What, Me Worry? WaPo Exec Editor Len Downie Finally Comments On Obama Muslim Piece, Sidesteps Criticism
December 11, 2007 -- 3:45 PM EST // //
Okay, so Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr., has finally commented publicly on the paper's disastrous front-page piece recycling the Obama Muslim rumors without declaring them false.
Stunningly, Downie offered no mea culpa; no discussion of the substance of the widespread criticism the piece attracted; no sign of recognition that the Post had badly botched things; no sign that he was even slightly perturbed by the episode at all.
Downie's comments came in the form of a letter to Romenesko that he wrote in response to a professor/blogger who had criticized the reporter on the piece, Perry Bacon, Jr. Downie defended the reporter and actually attacked Romenesko for daring to air criticism of him:
Chris Daly's blog posting about Perry Bacon' s recent front page story in The Washington Post on how the Obama campaign has responded to a campaign of rumors falsely portraying the candidate as a Muslim is an outrageous personal attack on a fine young journalist, and I'm disappointed that it has been given circulation on Romenesko. Daly begins by distorting Perry's story beyond recognition. He then recklessly attacks Perry himself with a vicious phony anology, followed by an irresponsible denigration of Perry's substantial credentials as a political reporter...It's really telling that Downie was able to work up so much outrage about this but was unable to find anything to say about the piece itself. His newspaper publishes a major front-page story recycling rumors about a leading candidate without declaring them false or including widely-reported information debunking them? No comment. One mean and vicious blogger indulged in some over-the-top language? The outrage pours forth in torrents.
Also note that Downie characterized the story as being about "how the Obama campaign has responded to a campaign of rumors falsely portraying the candidate as a Muslim." Actually, that isn't what the story said: While Downie described the rumors as false here, the article didn't do this. It's really unclear at this point whether Downie and his fellow editors are even capable of grasping that this is the crux of the criticism here. They want to pretend that this is all about what the editors' motives were or about whether the topic itself was a valid one, rather than about their own failures of execution.
Incidentally, we now know that Downie himself signed off on the piece before publication. So, now that the paper's Ombud and leading media critic both have condemned the article, does Downie have any regrets about the way it was handled? Does he think that he or anyone else, you know, screwed up a wee bit? Does he still think that publishing a piece about rumors without declaring them false and without including information debunking them is journalistically acceptable or up to his paper's illustrious standards?
Downie is pretty quick to voice his outrage when a single blogger criticizes his reporter and paper in nasty language -- but still no word from him that I can find on whether he's even given any thought to the core journalistic questions raised by his own institution's widely-criticized performance. Odd priorities.
Comments section temporarily disabled. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.