WaPo Ombudsman Insists Conservative Palin E-mail Complaints Were 'Complete Balderdash'
One might expect the reader’s advocate at a major newspaper to have some respect for the readers. Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton thinks anyone who complains about “crowdsourcing” Sarah Palin’s e-mails is ridiculous. With copy as spiky as his white hair, he began his Sunday column with a swipe:
If you read the mail to the ombudsman last week, you would think The Post organized a vigilante mob to burn Sarah Palin at the stake. That interpretation is complete balderdash.
...The Post was not going through the former governor’s diaper bag, her trash or her private life. These were the official e-mail records from Palin’s time in office. They were sought in 2008, originally by voters in her state, and later by Mother Jones magazine, The Post and other news organizations.
It somehow did not occur to Pexton that being in a news scrum with a radical magazine like Mother Jones might make you look like a tie-dyed leftist.
Pexton might have started by responding to the Saturday letter to the editor Brent Baker cited that strongly made the conservative point: it wasn’t just the method of soliciting uncredentialed volunteers, it was the target. Proclaiming they were in too much of a hurry to get at Sarah Palin’s record at an opportune moment – at the same time that she's flirting with a run for president – displays political judgment. That appearance of bias is certainly anything but balderdash. It’s an image problem for the Post – unless they’re comfortable looking like liberal hacks.
Pexton’s written response wasn't satisfying to people complaining of bias. It's understood that congressional e-mails are protected from the Freedom of Information Act. It's also not helpful to explain that they’ve used this method to ask federal employees about a government shutdown, or to find babies born on 9/11, or to study American Muslims. That just elides rather than addresses the controversy. Pexton turns to “interactivity editor” Hal Straus to defend the method, and then to claim this Palin hunt didn’t turn out any way:
Straus also acknowledged that the Palin call-out didn’t work so well. It wasn’t a lack of reader interest — after its call-out June 10, The Post was bombarded with requests to help go through the 24,000 pages of Palin e-mails. The downfall was that few of the responders had specific knowledge of Alaska, which is a far-away state with a small population and an even smaller pool of people familiar with Palin.
“Did we get a lot of new facts or tips? No,” Straus said. “There has to be an audience that has knowledge of the topic.” The Post’s political and investigative reporters, who also pored over the Palin e-mails, probably know more than most readers about the former governor.
I think requesting the correspondence of public officials is a crucial tool for journalists. Sure, go ahead and get Obama’s e-mails from when he was an Illinois state senator. Why not? And I think crowd-sourcing is here to stay as a regular part of the future of this publication and others.
This whole piece reads like snippy corporate self-defense, not an attempt to assess independently the complaints of readers. An ombudsman who cared about bias wouldn't breezily write "Sure, go get Obama's e-mails." He would ask the Post if anyone inside the building if they ever thought of digging them up, let along the thought of going through them with hundreds of volunteers. Pexton is not off to a good start in his new job.
# # #
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
excuses
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 7:24pm.
He also claims that the reason nothing of significance was found was that the army of volunteers weren't familiar with Palin or Alaska enough to do good research not that Palin had nothing in the emails that harm her.
Pexton quotes the Post’s interactivity editor, Hal Straus's lame excuse this way:
Straus also acknowledged that the Palin call-out didn’t work so well. It wasn’t a lack of reader interest — after its call-out June 10, The Post was bombarded with requests to help go through the 24,000 pages of Palin e-mails. The downfall was that few of the responders had specific knowledge of Alaska, which is a far-away state with a small population and an even smaller pool of people familiar with Palin.
People aren't familiar with Palin by this time?! Good grief Sarah Palin is only second behind obama in news coverage and her coverage was more about facts (distorted or not) while obama's coverage consists mostly of sloppy love sonnets.
→ Thank you Ombud
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 7:37pm.
I take it your Newspaper reported fairly on the leftists whose death threats against Sarah Palin were included in that stack?
When in doubt, insult the readers
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 7:55pm.
That's how you build an audience, alright. *shaking head*
Visions and Principles blog
"you would think The Post
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:16pm.
"you would think The Post organized a vigilante mob to burn Sarah Palin at the stake"
There he goes, giving WP management new ideas....
Speaking of “Complete Balderdash”
Submitted by needle on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:46pm.
Washington Post “ombudsman” Patrick Pexton is a complete fraud.
One would think that the Washington Post “ombudsman” would be on guard against Washington Post’s inherent prejudices; instead he becomes a spirited defender of them.
When Paxton behaves this way he is the antithesis of an ombudsman.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
No it's what you think you creep.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:46pm.
When someone says "you would think" it is telling you what they think. It's similar to the crap:
- there are those that say
- it has been said
- a large percentage of the population thinks
WTF
Submitted by jessieH on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:43pm.
O. k.,liberals, prove it. Release Pelosi's e-mail. Produce Rangle's E-mail. Produce Reid's e-mail. Produce Waters' e-mail( I bet you thought the American people would forget about her ethics violations), produce one Democrat's e-mails. Palin passed with flying colors. Show us one Democrat that can do the same! I dare you!
familiar with the results of every ethics charged
Submitted by Injest on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 6:35am.
People aren't familiar with Palin by this time?!
More people aren't familiar with the results of every ethics charged against Palin.
The fact that she won all of them are not reported in WAPO or NYT.
injunction issued
Submitted by Injest on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 6:44am.
These were the official e-mail records from Palin’s time in office. They were sought in 2008, originally by voters in her state, and later by Mother Jones magazine, The Post and other news organizations.
It's because of “Mother Jones rag” her E-mails were under an injunction for the bogus “Palin uses her Private Yhoo account”.
2 lawsuits later (Palin won both) the injunction was lifted. Feb 23, 2011
Andree 51-50 McLeod, a frequent Palin critic who filed the lawsuit, lost her lawsuit, files another lawsuit and has lost that lawsuit as well.
Oh and after losing the 2nd case Feb 23, 2011, the injunction issued Oct. 10, 2008 requiring Palin to "preserve for the duration of the litigation all emails whose content relates in any way to official state business" was also terminated.
Who are these people anyway?
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:29am.
They are supposed to be mediators so to speak so I assume.
However they still work for liberals but it is great to head their pre schooler responses to criticism;)
I know you are...
Submitted by StarAZ on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:31am.
Preschooler! Yes. I know you are but what am I? I am rubber...
Hmmmm
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:31pm.
You are glue?
That's very sticky of you!
Kidding?
Submitted by tomaspain on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:40am.
"An ombudsman is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and some internal or external constituency while representing not only but mostly the broad scope of constituent interests."
The Post's Ombudsman seems to represent the Post!
I can't believe what they say.
Submitted by pbthinker on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:04am.
The papers haven't come out with anything that could be called a smoking gun. Why? I'm sure they have something. I tend to believe they're saving anything that would put Gov. Palin on the defensive, just in case she runs so they can attack her with it then. There's just no way these petty people didn't find something "they " believe is bad.
Maybe the hair kept him off Masterpiece Theatre
Submitted by StarAZ on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:29am.
He does have bad hair. But this line...
If you read the mail to the ombudsman last week, you would think The Post organized a vigilante mob to burn Sarah Palin at the stake. That interpretation is complete balderdash
First--the straw man of what readers supposedly were saying. Learned that from his master (oh, you know who). Second, "balderdash"? Really? Was claptrap taken? What supercilious drivel. The Post wanted reader buy-in to trash Palin and also free work. Catch up. And take your finger out of the socket--bad for the follicles.
StarAZ
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:40am.
I don't think you should be giving advice on hair styles. Just sayin.
Well Well Well........
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:58am.
Looks to me that the lefties saw that Ms Palin was rising once again in prominence in the news cycle, and what they were planning was very plainly an ambush. They all had their baseball bats out and they were swinging at her knees. They Truly wanted to Cripple any chance she had at being a legitimate candidate. SUPRISE LEFFTIES while you were all swinging at her knees she let you swing away missing her and ending up smacking each others teeth out! Why did it happen:
1. THERE WAS NOTHING THERE!!!
2. She was ACTUALLY a GOOD GOVERNOR, that ACTUALLY DID HER JOB!
3 SEE NUMBER ONE, AND NUMBER TWO!
You see she did her job she did it to the best of her ability and you didn't find anything wrong because SHE DIDN"T DO ANYTHING WRONG in FACT you PROVED that she was an EXCELLENT Governor that cared about the people of her state and that she is QUALIFIED to be the President, you LIBERALS just can't admit that you were WRONG ABOUT SARAH PALIN!!!!
They were "bombarded" with
Submitted by ant on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:11pm.
They were "bombarded" with readers volunteering to pour through the e-mails. How many is bombarded? Surely the press, with it's laser-focus on detail and accuracy (Ha), could give us a real number.
Yes they were "Bombarded" .....
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:42pm.
by all 4 of their readers.......
Yes, and all in their pajamas.
Submitted by needle on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:24pm.
Yes, and all in their pajamas.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Dan Rather School of logic
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:59pm.
Fake = accurate.
Lack of data = smoking gun.
Up = Down.