Deborah Howell: The Firestorm Over My Column

[samhsarah]

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, January 22, 2006; B06

Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down.

That column praised The Post for breaking the story on lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings, for which he has pleaded guilty to several felony counts. The column clearly pointed out that Abramoff is a Republican and dealt mainly with Republicans, most prominently former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012100907_pf.html

[Warpy]

1. FIRESTORM??

Oh, Debbie honey, you're mistaking being called on LYING YOUR ASS OFF for a firestorm. You have no clue what a firestorm really is. I'd suggest you revisit the GOP outrage over Monica Lewinsky to refresh your memory about that sort of thing.

If you lie to people, they're not only going to correct you, they're going to resent it.

If you can't help yourself and manage to stop lying, perhaps it's time to consider another profession, perhaps in the sale of used items, like cars and real estate.

[babylonsister]

2. I DO like the fact that she corrected the record several times, but

you said it, Warpy. Clenis was a firestorm; I wonder if anyone ever regrets not holding their fire then for more important issues, like how this country is going down the tubes now?

[confludemocrat]

3. Notice how no context is acknowledged here by Deborah Howell

like the many instances of poor reporting by any number of WaPo and NYT reporters and the her own evident reporting laziness,
as if the "firestorm" of a reaction was something out of the blue

[ruggerson]

4. Stone me, but I think the woman is correct

and she did not deserve the pile of obscenities she received.

She was wrong, no doubt, but sometimes I think our anger gets the better of us and we misplace the hatred we all feel for George W Bush's policies onto innocent (or more or less innocent) bystanders.

Standing by and watching your country pursue policies which you know in your soul are wrong and illegitimate is one of the toughest things imaginable.

But, piling on a woman who is obviously trying to do the right thing, in a fishbowl, does not help get rid of George W Bush. It merely satisifes, very temporarily, our anger and rage.

[Captain Hilts]

5. The WP said that women get FAR more vicious e-mail than men.

I, too, am sorry that legitimate criticism of her comments was eclipsed by vulgar messages. It makes those of us who were upset by her column look bad.

[Warpy]

7. I only read about a third of the way down the comments

on that page, and I noticed very little profanity. I suppose the Freeps must have gotten into it later once it became clear that Democrats were not taking her pack of lies lightly and wrtten typically profane Freeptard screed as though they were outraged Democrats to discredit the first posters.

I'm sorry her feelings were hurt because some of the stuff got rough. Again, I suggest that perhaps she's in the wrong job if she thinks being paid to lie about Democrats will be an easy gig and nobody will object.

In other words, Debbie, tell the truth or get out.

[400Years]

12. it got her to correct her bullshit

'nuff said.

[ljm2002]

6. My letter to Ms Howell (shameless repost from another thread)

Ms. Howell,

In today's column, you admit you were mistaken when you said about Abramoff that "...he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress." You then proceed to make a "correction" that is wildly misleading: "I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties." You attempt to back up this assertion by citing FEC and CPI records, as well as some as-yet-unpublished lists held by the Washington Post.

The FEC and CPI sites show records of contributions by Indian tribes, not who (if anyone) "directed" them; nor were any of these contributions illegal -- a rather important point in the context of this scandal. Records also indicate that contributions by these tribes to Republicans increased after they began associating with Abramoff, while their contributions to Democrats decreased (see citation * below) -- hardly evidence of Democratic complicity in the Abramoff scandal.

As to the Post's "copies of lists", if you have supporting information to show your readers, please do so. Otherwise, how does citing unpublished lists in any way reinforce your assertion? Surely as a journalist you understand this point.

In your original article, you provided this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/20...

to show that both parties took Abramoff-directed money. In fact, the graphic in that link adds up as follows: $220,000 to Republicans, $4,000 to Democrats. So over 98% was "directed" to Republicans, less than 2% to Democrats. An honest recounting of this data would have employed words like "overwhelming", as in: By an overwhelming margin, this money was directed towards Republicans.

Since you led today's column by noting your 50-year career in journalism, I must assume you know the difference between solid and sloppy journalism, between factual and false statements, and between clarifying and misleading reporting. Ergo, you should understand that the so-called "firestorm" ensuing from your original column rests squarely at your own feet.

On the whole, the evidence would seem to indicate less than strictly honest journalism on your part. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities, but there it is.

Sincerely,

XXX XXX

XXX XXX


* Here is a citation showing that tribal contributions to Democrats decreased after their association with Abramoff:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arV...

<...>

" Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats."

<...>

" Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past."

[depakid]

8. "...e-mails so abusive and many so obscene"

Hogwash.

I read 'em- and while a few expressed suitable outrage over her wilful dishonesty (for which a newspaper with any integrity at all would discipline her for- or maybe fire her) nothing in there was abusive or obscene.

[Justsayin]

9. The internet has changed everything

for the old goats. They have been used to talking to each other(propagandist in a bubble) about their "journalism" now they are faced with the unwashed masses.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Maybe if your paper would start DOING ITS JOB

people wouldn't be inclined to think the worst. And Abramoff "directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions.. to both parties" Care to back that up? We've seen it clearly indicated elsewhere that Abramoff would sooner chew off his own foot than give money to a Democrat.

But, yes, Ms. Howell... it IS a "Republican scandal". Thank you for acknowledging the truth. Now, please shout it from the rooftops of your credibility-deficient newspaper, so the American public GETS IT.

[tlsmith1963]

11. What Does She Expect

When we have a news media that is too soft on the neocons? Does she expect people like us to be *happy* about it? We were venting several years' worth of frustration, & she just happened to be the target this time. Maybe if the media *did it's job*, they wouldn't have to deal with all the abuse.

Tammy