Howell’s “OmBlog”

Sent internally Friday to Post staffers:

MAIL BAG
The most mail this week continued to be on the John Edwards story, all negative. Media Matters picked it up and it became more of a campaign later in the week. It’s the lead of my column this week.
The next highest mail-getter were complaints that Liz Cheney, who wrote an op-ed piece Wednesday headlined “Retreat Isn’t an Option” should have been identified as the vice-president’s daughter.
Here’s a polite one from Margaret Neill, who wrote: “I think it would have been relevant to mention that she is the VP’s daughter in addition to being a former State Department appointee. I don’t think that takes away from her personal credentials, but given the polarizing nature of the war in Iraq, and of her father’s involvement in particular, it seems disingenuous to leave that fact out.”
Fred Hiatt said, “We ran the piece by Liz Cheney because she had served as a high-ranking State Dept. official and implementer of Bush’s ‘democracy agenda’ for the Mideast, and it was appropriate to identify her by her experience and expertise, not her relatives.”
Glenn Kessler “On the Record” piece after the SOTU Wednesday drew a number of letters pro and con. He wrote that President Bush “presented an arguably flawed description of ‘the enemy’ that the United States faces overseas, lumping together disparate groups with opposing ideologies to suggest that they have a single-minded focus in attacking the United States.”

Read the rest when you click below…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400006.html

Will Steele of Marin County, Calif., hated the story. He wrote “The pathetically naive and uninformed opinion of Glenn Kessler (President’s Portrayal Of ‘Enemy’ Flawed) is the reason we can’t trust The Washington Post. The lack of understanding of the Islamic Jihad at your paper is astounding. Do you all put your fingers in your ears when the fatwas are invoked. I mean how stupid can you be? I guess the answer is very stupid. It’s one thing to undermine our war against Islamic Jihad, but to do it in such an offensively moronic way is making us all stupider, just for having such a paper in print.”

Richard DiMatteo of San Diego called it a “fine piece. This is the kind of thing that a newspapers have been created for in this country and why they are so well protected by the First Amendment. A standing ovation is in order.”

Kessler said, “This story spawned dozens of e-mails, with people either praising me as telling truth to power or condemning me as a hopeless idiot. But it has been heavily blogged–100 and counting–and that has generated a lot of traffic. For what it’s worth, the Cato Institute heavily praised the article and National Review (with one caveat) also lauded it, and neither are liberal institutions. The New York Times even linked to the article from their politics blog!

“The Post is just about the only paper that regularly does a ‘for the record’ after presidential speeches, convention speeches, debates and other major news moments. Judging from the response, I think there is a real hunger on the part of our readers for such information, in part because politicians speak in code and spin.”

I agree with Glenn that “On the Records” are a valuable public service. It also was one of the most e-mailed pieces as well though it was on A13.

DiMatteo, a frequent writer, asked in the same letter: “Is there a political beat writer assigned to vetting campaign claims, anyone to vet the already beginning Swift Boat efforts like the one Insight and Fox have conducted against Barack Obama and that then tangentially hit Hillary Clinton, claiming her campaign was the source? The operators who run these things were bad enough when their guys were front runners, now that they’re on the outs I expect to see things even more vicious than the madrassah vent against Obama. ‘Truthiness’ graphs on various ads in such pieces, with a point scale (both negative and positive numbers) would be both enlightening and entertaining.”

I pointed him to Howie Kurtz’ Monday piece taking apart the Insight madrassah story on Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html

I got a couple of complaints about the piece because it didn’t have an answer from Insight. Howie said he tried and couldn’t reach anyone Sunday. There was a follow with their comment.

REMEMBER TO CALL THE NUMBER!

Dr. Richard Forman left me a voice mail calling my attention to Magazine Columnist Jeanne Marie Laskas’ piece on Dec. 31. It had a made-up phone number in it. The column was about preparing your child to have a tooth pulled. She mentions that one of the nurses in the dentist office is going to call 1-800-Toothfairy to schedule the fairy’s arrival after the tooth is pulled. If you call that number, it invites you to pay for a porn talk. Dr. Forman was right when he said, “You’re going to be surprised. Not pleasantly.” Any phone number, even made up, that goes in The Post ought to be called first.

KUDOS FOR ALLISON KLEIN

Matt Neufeld wrote: “Absolutely stupendous job covering (and breaking, too) the story on the homeless guys saving the life of the guy living on a houseboat. To catch every detail of what happened, the story read like the reporter was there when it happened. The details, the telling, the reporting, were all top-notch. Great job on the follow-up, too. Of course, it also helps that this story has a happy ending. Just a great job–and a great story!”

KUDOS FOR BARNES

Pasqual Perrino writes: ” I was gratified to read the article reporting yesterday’s Supreme Court decision concerning sentencing, written by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post. It improved my disposition today immensely. The story was factual and the first three paragraphs contained the essential information of the Supreme Court decision. Mr. Barnes had an excellent lead. The remainder of the article ably filled in the details. A tip of the hat to Mr. Barnes. If all the Post’s news stories were written in this manner the Post would stand head and shoulders above newspapers all over the country.”

KUDOS FOR ROMANO

Andrew Sean Greer wrote: “To Lois Romano, for sending me a personal note saying her choice of the term “catfight” in a headline about Speaker Nancy Pelosi was perhaps not suitable. I was impressed at her honesty and dignity as a journalist. Kudos.”

IT’S WEB SITE, CAP W

Susan Fussell of Arlington writes: “I commonly see Website, website, Web site and web site used in The Washington Post. I think both the AP Style manual and the Chicago Style manual list ‘Web site” (capital “W”, two words) as the correct usage. (Omb note: So does The Post stylebook) Am I incorrect? What accounts for the variety of uses in the Post? I apologize if I have submitted this to the wrong department, but I couldn’t imagine how to reach the copy editors.”

ACRONYM

David Brown of Vienna wrote “On page C2 of Tuesday, Jan. 23rd’s Style section, in an article titled, ’30 Years Later, Trio Shows Its Enduring Qualities’, (it is written), ‘The evening was pure KLR (yes, the group has a long enough name and history to go by an acronym).’
“Sadly, this is at least the fourth time recently I’ve seen the misuse of ‘acronym’ in the Post. I’m just now learning to accept that ‘nauseous’ now seems to be recognized as synonymous with ‘nauseated’ (also found in the Post), but the difference between acronym and abbreviation is distinct enough to not be subjected to the same fate.
“My initial reactions were, first, a grimace that a professional writer would make this mistake, and, second (more important for The Post), was the screaming question, ‘Where are the editors??!!’ ”
Acronym is defined in the omb’s Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary as “a word formed from the first (or first few) letters of a series of words, as radar, from radio detecting and ranging.” KLR is an abbreviation.

MUG? ROB?

Reader Leonard Wheat writes: “Twice in the last six months I have written you about Post stories that erroneously called burglaries ‘robberies.’ Today the confusion continues, only this time we find The Post calling ordinary robberies–using threats (guns, knives, etc.) to take money or valuables from victims–’muggings.’
“I refer to the article on page B1 (Metro section) … with the headline referring to ‘muggings’; the first sentence describes ‘new danger to a . . . neighborhood: muggers.’ But in the next sentence we learn that ‘there have been three armed robberies, two at gunpoint and one with a knife.’

“… a mugging is an assault. A mugger physically assaults his victim, usually from behind and almost always for the purpose of taking money or valuables. My American Heritage College Dictionary defines mugging as ‘an assault upon a person esp. with the intent to rob.’

“Mugging is, to be sure, a form of robbery. But most robberies, including the three described in the story, are carried out by threatening the victim, generally with a weapon. These robberies, which include the three described in the story, are not muggings.The Post needs to supplement its style manual with a regularly updated usage manual.”

WOULD LIKE TO BE CALLED DOC

I’ve gotten several letters like these since I came. John DesMarteau, M.D. of the District writes, “I am constantly chagrined that The Post does not use the abbreviation “Dr.” in front of physician and other scientists’ names in articles having to do with things medical and scientific. This was a decision made a number of years ago, but I think it is inappropriate.

“The Post regularly puts ‘Gen.’ and other military designations in front of military personnel names, ‘Rev.’ in front of clergy names, and ‘Sen.’ and ‘Rep.’ in front of congresspersons’ names in articles where such designation is appropriate. In doing so, it makes the credentials of the authority being referenced clear. The same standard should be applied to articles having to do with things medical and scientific.

Two examples from today’s (Jan. 18, 2007] Post:

1) “Cancer Deaths Decline for second Straight Year” on page A10: In the picture where President Bush is looking through a microscope Dr. Marston Lineham is shown standing next to him. If this were an article about a church and Dr. Lineham was a priest the caption would read, “Rev. Lineham…”

2) “1918 Flu Virus Limited The Immune System” also on page A10: “‘The virus is really a bad actor,’ said Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.”

Because I am a physician (now retired) I know that both of the people are also physicians; some lay readers would not. I urge you to convince the powers that be at the Post to return to placing “Dr.” in front of physician and other scientist names in articles where such use will make it clearer exactly who is the authority upon which the article is based.”

Don Podesta replies: “We use Gen., Sen., Rep., Gov. before names on first reference because those are ranks or elective offices. We don’t use professions such as doctors and lawyers and baristas because they’re not official and don’t convey the same information as the titles of elected officials and military officers. Here’s our style book entry on the use of Dr., specifically:

“Do not use Doctor or Dr. as a title, except in quotations. So many types of professional persons claim the title that it conveys no information to the reader about their qualifications. Dr. Ann Brown could be a neurosurgeon, a research microbiologist, a chiropractor, a veterinarian or a specialist in early childhood education. Formerly the newspaper reserved doctor for “practitioners of the healing arts,” excluding holders of PhD degrees. But the link between medicine and research science is now so close that this distinction is no longer valid. To avoid having to make unfair or invalid distinctions, omit the title and describe the individual: John Williams, a clinical psychologist; Mary Andrews, a cardiologist; Michael Jones, a podiatrist. On second reference, use last name only. Use doctor as a generic reference to a physician. He wants to be a doctor. The hospital closed when all its doctors walked out.”

Podesta continues, “That said, obits are an obvious exception. Here’s our style book entry on titles and honorifics in obits: ‘Unlike the rest of the newspaper, obituaries use honorifics. John Smith is Mr. Smith on second reference. Mary Brown is Mrs. Brown, Miss Brown or Ms. Brown, depending on the family’s preference. The title Dr. is used for anyone who held it, whether the doctorate was in medicine or some other field, earned or honorary. Military ranks are used when appropriate. It is not necessary to say, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Smith because the text of the obituary will make clear that he was retired and had been in the Air Force. Use Col. John Smith.’”

Launch a social media campaign that will build your brand and deliver results in our online Social Media Marketing Boot Camp starting June 7. Speakers include Abigail Cusick (Bravo Digital), Gregory Galant (Sawhorse Media), Alex Leo (Thomson Reuters Digital), Jim Tobin (Ignite Social Media), and many more. Read the reviews.