My letter to Deborah Howell, allegedly WaPo's ombudsman

Dear Ms. Howell:

Your paper has again made me think that my decision to cancel my subscription was a correct one.

On the day that Rudy's waste of tax dollars due to his very own ShagaNathan scandal becomes public, your paper runs a set of rumors, all disproved (by real journalists, something apparently on back order at WaPo), on Barack Obama. It wasn't so much that the content of the front page article stunk, which it did, nor that the story was so bad that even your own political cartoonist took a wonderfully accurate shot at the editors and writers of WaPo, nor was it that the fact that the only reason that such "rumors" were even at issue was due totally to WaPo's shoddy excuse for journalistic integrity. It was all of that, and more. Much more.

On a hunch, I ventured forth and purchased a paper copy of your publication. Having searching it high and low, page to page, I was shocked to find that Rudy's sexscapades aren't considered worthy of a mention, even if Rudy hid $600,0000+ in tax dollar expenses while involved in a adulterous affair. Funny, I don't seem to recall such deafening WaPo silence during Bill Clinton's blue dress issue.

Under your guiding hand, I see cheerleading, WaPo promotion, and an almost rabid refusal to admit mistakes or worse, bias, taint and bad practices. For that, you should be ashamed. If you don't understand the role of an ombudsman, I have taken the liberty to add that definition for you, in case curiosity, integrity or a rare spasm of self-reflective honesty should happen to cross your desk.

Organizational ombudsman (from Wikipedia)

Many private companies, universities and government agencies also have an ombudsman (or an ombudsman department) which serve internal employees or other constituencies. These ombudsman roles are structured to function independently, by reporting to the board of directors, and do not serve any other role in the organization. Organizational ombudsmen are sometimes called "ombuds" or "ombuds officers" or "ombudsperson" or "ombud". They are beginning to appear around the world within organizations, sometimes as an alternative to anonymous hot lines, in countries where the latter are illegal or considered inappropriate.
Recently, since the 1960s, the profession has grown in the United States, particularly in corporations, universities and government agencies. This current model, sometimes referred to as an organizational ombudsman, works as a designated neutral party, one who is high ranking in an organization, but who is not considered management. Using an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) sensibility, an organizational ombudsman can provide options to whistleblowers or employees with ethics concerns, provide mediation for conflicts, track problem areas, and make recommendations for changes to policies or procedures in support of orderly systems change. One particularly important function is to pick up "new things" -- that is, issues new to the organization. This is particularly important if the "new thing" is "disruptive" in the sense of requiring the organization to review and possibly improve its policies, procedures and/or structures.
An organizational ombudsman who is holding to "standards of practice" in the US is neutral and visibly outside ordinary line and staff structures. An organizational ombudsman will practice informally (with no management decisionmaking power, and without accepting "notice" for the organization). An organizational ombudsman typically keeps no case records for an employer and keeps near absolute confidentiality. The only exception is where there appears to be an imminent risk of serious harm, and an ombudsman can see no responsible option other than breaking confidence -- but organizational ombuds programs report that they can almost always find "other responsible options", such as helping a visitor to make an anonymous report about whatever appears to be the problem.


]News ombudsman

Newspaper and media ombudsman offices are especially valuable for promoting journalistic integrity on behalf of readers, viewers and listeners. There is an international Organization of News Ombudsmen. The position of the public editor is paradoxical, as they are generally employees of the newspaper. However as a valuable symbol of a high standard of journalism ethics for a newspaper, the firing of a public editor over any criticisms they might have would contradict their purpose. The press in Sweden is self-regulated through the Public Press Ombudsman (Allmänhetens Pressombudsman) and the Swedish Press Council(Pressens Opinionsnämnd).




Since neither definition seems to apply to what you appear to be doing at WaPo, you might consider taking all your apparent free time, and write an article for WaPo, explaining what it is, precisely, that you actually do each day. Knowing that would greatly benefit your readers, especially those who used to respect and enjoy WaPo's journalistic integrity, research, investigations, and willingness to act as the most reputable fourth branch, keeping the other three branches of goverment in check. Sadly, that seems as unlikely as WaPo's return as a serious news source.

with regret and great sadness,

Anti-


What are the chances that she will look into the ridiculous Obama front page slime job, AND try to get a Rudy story into the paper?

whereas the publisher and the editors of Wapo seem to have misplaced theirs.

you are right, of course, but I thought that a detailed definition of ombudsman (ombudswoman?) might help her out. probably not.

but then, I will put money on the fact that this week's ombudsman will cover the Sean Taylor story.

I missed the first one..but it's a great letter, full of interesting information for anyone who wasn't a mediawhore.

Good Luck! You guys are the best..hounding those m$$$$m. At least it's out there in the ethers somewhere!
Rec'd!