Post Reporter: Reader Comments on Race 'Often Reek' of 'Ignorance'

Photo of Tim Graham.
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
January 7, 2008 - 08:44 ET

In her Sunday column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell addressed how the Post reporters and editors respond to complaints about their work on the website and in E-mail. Most Posties she talked to tried to sound receptive to public criticism. But not Darryl Fears, who wants "intolerant" and "ignorant" comments scrubbed off the website:

Web site comments can be more than ugly and are often aimed at private citizens quoted in stories. National reporter Darryl Fears would stop them. "Comments attached to stories about race, ethnicity and related issues such as immigration often reek of racism, intolerance and ignorance. To ignore them, in my opinion, is to endorse them."

Neither Fears nor Howell provide actual examples of what an "ignorant" comment is. The article also leaves the reader confused as to whether Fears the Censor would scrub comments about private citizens, or prevent all comments on stories about race and ethnicity. 

As a reporter, Fears has displayed a tendency to play down the rhetorical ugliness of black activists, as the NAACP suggested George W. Bush was a killer and implied that conservatives flew the swastika. Inside the Post, Fears is an advocate for staff diversity, complaining the Post staff is still 80 percent white.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

INTOLERANT & IGNORANT COMMENTS???

January 7, 2008 - 09:02 ET by danybhoy

 I wonder how Mr.Fears views many of the opinions posted at sites like MediaMatters, Kos, DU, Move-On, ThinkProg, & the like? Some real "intolerant"& "ignorant" posts are not hard to find. Then again, most lefties are bitter & angry, so...

 

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

}}---> Deborah Howell?

January 7, 2008 - 09:35 ET by Cool Arrow

Never heard of her before, but I'm wondering how it's her place to opine on the readers' racial bias.

I guess I need to investigate the definition of "ombudsman". 

I ♣ My Seal

Fears displays own stupidity in his comment:

January 7, 2008 - 09:38 ET by Hunter12

"Comments attached to stories about race, ethnicity and related issues such as immigration often reek of racism, intolerance and ignorance. To ignore them, in my opinion, is to endorse them."

He would need to leave the comment on the site and rebut them to achieve what he states.  Removing them is ignoring them and, in his words, an endorsement.

Any of us who have worked with or associated with the Mexican people would probably declare them to be hard-working, fun, intelligent people.  Our complaint is that the flood of illegals are a major drain on the economy, with all the ills associated with that drain.  If a lib could look past the vote they hope to get from that person and see them as a victim being exploited to make a greedy, blood-sucking WASP even richer, we could get this problem solved. (/mild sarc) 

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

Stupidity and Ignorance

January 7, 2008 - 09:44 ET by American Taxpayer

Yes we should always leave it to the Profesionals they are always fair and balanced. The NYP, NYT, ABC,CBS,NBC will tell you what your opinion should be, anything else would underline thier extremly high levels of stupidity and ignorance.    

the yuckiest

January 7, 2008 - 12:10 ET by OklahomaIsShapedFunny

I get the point of the Left deeming contrary views on illegals being censorable. Screw them.
but.....

I'm sure many of you have scrolled though comments left under editorials that are just bathroom stall kind of talk. Stupid and nasty and really stupid and not humorus and stupid.

I get too that since that stuff that I just describes EXISTS... the Left will use the honorble attempt to rid comment sections of SCUM to also erase stuff they just don't agree with. That seems to be a key weapon in their arsenal.
(btw... is there a "fallacy" name for this... identifying and promising to eliminate a problem we ALL agree on and then slyly changing the definition of that problem to include stuff like censoring comments unfriendly to their agenda ??? )

Okay.
My question.
What to do about the legitmate SCUM?
The people who post the complete freaking garbage.
Is this a case where the community or "market" will eventually drive them out? Do we just accept that idiots will be idiots?

thanks

Re: censoring comments

January 7, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Tim Graham

It's certainly true that racist remarks could be posted after an immigration story. I have no problem with a website scrubbing comments if they cross a line (profanity, racial slurs, whatever). But they don't define it in this piece.

Media lost in space

January 7, 2008 - 12:28 ET by Scrapiron

"Neither Fears nor Howell provide actual examples of what an "ignorant" comment is." That would be anything they don't agree with.