Howell's Internal Post Column

From Post ombudsman Deb Howell</strong:: The mail for the last two weeks has been filled with readers thinking The Post was insensitive in some aspects of its coverage of President Ford's death and funeral, in putting Saddam in a noose on Page 1 and a campaign to get more of the gruesome photos of Haditha run in the paper. I write about all of this in my column this week, but I had to cram it all in and thought I'd muse a bit more here and show you some of the letters. I don't disagree with any of the decisions on Ford coverage, but it does me make me think that, as journalists, we have a chip or filter in our brain that doesn't see anything wrong with running a photo of Saddam Hussein in a noose or putting it right next to a photo of Ford's flag-draped coffin. It didn't occur to me that readers would be really upset. I picked up the paper Dec. 31 and thought: Helluva of a news day! I also thought the noose photo was fine (though the inside photo of him dead left me a little cold, so to speak). Read the rest when you click below... But readers, including someone in the building I respect a lot, thought The Post had embarrassed itself. "Our Ford stories were just the best, and then to ruin that gracious writing with such a loathsome picture. There is no reason for that photo to be on our front page. None. If they wanted the story on the front page, fine, but not that barbaric photo." The readers were not partisans or axe-grinders. Here are some examples: Scott Mathews, no hometown given, wrote regarding Woodward's stories, which I dealt with in the last omblog. But I think there is a tendency sometimes to think that folks who write us have a political agenda : "There is a perception that Mr. Woodward and certain Post editors could hardly wait to use Mr. Ford's statements to "beat up" on President Bush so they took Mr. Ford's permission to publish anytime after his death literally and rushed the story into the paper within hours of Mr. Ford's passing, thus injecting unnecessary political controversy into what should be a time of thoughtful retrospection. This is unworthy of the Post's usual gravitas in times of national mourning. "I should point out that I endorse every word in Mr. Ford's statements, and that I think Mr. Bush is possibly the worst president in my lifetime, going back to Eisenhower. It's the timing of the story that I find troubling." Abby Thomas of Silver Spring wrote about Saddam photo: "I think you are ghouls pandering to the ghoul factor in your readers, and this isn't just bad news coverage; it is sick coverage--sick, sick, sick. You're much more respectful of other dead people; why not respect Mr. Hussein in death, awful as he was in life? Leave the photos of the big noose, masked executioners, and his face in death to the people who seek out sick stuff on the Web." As a parent, Steve Heyman of Chevy Chase wrote: "Perhaps next time the Post decides to print a picture of someone being executed in full color above the fold on the front page, they could also include the explanation that Post editors offered their first-graders of why this and two other photos of Saddam Hussein's execution and remains appeared so visibly in this morning's paper. "As a parent, I encourage my first-grader to explore the newspaper, talk about current events, check the weather page and read Kids Post. Front page headlines and photos often raise difficult questions, but usually do not force parents to screen the newspaper before inviting their child explore the paper. If the Post plans to publish similar sensationalistic photos in the future, perhaps you should consider taking the approach most electronic media outlets use and warn readers that some of the images you are publishing inside the paper are graphic and not suitable for small children. Unfortunately, if a young child looked at today's front page paper after picking it up from the front steps It is already too late for such a warning." The Inquirer put a picture of Saddam on Page 1 with a box that warned of more graphic pictures inside. Judy Omessi, Centreville, wrote: "This morning the front page truly disturbed me. The side by side display of photos and stories concerning President Ford and Hussein was in such poor taste. Surely, the death of a president deserves the above the fold position regardless of virtually any other news. Most certainly, it should not be paired with the likes of Hussein. "I read the Ruane and Milbank pieces. Ruane wrote as though he saw Rumsfeld present during one part of the Ford service. It is my understanding (Milbank agreed) that he was unable to fly here because of the weather. He definitely was not there. "Here is a complaint about which I doubt anyone at the Post can do anything. Surely, Mr. Woodward could have held off on the release of the Ford interviews until after the man's funeral. There was nothing earth shattering or likely to change any current situation. It just would have been the act of a mensch to wait a week. "Lastly, I think the Being A Black Man series is great!! I love the in-depth pieces your journalists do from time to time. TV/cable will never be able to devote the time and resources necessary to produce that kind of work." Michael Ruane said a pool report said Rumsfeld was expected and he didn't realize he wasn't there. It wasn't corrected because one story had it right, which seemed confusing to readers. I'm told a correction is in the works. HADITHA PHOTOS I'm squeamish about running pictures of bloody dead bodies in this country or another. While I can't locate the original blogger, it's obvious that it's an anti-war campaign. I looked at the photos and think the vast majority are unpublishable. People would throw up in their cornflakes to look at some of them. One of the issues is that they look like forensic crime photos. Heads blown away and a lot of blood, though they are in black and white. The photo of the young boy in his helicopter tee-shirt or pajamas is heartrending. But if Post policy would be not to publish that picture if it was a local boy killed in a domestic or a crime, then why would you publish it if it's an Iraqi boy? Another issue is that it's impossible to tell from the photo whether some of the victims have been shot or killed by a hand grenade. Was a kid killed point blank or did a Marine toss a hand grenade through the window and not know a child was inside. All in all, it's a gruesome lot of photos. If they come out at trial, then I'm sure they'll be on a Web site. But I would have a hard time putting them in the paper. Here's a sample of comment: Laura Maschal of the District writes: "It is the duty of the press to report the truth. Failing to publish photos that the Washington Post has exclusive access to -- that illustrate in a way words cannot convey an event that has been both underreported and smoothed over, in the context of a war that has led to the deaths of innocent Iraqis at a rate hard for Americans to truly get our heads around -- is allowing American journalism to serve political ends rather than the truth. "I am a child of two journalists, who are passionate about the truth. I was raised to believe that the press must question politically expedient explanations and must expose realities that the average person doesn't want to face. Murdered children are not a hot topic for polite conversation, I guess, and normal folks are unlikely to relish images of them. But they tell a story that the American people must know. Because they are the bill of goods that Americans have bought. We are all responsible for this war, and we are all responsible for what happens next. "The Washington Post has many options for publishing these photos. One good option, least likely to offend children casually checking out a paper lying on the breakfast table (or a similar scenario), is to publish one moderately graphic photograph in the print edition and publish a more complete slideshow on the Post's website. Of course everyone can go online, but standards tend to be a bit different there. And it's easier to warn someone about graphic content before they click than before they happen to open the A section." SPORTS TO METRO? Edward C. Jones writes: "This week there are three excellent Woodward-style articles in the Sports section about the problems with the Redskins. I suggest that reporters Jason LaCanfora, Howard Bryant and Les Carpenter be promoted to the Metro section and sicked on our local governments, especially D.C. and P.G." GOOD NEWS? A newspaper bud sent this to me with this subject line: "Down to the final pool of geezers who can still read?" This is from the E&P Web site under the headline: "Poll: Newspaper Readership Decline Has Stopped" "A new Gallup poll reveals a halt in the steady decline of Americans who rely on newspapers for most of their news gathering, with local TV news still holding at No. 1. "The rapid growth in the Internet news audience may have slowed in the last two years," Gallup reports." http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528255 CATFIGHT! I got a few nasty notes about Lois Romano using "catfight" to describe Nancy Pelosi denying Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. Here's one from Gwen Rubenstein of the District: "I am writing to say that the new "In the Loop" page had an inauspicious start with the first word of Lois Romano's column. The historic event of the first ever woman Speaker of the House, and the lead is 'catfight.' From a woman reporter no less. Good grief.I don't think this is clever or amusing. In fact, I think it is sexist and demeaning both to the two powerful congresswomen in the story, to the reporter, and to the Post." Lois said she got a lot of really nasty mail over the word and wasn't sure she'd use that word again. NATIONAL ORIGIN OR NO? This note from local reader Carlo Salzano gave me pause: "I will take this opportunity... to comment briefly on the Jan. 2 page 1 Metro story about the murdered Burtonsville woman (named Chidiebere Omenihu Ochulo). Because of the unusual names of the husband and wife, I was curious about their origins. But no such luck. Is this another one of those Post policies or did the reporters decide that information was irrelevant? If the name was Smith, I would understand. But Ochulo and Emeruwa? Come on." Ordinarily, I think national origin isn't necessarily part of the story. But The Post does on occasion use it with unusual names. And sometimes it doesn't. It's not the same as The Post policy on race, but it's close. As a reader, I can say that I was curious to know. And I could argue both to use it _ or not. Something to think about in this area so filled with immigrants. ENTRY IN THE NASTY LETTER CONTEST. William Martin sent the following message to Karin Brulliard about an immigration story: "Karin,you write about the illegal Mexican invasion with all the finesse of a seven year old child. How did you get an important news job? Because you are a mean, useless, liberal, childless, ignorant WOMAN THING? Most of you are. W.M. " A POSITIVE READER EXCHANGE WITH NANCY TREJOS From Steve Lintner of Winston-Salem, N.C., "I was certain that when I read the monthly toll of US forces in Iraq yesterday that the figure given was 90 to date this month. Yet this in this morning's article by Ms. Trejos the number listed is 87. Is it possible that yesterday's numbers were inaccurate, or is my memory simply failing me? From the Omb: "Mr. Lintner, below is a reply from the Baghdad reporter, explaining her methods. The casualty rate is not hard and fast at any one time, since soldiers may be been killed, but their names have not been released. I agree that the month-end count is probably the best." From Nancy: "The 87 I put in there came from adding up press releases that the U.S. military has sent out listing all the deaths. Icasualties.org, an independent website that counts deaths, said the total was 90. Gen. Caldwell, the main U.S. military spokesman, said today that he thinks the number is 94. So, it's hard to come up with an exact number. You usually get a better number when the month is over, when the military can go back and go through all the deaths. The AP keeps their own count as well, which is usually higher. Sometimes there's some double counting, by the military as well. Hope this helps." Lintner replies: "...I am impressed by not only your promptness in replying but the depth of the explanation. Please pass my thanks along to Ms. Trejos for being willing to do a job that is so necessary, and a wish that she stay safe while doing so." HE DISAGREES WITH ME ON MASSAGE PARLOR ADS Local reader Ray Cotton, writes: "...Regarding the Massage Parlor ads in the Post, since they are legal businesses, what are your grounds for opposing them? Do you believe the First Amendment doesn't apply because you and /or some readers don't like their services? What about liquor stores? Their products can end up killing people. What about abortion clinics? What about businesses that are open on religious holidays? Would not the Post's support of the First Amendment be weakened if they began to turn down ads from licensed businesses because someone had "moral" objections to their services or products? Where would it end? Without any hubris at all, I must say I may be more of a First Amendment purist than you b/c I believe the major newspaper in a city has an obligation to allow ALL legal businesses to advertise. It is up to the police--and NOT the newspaper--to enforce the laws that regulate a particular business. "While I am not terribly bothered about what consenting adults do in private, I am bothered by ads for guns and liquor in newspapers. Nevertheless, these are legal businesses too until the police say otherwise. Moreover, I would assume the police can also see the ads you object to and investigate on their own. If they find people breaking the law they can take appropriate action."

Fishbowl

Howell's Internal Post Column

Patrick

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Patrick