Sunday, February 19, 2006

Boycott Washington Post Ombudsman Howell

Nearly forgot to post on the latest column by controversial ombudsman, Deborah Howell.

While reading the Sunday paper in my cozy living room, I came across a column by Howell in the Washington Post. The focus of her latest outrage is the professed unseemly and unprofessional attire worn by former Washington Post White House correspondent Dana Milbank on the hit cable show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Milbank wore an orange hat with an orange striped vest, similar to those worn by hunters, in keeping with the insane story of a vice president shooting a man while quail hunting and not telling anyone for nearly a day.

And with faux anger, "hundreds of e-mails, prompted by conservative blogs" wrote the Post ombudsman and condemned Milbank's attempt to make light of a situation that could have gone horribly wrong.

Of course, the Post immediately took Milbank to the "woodshed" for leave-taking his senses and poking fun at our dear vice president, even though as Firedoglake points out, Jeb Bush and Scott McClellan had essential done the same thing earlier.

"Liz Spayd, assistant managing editor for national news" and presumably Milbank's supervisor is quoted as saying: ""What he intended as a playful joke was viewed by many as mocking and unprofessional, and understandably so."

Hmm...really? So it's okay for Little Brother and McClellan to make light of a situation, but beyond the pale for Milbank?!?

Personally, I think the only people upset were a bunch of right-wing wackos who love to feel victimized even though they dominate all three branches of government; but because they don't control 100 percent of the media, or at least 100 percent of all journalists; and god forbid, they be shown for the inept, tragic morons that they are, they gotta raise a ruckus.

So they bitch and bawl and cry like big fat babies, feign indignation, and huff and puff until some media drone caves in and hollers, uncle!

By inserting herself in the middle of an obvious right-wing campaign to create a maelstrom (maybe equal to the buzz when progressives rightly complained about factual errors in an earlier Howell column by the thousands ), she has now encouraged the phony low spirits to raise a stink anytime a story isn't framed exactly to their liking.

Yes, by giving air to their baseless charges, to borrow a sentiment and words from Howell's column, she "cross[ed] the line," especially when she started opining about Milbank's stories and whether or not she liked them. I say to the dear lady, who gives a rat's butt what you like?

I am getting so sick and tired of writing about Howell that I think from now on, I'll just simply ignore her; and strongly urge my brethren to do likewise.

Don't send her any e-mails. Don't write any comments on her Post blog; and let the blog whittle to a pantheon of only right-wing ranting and talking points, eventually dying out, as is only just.

One final note: I sure hope some reporter finds out whether or not Milbank was indeed taken to the proverbial woodshed, as Howell writes, 'cause I'm not so sure that's an accurate characterization. Dollars to a donut it's just more puffery and b/s from a most misleading ombudsman.

Hi, a nice blog you have here. You will surely get an bookmark :) phentermine
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?