Sorry to post off-topic, but it's washingtonpost.com relevant. I can't find a link for Post Politics Hour online discussion for today or any other day this week. When I click on the 'today's schedule' link, I get last week's schedule. It seems to think it is still Friday, Feb 17.

Am I looking in the wrong place? Please don't tell me the online Politics Hour discussion has been discontinued!

Glad to see that the Post is winning the battle vs the NYT.com and finally getting some credit for it.

I'm intrigued by the judge's comment you quote, praising the Post for its "embrace of blog culture." As I've watched the mishandling by the Post of Dan Froomkin's excellent columns and the poor reaction of Deborah Howell to bloggers' criticisms of her ombuds columns that fail to hold Post reporters and editors accountable for clear misstatements of the facts of the Jack Abramoff case, I would say that the Post has tried to hold the blog culture at arm's length, not embraced it.

You folks skip on the discussions today? There's no links to anything until Tuesday, and most of the page (including "This week's schedule") is leftover from last week.

Way to go, interactivity! Whoopie!

It is a holiday.

The Post doesn't usually have live discussions on holidays.

Sheesh. get a grip.

it's a holiday....get a life

So I should get a grip... and a life?
Just making sure about that. Which should I get first? Should I be sure to get a grip ON the life? Or get a life as a grip?

Since it's... what? A ... holiday?

Of what type? The paper's not closed. We're all at work. It's about as much a holiday as Arbor Day is. It's a meaningless milestone. News marches on. It's only another sales day.

Not to mention that the page doesn't say, anywhere, "There are no discussions on Monday, and we didn't remember to update the discussions schedule page."

There's folks about to post blog entries today. But not for discussions. Just find it interesting that nobody said anything, so I brought it up.

But hey, you brilliant comeback artists sure showed me, warning me to get a grip and a life, rather than simply explaining it. I'm completely and utterly put in my place by those gold-medal putdowns.
Sniffle, gonna go kick a pebble.

Dear Jim Brady,

There are two hate-filled personal attacks in this thread already. Posters using the names Deke and John have filled washingtonpost.com with the nastiest kind of cyber-barbarism. These are unconscionable examples of the hate speech that you are fighting so valiantly to get rid of. Poor Taniwha has been "mugged" so I'm sure you will rush to his/her rescue and delete this obscenity. Please hurry, this is a kind of abuse that sullies the internet and works against civil, reasoned discussion.

Sincerely,
DF

Congratulations on these well-deserved awards. The Post's web site is great in many ways. I especially like the web chats and the blogs, but it's also nice simply to be able to take a break from work and read a column or article at my desk. I'm sure I read more of the paper than I otherwise would. I'd even be glad to pay!

And please ignore the grumpy, mean-spirited, not-funny comments above.

To the people who wrote those comments: Grow up!

Ahhh... Presidents' Day! That explains so much. Like why traffic was light on my way to campus and why there were so many High School kids at the bowling alley last night. Thanks for the clarification, glad to hear Politics Hour isn't at risk.

Also, sorry if I offended anyone by asking about this. It really wasn't my intention to be hostile. I just noticed that the schedule didn't include any listings for this week and thought this would be a good place to look for information. I think we really need to get some kind of e-balm to pass around, because there are some seriously raw nerves out there.

no doubt the judges looked at your entire output for 2005, rather that the debacle that WPNI has been for the last few months --- starting with the Woodward debacle, onward to the Froomkin mess (and John Harris's admission that he gets his talking points from paid operatives of the GOP), then the detour to the ridiculous "military recruiting" article, Deborah Howell blatantly false editorializing about Abramoff and the Democrats -- and the Post's consistent defense of that falsehood, the shutting down of the comments when Howell further insulted the Post's readership, and the consistent failure of the Post to back up its claims that it possesses documentary proof that Jack Abramoff actually DIRECTED one penny to a Democratic candidate in the US Congress....

in other words, enjoy these awards while you can, because given your recent performance, you won't be seeing any awards from legitimate journalism organizations for quite some time. (Of course, Hugh Hewitt might create some awards that you could qualify for....)

You must be proud that SOMEONE actually thinks enough of your efforts to give you an award. Might I suggest you use this as a stepping stone back to respectability? I know it's a long shot. But, I'm pullin for ya.

respectability- what are you talking about?

Paul Lukasiak, Jan. 24, 2006:

"When you say 'Abramoff didn't direct any money to Democrats' you had better know exactly what you mean by that statement, because there is strong evidence (short of proof at this point) that Abramoff DID, in fact, "direct" money to Democrats from the Coushatta tribe."

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/01/abramoff_direct.html

Apparently the WaPo folks were not 100% there with us when they said that they welcome people 'challenging' the Post and their writers.

Let's try that again, and see how many times we have to rewrite it.

Dear Bob W. - I made a little funny about the fact that your name is similar to that of Bob Woodward, the somewhat disgraced journalist from the Post.

I said it was always hard for me to determine which of the 'great men' from the Watergate scandal was greater - Woodward or Bernstein.

I noted that Bernstein had been a grumpy man when I met him, but that, unlike your potential namesake (we have to assume the real Bob Woodward wouldn't be posting here), Carl Bernstein had not recently developed the reputation for being what has been referred to as a "stenographer".

I can only assume one of two things:
1) The wapo blogpolice got upset that someone again raised the issue of Bob Woodward's intentionally hiding his knowledge of the Plame affair for 2 years.

2) The poster was really Bob Woodward, and got upset that someone criticized him, so ordered the post blogpolice to remove my post.

By the way - I request that the Post Blogpolice specifically explain why they deleted my original post.

Rage Against the Post parties! Second Tuesday of every month, starting Tuesday, March 14. On a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis we'll be having house parties to discuss and rail against the Post. City Guide: Why no attention to the Urban Scene? Why no coverage of DC's sizeable gay community, unless they're in drag? The Ombudsperson: What the heck is with her? The Post.com: Why does the Post report when the editor is "mugged" online, but not when scores have been mugged on 14th street in the past two months?
I can't give out addresses on here, but ask around for a party near you. Bring friends and then sponsor the next one. Parties currently scheduled for March 14 in: Columbia Heights, Shaw/Howard area, Shaw/Logan area, and Woodly Park. Look for us and you will find us. (No cameras -- some whisteblower Post reporters will be there in cognito.)

Congrats to the Post's website on these fine (and deserved) awards! And ignore the trolls -- they're inevitable.

Keep up the great work.

mr. BobW.

there is circumstantial "evidence" that, if filled out with actual documentary evidence, would prove that Abramoff did direct money to democratic candidates.

At the time I wrote what you cited above, I was disputing the oft repeated notion among the left that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the use of the word "directed". That evidence does exist, but it is entirely circumstantial, and can just as easily be explained without any personal/direct involvement by Abramoff.

The Post unequivocally claims that Abramoff himself personally directed campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. There is simply no solid evidence to back up that claim. And given what we know about Jack Abramoff, its extremely likely that he had no personal involvement in actually DIRECTING funds to Democratic candidates.

But the bottom line here is that the Post is completely distorting and perverting the Abramoff story by concentrating on the question of contributions from Abramoff's tribal clients to the near exclusion of far more significant aspects of this scandal -- including the buying of influence in Gale Norton's Interior Department with $500,000 worth of contributions to Norton's personal "astroturf" organization.

Instead, the Post obsesses about $2000 contributions to politicians who support school construction on Native American reservations.

Its a question of priorities --- and its clear that Sue Schmidt's and John Harris' priorities are to create the false impression that this is a "bipartisan" scandal in order to maintain their access and influence with GOP bigwigs so they can get their bylines and articles above the fold on page A1 of the Post.

OK, I'm really not trying to be hostile or snarky here, but the link for "Today's schedule" under the "Discussions" menu is still showing last week's schedule. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/09/30/LI2005093000746.html
I know yesterday was a holiday, where can I find the link for today? If the Politics Hour discussion doesn't happen, or I can't get to it, I'll have to work from 11:00 clear up to lunch time! Nobody needs that.

Thanks

Joel: Don't look now, but there are two events by/for the gay community (with a photo) at the top of the city guide's clubs section, and a number of urban and hip-hop artists elsewhere in music and concerts. I'm not saying coverage of all areas couldn't be better, but give credit where it's due.

Pughd, Post Politics Hour is indeed on today. You can find the link in our weekly schedule:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/schedule/front.html

Or from the washingtonpost.com homepage. Scroll down to the bottom of the page daily for a listing of all shows.

Congrats on the awards.

I do have a grip regarding the site design that I've sent using the comment form but have never heard back about.

PLEASE make the title more descriptive! When you have multiple windows/tabs open, it doesn't help to have the title of the page be just "Metro" or the name of the story. It seems it would be really simple to add a " - washingtonpost.com" to every page on the site. This way, when bookmarking a page, you'll immediately know where it's from. I have noticed that some parts of the site have a washingtonpost.com bit in the title tag (in the City Guide, for example), but not everywhere, and it's used inconsistently.

gripe, that is.

Re: used inconsistently: note that on City Guide, the title tag has ":washingtonpost.com", and URLs with wp-srv have "(washingtonpost.com)" in the title, and URLs with wp-dyn generally have no identifying marks.

It appears that the WaPo post-board moderators are again being disingenuous when they say what is and what is not allowed. They claim that they encourage people to analyze or comment on articles...

But comment on the fact that the original Howell article on Abramoff has yet to be officially corrected or fixed, and the post gets deleted!

Good thing I saved the text and can paste it again.

Shall we?

Or perhaps the WaPo folks can explain why they deleted non-profane posts?

Do they just not like criticism?

Hey Dan, I work for WPNI and saw your comments, I passed them on to our customer care team.

Duh -- I give them credit, once. But this isn't just me I'm talking about -- these are complaints I hear throughout communities ignored in DC. If it's not Northwest, preferably Red Line, it's rarely covered. And we're not just talking the .com City Guide. The only way gays make it into print is if they're in drag.

washingtonpost.com Thanks for the link. I found it eventually and enjoyed the chat.

I don't understand why my critical comment was deleted. It contained no profanity, personal attacks or inappropraite comments. I simply stated that you are deleting comments which you don't agree with.

Welcome to the echo chamber.

Is it just me, or is this blog buried on the site?

If not for direct links from other sites, I'd never be able to find it. Sort of odd.

There's a link to this blog on the post.com homepage, under the Opinions box. It's also linked under "Feedback" in the Opinions section.

The mods are about deleting comments again! Comments that do not include profanity or attacks, but merely push them on the Howell issue. They're obviously uncomfortable about it.

So, in response, I say:
""Shouldn't there be a correction posted inline or at the bottom of Howell's original Abramoff column, noting that the claimed facts weren't facts after all? So that someone who reads that column -- what is it now, five weeks later -- would see that the Post corrected the error?""

Also, I notice that the Post is deleting anything that includes any criticism of the post's reporters as ... hagiographers.

So much for "welcoming criticism".

Blogcops, if you've changed the rules about what sort of "comments" you "welcome", how about being more forthright and just telling people what the buzzwords are, and what criticism you're deleting? As it is, the more it happens, the more disingenuous you look.

Senator Jay Rockefeller has published a letter stating that President Bush ordered the CIA to turn over classified informatio to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, for Woodward's use in writing profiles of the Adminstration. Any confirm/denial from the WaPo? What stories resulted from the receipt of this information?

Cranky

Careful, Cranky. If you even *suggest* that any WaPo 'journalist' might be operating with the agenda of the administration as their main driving point, they'll delete it.

They talked big about "welcoming comments" and criticism, but that's obviously just not true. They're demanding that we accept, without question, claims to journalistic integrity, regardless of any evidence that might call that into question.

How about a comment deleted tag so that we know when they felt assaulted something like:

[comment deleted by watb]

I'm pretty sure that's more responsible than the present policy of "disappearing" comments.

As long as James Brady is in charge, we can expect McClellen-esque misdirection, obfuscation, and unfelt apologies for the Post's failures. Awards will be few and far between, except from the old GOP boys club of course.

Hey Jim,

What kind of awards do you think Ben Domenech's writings will garner?

Do they have a plagiarist of the year category?

With all the criticism that has been levied against liberal blogs by various voices of WashingtonPost.com and the Washington Post, will you directly acknowledge the role of places like Daily Kos in quickly calling attention to the questionable journalistic practices of Ben Domenech?

Second, what does this say about the Post's vetting process for hiring? Do you research the writing of 24 year olds offered prominent positions with WashPost.com?

Third, can you provide your perspective on Domenech's posting / writing of some rather racist material over the past several years?

While I tend 'conservative' in a classical sense, unlike these ChickhenHawks so dominant in today's Republican Party, I actually volunteered and put my life on the line when the nation went to war. This example of Domenech's rather questionable ethics (after all, plagiarism is stealing, and "Thou shalt not steal" remains, as far as I am aware, one of the 10 Commandments) is one of the reasons that I am a 'very troubled' conservative.

when is yhew swap meet?

Your attituide concerning my home country's security. I say my home because it's obvious u don't care about it, stinks I hope some day the traiters in there get there just reward

To whom it may concern,
WHY SHOULD I EVER VOTE AGAIN?
The people of this country are fed up. We want our politicians to keep their promises made to the people who voted them into office. We need leadership and not lies or excuses. We want our good paying jobs and benefits back. We will not stand for the misrepresented facts about unemployment, the economy, consumer confidence or illegal immigration. We do not want any form of legalization of illegal immigration. We demand that our borders be secured now, and illegal immigrants return to their home country. I can guarantee that the republican and democratic party will not have the votes in future elections unless action is taken now on illegal immigration, the economy, government spending and the list goes on and on. It will not be the war in Iraq that defeats the republican or democratic parties in future elections. It will the destruction of the average American workers future in this country that will bring both parties down. People are hurting, we have seen jobs moved overseas, wages depressed, benefits cut, government spending out of control, again the list goes on and on. With what I continue to see in Washington as a 48 year old voter, I must admit I am ashamed to call my self a voter. Unless there are clear changes made now, I will never support or vote another politician again and this is the sentiment of the majority of voters across the country!
Steve from Island Lake, IL

We live in Middlesex County, Virginia. For three of the past four weeks the TV Guide has NOT been in our Sunday paper. One of the prime reasons we buy the Post on Sunday is for the TV Guide. If it is going away we will give up on the Post. Will it return?
- Gordon E. White, Deltaville, VA

i hope the blog works and people will make ideas possible. civil rights and human rights, particularily for children and families have been devastated by officials and agencies inaction

After failing katrina,bunguling iraq,ignoring human and civil rights in courts and agencies,allowing beurocrats to jail and push children and families around at thier whim, does it not make sense that the equal justice for all has been suspended?Some people recieve cars house,money,specail education, while citisens cannot get a glass of water, a self imposed discrimination pull off by agencies like luthern social services and others. whatever happened to equal and fair rights in court and pratice?

The vitriol emanating from WaPo about the bloggers shows that the Corporate Media so-called "journalists" are very thin-skinned.

The truth of the matter is the traditional newspapers have been become mouthpieces for the Administration. Bloggers such as DailyKos, Firedogkake, etc... uncover and expose disinformation and (intentional) factual errors expressed daily in WaPo's editorials and articles. Hence, the rage of the established "journalists" at being exposed for what they are: hacks who kowtow to their corporate masters.

Blogs will stop challenging WaPo's pieces the day WaPo's journalists recover some sense of integrity and ethics. I am not holding my breath.

I am sure my comment will be deleted.

Oops! Should have done some editing before pressing "Submit".

"The vitriol emanating from WaPo about the bloggers shows that the Corporate Media so-called "journalists" are very thin-skinned."

"The truth of the matter is the traditional newspapers have become..."

Lots of comments were deleted between May 26 and June 18.

Brady, Howell, and the rest of the Rovian clique, cannot deal with readers's contempt.

Deleting comments won't make disdain go away.

Always liked WP better than NYT or LAT, since it comes off more professional and polished. Besides it tries to not be so blatantly partisan like NYT or Fox News.

There's so many blogs to check on that coming to WP.com is an all day affair. But I don't mind, since the content is excellent.

Now just add blogging for editorials and columnists (and add a limited quote feature [50 words of less] to this Typepad), and it'll blow every other news outlet for interaction!

Keep up the good work. :)

SandyK

[plug]

Two thumbs up for Emily Messner's "The Debate" blog. It's not the standard "just the news" blandness or quaint commentary, but some meaty topics to debate. Has a good regular debating crew from all sides of the political spectrum, which is a plus. I consider it a version of CSPAN's "Washington Report" but with regular posters who love a good debate. :D

[/plug]

On the "Wrong Black Man" article

I am a disappointed by the tone and innuendos of the reference made to Pre-Paid Legal in the article, if in fact it is the Pre-Paid Legal Services of Ada, OK. I suspect many of your readers would make the same assumption and further conclude that Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc provider attorneys didn't provide the level of service promised to their members. As a Pre-Paid legal member myself and an active associate, I would like to offer an alternative view of the role of Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc, and the provider attorney firm.

First, instead of calling the best friend to assist at the scene of the incident, Elias should have called his Provider Law firm immediately. Only he knows why he didn't do so. Pre-Paid Legal members have 24/7 - 365 day access to the provider law firm for this type of emergency. Members are issued cards to present to the arresting officer indicating that they have an attorney and would like to contact them. In this country we have the "right to an attorney" not the right to call a best friend. Had Elias called his provider law firm immediately instead of calling his best friend perhaps some thing could have been done initially. Secondly, the Pre-Paid legal membership clearly defines and indicates that a retainer may be required in certain instances. This article insinuates that is not the case and that all legal services are "prepaid". All of the company literature and the membership contract clearly states what services are covered for the "pre-paid" membership fee and what the exclusions are. The fact that a retainer was required should not have been a surprise to Elias and if the reporter had done some minor investigation on the benefits of the Pre-Paid Legal membership, she would not have been surprised either and would not have used the "supposedly prepaid" remark in her report. That statement was biased, uninformed and unprofessional.

Finally, what would have been Elias's recourse had he not been a Pre-Paid Legal member? He still would have had to pay some attorney somewhere a retainer. Would it have been more or less than the retainer required by the Pre-Paid Legal provider attorney? The article, by publishing the retainer amount without disclosing the costs Elias incurred or comparing it to what he might have paid elsewhere, does the reader a disservice. It reads as if the attorney firm added insult to injury by asking for a retainer when that is the furthest from the truth. If a drug dealer without a Pre-Paid Legal membership was arrested, detained and extradited, needed an attorney, how much would that retainer have been? I would dare say probably a lot more than $2500. It seems to me that the writer had a dual agenda; the first to point out the incomprehensible inadequacies of the legal and justice system, and second to disparage the one company that has been working for over 33 years to do something about it.

please tell me how i can contact the washington press corps. I want to purchase a video tape of one of their supper club meetings. Thank you Mickey Burriss

burrissmd@juno.com