The Washington Post Ombudsman Michael Getler assesses fashion reporter Robin Givhan’s critique of VP Cheney’s ski attire at the anniversary ceremony of Auschwitz. She received a lot of critical mail. She did not call the VP’s office for comment. I agree with Getler’s opinion that she should have. But did anyone else find his summation odd?
My view is that the image was fair game for a fashion columnist and that Givhan’s explanation provides a look at how critics bring their critical eye to all kinds of situations in ways that often look harsh to those who disagree or disapprove. I would, however, have voted for a call to the veep’s office to see if there was some special reason for that outfit. When I tried, officials would talk only off the record. My best guess is simply that it was very cold.
One would assume that his “best guess” is better than ours as he actually talked to the VP’s office. So is his guess what was revealed “off the record”? One would certainly not be blamed for interpreting it that way. The VP’s office must be beaming. They got the ombudsman to do what he would most certainly have criticized had a reporter done it: juxtaposed two sentences that give the clear impression of what the “off the record” comments were.
Could you imagine if a reporter wrote “The president would only comment on his reasons for going to war off the record. This reporter’s best guess is that he wanted ….”?