Washington Post

Post Ombudsman Admits Paper’s Overuse of Anonymous Sources

Date: March 8, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Anonymity, Rahm Emanuel, Washington Post

Apparently several other people contacted the Washington Post ombudsman to complain about the front page story on Rahm Emanuel.  He responded in Sunday’s column.

While a lot of folks complained about a “conspiracy” at The Post, Alexander agreed with the contention, as I posted last week, that the story relied too heavily on anonymous sources.

A greater problem, I think, was its heavy reliance on anonymous quotes. At least a dozen people were quoted by name, showing depth of reporting. But there were more than a half dozen others quoted anonymously, comprising more than a quarter of the story’s length. Most supported Emanuel. The story could have stood on its own without them.

Readers properly complain about The Post’s overuse of anonymous sources. They’re often unavoidable, and Horowitz said he granted anonymity only after failing to persuade sources to speak on the record. But assertions offered with impunity erode credibility, especially when politically savvy readers suspect that Emanuel supporters are trying to spin The Post.

He then goes on to say that the paper is using anonymous quotes at a greater rate than it did last year, though his numbers don’t jibe with mine.  When I do a search for the term “spoke on conditional of anonymity” I found 118 instances through a LexisNexis.  That includes Post stories on sports and all other categories of stories.  Alexander claims only 70 such stories.  I can’t explain the difference.

But I thank him for writing about it.

Post’s Double Standard for Op-Ed Submissions

Date: March 2, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Hypocrisy, Op-Eds, Robert Ehrlich, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Washington Post

It’s not easy getting an op-ed into The Washington Post—unless you are a known quantity, if not of reasonable quality.  I’ve had success about a dozen times over the years, but on several occasions I was raked through the coals by editors wanting me to back up my assertions or interpretations.  And I’ve been unsuccessful, too, when editors didn’t think I had a unique perspective on the issue at hand.

But if you’re a usual suspect, you can pretty much say anything—or nothing—and get your column published.  Witness former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich’s op-ed on Sunday: “Annapolis leadership is out of touch on marriage and other issues.”  What was his unique insight?  He starts off talking about the state’s attorney general ruling that same-sex marriages can be recognized by the state, but the clear intent of his column is political posturing.

What strikes me most is not the attorney general’s conclusion but the broader pattern it fits, which should give Marylanders pause: Our political leadership in Annapolis is regularly enacting policies that conflict with mainstream sentiment in Maryland.

Ehrlich makes the usual GOP case against raising taxes.

That decision — raising the sales tax by 20 percent — disproportionately hurt poor and middle-income families and dealt a serious blow to Maryland’s entrepreneurs. Every additional dollar the O’Malley administration takes away from Maryland families means one less dollar they can spend in Maryland’s small businesses. Less business means more layoffs.

The entire argument in that paragraph is specious, but a typical GOP talking point.  He also goes after unions, the GOP’s favorite whipping boys.

Forcing nonunion state employees to pay union dues demoralizes thousands of workers and erodes their financial security for no credible reason.

Which then leads to his grand finale.

Our representatives in Annapolis are out of step with families, employers and taxpayers. If nothing else, Mr. Gansler’s opinion will send lawmakers running for the ideological trenches rather than coming to grips with their spending habits or getting government off the back of job-creating entrepreneurs.

The question is not whether Marylanders want more jobs and less government experimentation with our state’s social fabric; the question is whether their representatives in Annapolis will ever start listening.

What The Post did—and does often—is give politicians a platform to speak their talking points, while you and I need to have a unique voice and point of view.

The newspaper even allows politicians to espouse views that the paper itself has called nonsense.  On the issue of reconciliation, The Post says it’s opposed to using it for the health care bill but points out that Republican objections are hypocritical.

LET’S GET a few things straight about reconciliation, the procedure by which Democrats may be able to pass health-care reform by a simple majority. We aren’t fans of using the reconciliation process for this purpose. To approve a change as sweeping as this on a party-line vote strikes us as risky for Democrats and, pardon the phrase, unhealthy for the country. But questioning the wisdom of using reconciliation is different from questioning its propriety. Republican rhetoric notwithstanding, using reconciliation in this context would be neither a misuse of Senate rules nor, in a historical context, unusual.

The Republican rap on reconciliation is that it is a "little used" (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) "abuse of the legislative process" (Indiana Rep. Mike Pence) that would be used to "jam this bill through Congress" (Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch). This is hard to take from a crowd that just a few years back was moaning about the preeminent importance of the up-or-down vote. In fact, reconciliation is no more a tricky parliamentary maneuver than the filibuster. Senate rules allow a minority to block legislation by requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster. They also provide a way around the filibuster in certain circumstances involving budgetary matters.

…And the biggest abuse of reconciliation rules was engineered by Republicans, when they obtained a parliamentary ruling that reconciliation could be used not only for tax increases, but for tax cuts as well. Those who complain about twisting the rules now weren’t bothered then.

So what does the paper do today?  It gives Sen. Hatch, whose argument it called “hard to take,” prime op-ed space to make the same argument.

To impose the will of some Democrats and to circumvent bipartisan opposition, President Obama seems to be encouraging Congress to use the "reconciliation" process, an arcane budget procedure, to ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill….

Hatch makes no mention of the fact that Republicans used reconciliation to ram through Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts., which cost two and half times what the current healthcare legislation would cost.

But he has a name, so The Post lets him say whatever he wants.

Post Grants Anonymity on a Story That’s All About Advancing an Agenda

Date: March 2, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Anonymity, Rahm Emanuel, Washington Post

Rahm Emanuel, as The Washington Post admits, is a guy who has “long relationships with the media.”  He’s apparently cashing in his chips with a story about how well the Obama administration would be doing if it only followed Rahm’s sage advice.  It follows on Dana Milbank’s column less than two weeks ago suggesting pretty much the same thing.

Whether I agree or not (I don’t), the story again demonstrates The Post’s willingness to base a story almost entirely on anonymous sources, perhaps as many as five for this story (as we can’t be sure that at least instances aren’t the same person).

According to a person familiar with the conversations, who discussed the confidential deliberation on the condition of anonymity…

…an early Obama supporter who is close to the president and spoke on the condition of anonymity to give a frank assessment…

…said the [Congressional] member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss frustration…

…according to another administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

…who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

The newspaper seems to have forgotten its ombudsman’s advice of last August.

The Post also is inconsistent in how it describes unnamed sources and the reasons they were granted anonymity. Post policies say that readers should be told as much as possible about the quality of a confidential source ("with first-hand knowledge of the case," for instance). They also say "we must strive to tell our readers as much as we can about why our unnamed sources deserve our confidence."

As all of the phrases above suggest, sources were granted anonymity so they could advance a broad agenda accusing the president of doing too much instead of playing the Washington game of doing the minimum that’s needed for Congressmen to get re-elected.  Basically, they were granted anonymity to feel free to bash the president as none of the reasons given for anonymity amount to more than that.

When Ombudsman Andy Alexander wrote his column on August 16, 2009, he found 160 instances of the phrase "spoke on condition of anonymity."

A LexisNexis search today finds that The Post has already used the phrase 118 times since the beginning of the year, which would work out to about 590 times for 2010.

As Alexander suggested in the headline to his August column, The Post is increasingly “Ignoring the Rules on Anonymous Sources.”

Cynicism, To What Purpose?

Date: February 26, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Washington Post

William Branigin, who once wrote a story I was involved in and did it pretty well, had the first full summation of the healthcare summit yesterday on The Washington Post’s website.  At least, I think he did.  My aging mind, diminished further by a few too many falls off my bike (I am notorious to my friends for my lack of balance), may be failing me here.  I would link you to the story, but it now appears gone.  I immediately copied the url before I had a chance to write this post.  It was http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022502369_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010022502486.  But it now links to a shorter story with different reporters.

Branigin’s story, posted at a few minutes after six o’clock, was a good summation of the key issues and was fair to both parties in summarizing their ideas.  But he had this paragraph that I took issue with.

Republicans and Democrats attending the meeting at the presidential guest house across from the White House indicated that they remain far apart on key provisions advocated by each side. There were also major unresolved divisions within the Democratic Party, whose leaders were looking beyond a meeting they expected to amount to little more than political theater and focusing on a final round of negotiations within the party.

Yes, it was political theatre.  But who says a good show doesn’t serve some higher purpose.  It was a chance for Americans to see the two parties discuss their ideas in the open, face to face.  Not a bad practice, even if there were make-up and a little artistic flourish.

Branigin’s use of the phrase suggests a cynicism that I’m not sure all Americans share.  We say we want to see folks talking with each other.  Why dismiss it, as if to say, “Folks read no further; there’s nothing here to read”?

Why The Post is Becoming Irrelevant

Date: February 20, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Declining readership, Polls, Punditry, Tiger Woods, Washington Post
With all the problems the American way of life faces today–declining economic leadership and standard of living, two wars, a broken healthcare system, climate change, increasing energy costs, a financial system that holds the taxpayer hostage–what is The Washington Post covering today?

Before the papers even hit the driveways, I count on its web site 12—Count ‘em, 12!–stories/posts/commentaries, etc. on Tiger Woods’ apology yesterday.  And these are only the ones I can find links for on its home page:

“A disgusting apology,” “Woods convinced me,” “Taking the blame,” “Call it a half-apology,” “Tiger Woods Apologizes,” “Tiger Woods’…Mea Culpa,” “…Apology Leaves Little Room for Sincerity,” “Sincere and Thorough,” “…What Do We Believe,” “Woods Opens Door on Private Life…,” “Will Tiger Join the Shame Hall of Fame,” and last, but not least though certainly a new low for The Post, a poll, asking readers what they think.

Let me spare you all the wasted time reading the work of 12 writers and God knows how many editors, web and graphic designers, and the poor dead trees that gave up their lives for this.  Here’s the video of his public apology.

Let me save you more time:  Don’t view the video.  I didn’t.  And as Friday night rolls into Saturday morning in the central time zone, I can say I have survived not knowing what he had to say.  I may not make it ‘til morning.  I may wake up in a cold sweat and succumb to watching it and reading what all these underemployed journalists think about it. 

Most of them, of course, are pissed that he apparently took a swipe at them.  (I couldn’t help hearing that on a TV news report that caught me before I could run out of the room screaming.) They feel cheated:

“Tiger, would you let us know what your wife said to you when she found out?”

“Yo, Tiger, did you really tell a porn star you loved her and would marry her?  Oh, and how was she?”

“Please tell us, how does it feel to be so humiliated?”  (Note to non-reporters:  “How does it feel?” is the first question all reporters learn to ask.  Adding questions to their repertoire can help their careers, but isn’t really necessary.)

I’m willing to bet that when the paper comes out in the morning, you won’t find 12 full-fledged news stories in the A section.  As I’m out of town, let me know, and if proven wrong, I’ll admit it—in front of cameras with my family members in the audience.  And I’ll try to top Tiger by getting my wife to be there looking distraught and shamed that I guessed wrong.

But only if The Post apologizes to all those dead trees.

Great Stenography, Roz

Date: February 2, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Healthcare, Objectivity vs. Balance, Washington Post

"I don’t believe someone should be forced to buy something they don’t want to," said Sen. Phillip P. Puckett, a Democrat who represents rural Russell County. "It’s un-American. And it might be unconstitutional."

One of The Post’s better stenographers used this quote in her story this morning about the Virginia Senate voting to make it illegal to force people to buy health insurance.  It apparently never occurred to Roz Helderman as she was scribbling the quote to ask, “What about auto insurance?”

See, that would require her to think.  But when your job is to get what one side says and then the other side’s perspective and voila, you have a story, there’s no need to dig a little deeper, especially when you know your editors will be pleased as punch at another article with no context nor journalistic thoughtfulness.

Newspapers’ Problem: A 30-Something Nurse

Date: November 21, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Declining readership, Healthcare, Mainstream Media, Marcus Brauchli, Online Access, Pay for Content, Politico, Right-wing echo chamber, Rush Limbaugh, Talk Radio, Wall St. Journal, Washington Post

An open letter to The Washington Post:

I met the problem newspapers like The Washington Post face.  She is a 30-ish admissions nurse at Inova Hospital.

I was sitting in her office clutching The Post and the Wall Street Journal, my hands gray with newsprint.  She noticed and volunteered, “I stopped my subscription recently because the paper was all yesterday’s news.”  She confirmed to me that she gets her news online.

The most obvious way to profit from readers like her is to give her information she can’t readily get elsewhere or charge for online content.  Maybe you put it in newsprint before going online with it, if you think newsprint is your future. 

I suggest you might save both your newsprint and online real estate for stories that readers like her care about.  Dan Balz’s article about a “pep rally”  is a case in point.  I understand that The Post’s reputation has been built on its reporting of politics, but that’s no longer helpful for two reasons.

One, Politico, Huffington Post, blogs, etc. give us more and faster. 

Two, politics has become so predictable and offensive.  Writing an article that’s nothing more than dueling talking points probably holds little interest for most of your readers.  Exactly how many of them care to hear the partisan tit-for-tat about what might happen a year from now?  And even “Republicans acknowledge that events could change the political landscape before next November.”  In March 2007, a year before Obama’s breakthrough victories in the primaries, who would have bet on his being president?  Still, let’s assume such navel gazing matters to political insiders.  Count them all.  I’m sure there are thousands.  Are there enough to save The Post? 

Now consider Shear and Eggen’s story this morning.  There is no news there except the coordinated effort by healthcare opponents to tie the recent mammogram study to “healthcare rationing.”  And The Post dutifully obliged to help that effort with front page placement.  The lede has no news hook:  “opponents stepped up efforts to define the legislation as big-government ambition run amok that will interfere with intimate medical decisions and threaten the pocketbooks of average taxpayers.”  Is that news?  Increased taxes had never been mentioned before yesterday?  “Stepped up efforts”?  I was unaware opponents were holding their powder before yesterday.  The story is “fair and balanced,” if that’s your criteria for good journalism.  But is this story of any value to my admissions nurse?  It certainly helped “radio show host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News host Glenn Beck,” who again seem to act as The Post’s assignment editors.

I might argue with at least one point in the article:  “Obama administration officials [say the] U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which issued the [mammogram] guidelines, has no power to affect coverage decisions by insurance companies.”  In fact, insurance companies could use the results of the task force as a rationale to cut coverage for mammograms for women under 50.

But my complaint is not about any partisan slant or arguable point.  Nor is it with any of these reporters.  My problem is their talents are going to waste because of bad decisions about what content readers want.  That ultimately rests with Mr. Brauchli.  Maybe he needs a push from the national editors. 

Maybe readers want more critical analysis of the big issues of our day, which I seem to get more of in Post columns than I do in daily stories.  Or maybe it’s a curriculum change being considered by the local school board.  I don’t know, but surely it isn’t what The Post has done for decades.  That’s over.  You’ve lost that war, at least for your newsprint edition.  And I would argue that getting the story about the Republican governors’ conference on your web site faster isn’t the answer, either.

Journalists Addicted to Polls

Date: November 19, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Polls, Washington Post

Joe Klein makes a good point about polls on issues:  They are useless. But for the press, they are heroin.

This is one of my biggest gripes with journalism as it is practiced, particularly on cable news: Polling numbers are "facts." They can be cited with absolute authority, sort of. And so they are given credence beyond all proportion to their actual importance or relevance. But they are not very truthy facts. The are imperfect impressions. They don’t tell us how many people actually know what’s in the House bill. They don’t tell us what the public thinks a plausible alternative strategy might be in Afghanistan. They are what journalists hang on to instead of actually reporting and thinking. And they are–for me, too–addictive.

Klein seems to target cable news, but have you noticed that just about every poll The Washington Post conducts it touts on its front page? 

I think it’s also true that even when ascertaining opinion on politicians, polls can be misleading.  If a pollster asked me if I was happy with the job Obama is doing, I’d answer “no.”  Does that mean, I’m ready to vote for the next GOPer on the ballot?  Not unless they can resurrect Clifford Case form the dead.

Post Writers Read Obama’s Mind?

Date: October 31, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Afghanistan, President Obama, Washington Post

One of the greatest responsibilities a president has is to decide to send American women and men into combat.  He should make that decision on his own, after carefully considering all the information and opinions of his advisors.

Anne Kornblut and Greg Jaffe make a call I’m not sure they have enough evidence to make.  They seem to be reading Obama’s mind.

The military chiefs have been largely supportive of a resource request by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, that would by one Pentagon estimate require the deployment of 44,000 additional troops. But opinion among members of Obama’s national security team is divided, and he now appears to be seeking a compromise solution that would satisfy both his military and civilian advisers. [emphasis added]

“Appears to be seeking a compromise”?  That, if true, is a damning observation, and surely will seized by Republican critics.  A president shouldn’t be arbiter-in-chief.  He shouldn’t “satisfy” his advisors. He should make the call based on what he thinks is right, not try to find middle ground among his advisors.

But that might not be the case, as there is nothing in the story to suggest he is looking for a compromise.  I’d love to know why Kornblut and Jaffe make that call.

Calling It Like She Sees It

Date: October 31, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Objectivity vs. Balance, Washington Post

Kudos to Lori Montgomery and her editors at The Washington Post for being objective, rather than a faux balance.  She writes about the House Democrats estimate for the cost of their healthcare plan.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are challenging an assertion by House leaders that their new health-care package comes in under President Obama’s spending limit of $900 billion over the next decade. The true cost of the measure, the GOP argues, is more than $1 trillion.

A House leadership aide dismissed the charge as "GOP spin." But, in this case, the spin is essentially true. [emphasis added]

According to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, expanding coverage to an additional 36 million Americans would cost $1.055 trillion over the next decade under the House plan, counting tax breaks for small businesses, subsidies for low- and moderate-income families, and the largest expansion of Medicaid since its inception more than 40 years ago.

House leaders prefer to emphasize a different number: the net cost of expanding coverage. That’s $1.055 trillion minus money that would be raised from penalties on people who failed to buy insurance and employers that failed to offer it. Those adjustments would bring the cost down to $894 billion over 10 years, just under Obama’s limit.

You can argue who is right. This might not be the best example, but at least she is willing to make a call, something I wish more reporters were willing to do.