impressed me and her latest rubbish about how Democrats have received Abramoff money has led me to declare this: fire Deborah Howell in a fortnight or I shall cancel my subscription.

We seem to have gone astray with this information at the very least. By looking at the argument at face value, it is easy to see why Dems are being tied to it. In this form, the postulation is that by mere mention of an opponent will ensnare them in the larger schism.

The facts of the case have not all come to light, but will soon. To refute any point or counterpoint by using party talking points, we lose credibility at face value by not being "original." One just has to review the recent revelations of persuasion in the administration during media events to hype and gain support for programs.

This is the most important tool in any persons box and as such, should be used with caution at times. By stripping the blinders off, one can see that Noam Chompsky was correct about many things, specifically issues that dealt with the public interest. Most of us have forgotten this or placed it by the wayside for some better method. His thesis still holds true today, that in order to get the public to go along with anything, you must sometimes manufacture consent. This is what is happening right now. The media outlets, by not addressing the very nature and gravity of these crimes, has chosen the course of accepting only choice talking points rather than a genuine discussion of the evidence.

Here is where Americans that are tired of our "elected" officials essentially stealing for the private good and not for the public good, need to listen carefully. The reason these news programs are still highly rated is that people that are upset still tune in to find out what "lies" are being told. They use this as an opportunity to get their points across and tie sometimes disengenious informtion to their opponents. Remember the sitcoms and newsprograms of the past, vaguely if at all. Ratings is the key to crushing your opponents and it works like a charm. Advise your allies allies and others to stop watching these lost programs in favor of programs that need ratings in order to become larger.

Also, one just has to look at how many times figures like Rush Lipbalm, Sean Insannity, Bill O'Really, Pat"Oh My God"Robertson, and Jerry"Show Me The Money"Falwell have been caught in outright lies and misinformation. As the old question goes, "How do you kill a snake," by cutting its head off.

As a graduate of the journalism school at The University of Texas, I'm stunned and ashamed to learn that Deborah Howell also attended j-school at UT. When I was there I certainly wasn't taught that this sort of blatant dishonesty, distortion and side-taking was journalism.

I'd roll out the old "at long last have no you sense of shame" quote from, but it's clear she doesn't.

Your good paper is losing credibility over this. Blogs are becoming to this era what TV was to Watergate. You do not report in an isolated environment where other sources do not exist. You have to start dealing in facts, something you actually have the resources to do. Please. We are better off being able to trust the Post.

I've been working in print media all of my life. It's been harder for me to admit that fact in mixed company, thanks to irresponsible journalists like Ms. Howell.

Abramoff didn't give any money to Democrats. If she didn't know this, she has no business being an advocate of the WaPo readership. If she repeated this lie on purpose, she should be fired.

But you guys are too darn ignorant to do that, right? It might, you know, make your readers think you give a damn about them.

I wonder what happens to WaPo ad reps who screw up this often?

You've had a number of ombudspersons over the years, some good, some so-so. This one is utterly incompetent. She doesn't respond to readers; she simply praises the Post no matter what it does. She can't read, either, or she wouldn't replace the reporters' actual comments with Republican talking points. Don't make us put up with this for two years; fire her now. Even the egregious Daniel Okrent, the self-congratulating former "public editor" of the New York Times, would be an improvement.

Even if some democrats had taken some money from abramoff and were in it up to their eyeballs, which there aren't, it still wouldn't excuse republican involvement in this co-opting of our democracy and the privatization of congress. Maybe you should reasses your position in this or you might get dragged down with the ship. Maybe that's why you have chosen to join the republican wurlitzer. Oh, now I get it.

Folks are saying Moon has been buying up the WP's stock for several years.

I guess it is true.

So much for democracy. It was fun.

See Jack, see who Jack contributes to:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/washington-post-ombudsman-repeats-lie.html

See Howell, see Howell move to the Washington Times....

There is no excuse for the lies promulgated on your pages about the Abramoff scandal by no less than a public editor, especially when the facts are so easily found. I cannot understand why Ms. Howell doesn't understand what her role is at the paper, and why she continues to be employed since she is such a disatrous ombudsman. Facts often favor one side over another, and the job of a newspaper is to deal with facts, whether reporting on them, commenting on them, or explaining them. Not ignoring them, to either serve their own access issues or not to appear too "partisan". I have been disgusted by what I read, and hope you address it by either reassigment or by terminating Ms. Howell's employment.

Please note that the above comments are not coming from political operatives but from the public. Printing false information poisons the relationship a paper has with its readers and that is clearly what is happening here. Please, we just want our journalism to be factual and not factualistic.

You can do better.

Ms. Howell:

I did write to you in protest yesterday regarding your misrepresentation of the facts in the Abramoff case, but I suppose that your inbox is rather too full to attend to it personally.
I can only hope that the firestorm of indignation that you have called down upon your head will chasten you to remember the Dragnet admonition: "All I want is the facts, Ma'am."

Where were you when I needed you? Oh, well. Keep up the good work!

You all are digging your own graves with employees like Howell. Newsprint is Dead, and her "reporting" proves it. Your readers have the world at their fingertips - if you can't insist that your employees gather facts better and more coherently than the average Internet(s) user, halt the presses and just turn off the friggin' lights. It's over.

Despite--or perhaps because--of the degree of rage and intensity in these responses, as well as their number, you can see how important it is for people to have a landmark news organization such as the Post live up to its reputation of truth and courage.

This eventually boils down--as it always does--to the individuals, and their unwillingness to be cowed by the usual and unusual forces acting upon them.

The time requires truth. The Post has told it. Do not give up this necessary and dwindling quantity.

Wow, when Daniel Okrent can give you lessons in ombudsmanship you know you have hit rock frickin' bottom.

Deborah Howell has lost all credibility as the Post's Omsbudsman as a result of her repeated authoring of erroneous (but easily fact-checked to determine its inaccuracy) material. As demonstrated by the numerous posts on this site documenting her various misdeeds and mistakes, these errors can and should not be tolerated; she should be dismissed immediately.

Blatant bias. Though I often admire your paper's political reporting, I find that Deborah Howell's Abramoff writings are not journalism, they are spin, fabrication and frankly lies.

The WP would do well to guard its reputation and integrity by letting go such a rank partisan so she can work openly for her cause--on K Street, perhaps.

Mrs Howell:
Are you now or will you ever become an acitve member of ONO, the Organisation of News Ombudsmen? Yes, your paper is listed as an ONO participant, but I'm not sure how actively you yourself participate. Perhaps only the "first generation" ombudsman at WaPo was concerned with the "ethical standards and professionalism" ONO is dedicated to? Perhaps you need a mentor, which I'm sure ONO wou