The Washington Post Needs To Get It's Story Straight

The latest MSM bumbling-in-the-face-of-bloggers takes a turn for the hilarious, as The Washington Post, on the heels of slandering prominent embed blogger Bill Roggio, is finally getting around to answering it's critics. Actually, they're not really answering, but saying an answer will be forthcoming.

But the problem is, the dog ate their rough draft. No no - they left their laptop at home. No no wait - the reporters are sick! No no no, I know - the reporters are in Iraq right now, they'll answer your concerns shortly.

Michelle Malkin is taking up the collection of reader responses from the Post. Here are the two she's received so far.

A reader wrote the following in an e-mail to WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell...

The appearance is that the Washington Post does, indeed, write from an agenda instead of observed facts and careful analysis...You and your organization should defend yourselves and your actions, less the appearance remain reality through your own inaction.

Howell wrote back and agreed:

I totally agree with you we need to answer. The reporters are in Iraq in the field and it's been a problem getting them and researching it. There will be an answer. Deborah

Another reader e-mails:

I just spoke to the WAPO editor of the Iraq desk...

The editor of the Iraq desk is Andy Mosher, and one of the two writers of the WAPO article about Roggio works for him. I don’t recall which one.

Mr. Mosher said that there were a couple of corrections that need to be made, and as it turns out he has been sick all week and it just did not get done. A correction is probably coming either tomorrow or early next week.

As any child who has broken the lamp on the end table knows, you and your siblings get your story straight first, before mom and dad get home. Otherwise you'll be finding out...well, what it's like.

Of course all of this kerfuffle arose because the Post tried to show bloggers what it was like, and singled one out for slander. Apparently they didn't think he'd call them out, as Mr. Roggio so eloquently did right here.

I have been repeatedly asked what would motivate the Washington Post to write such an inaccurate and obviously antagonistic article. I can only speculate on the causes. I am a mere blogger, a citizen who is interested in the situation in Iraq and has focused on the subject for well over a year. My analysis and predictions have proved to be accurate over time, and this drew the attention of the Marines, who subsequently invited me to come to Iraq to witness the results of recent operations for myself, to go there for myself and report. And what I am most interested in right now is clearing the good name of my work.

In less than three weeks I organized a trip to Iraq and raised well over $33,000 as well as thousands in equipment and services. I had to be creative and sought out alternative media organizations to provide credentials, as I knew the established media would have little interest in sponsoring me. I took a leave of absence from my job, and traveled to Iraq.

I then did what many reporters in Iraq admitted to me they do not do: Embedded with frontline units to tell the stories of those serving. I saw, and reported great success, in the once-troubled areas of Western Iraq. I suppose that's a threat to the mainstream media -— a challenge to their traditional monopoly on war reporting. An upstart blogger and amateur has exceeded his pajama-clad place and done what much of the media in Iraq will not do.

It's funny to watch such a prominent paper at a loss for words and running for cover when the object of their ire fights back. Who knows, perhaps they've seen the thrashing the L.A. Times is receiving for their own blogger hit piece and are looking for a way out?

My favorite part is where Hiltzik goes off the deep end and compares critics of his newspaper, including me, to Stalinists:

To back up their assertions, they often quote articles selectively, take out of context what they do quote, and ascribe imaginary motivations to reporters and editors, which they then feel free to decry. As any student of history knows, these are tools and techniques that were used to great effect during the Stalinist show trials of the 40s and 50s.

(Students of history also know that the show trials resulted in people being executed in trials without meaningful evidence -— in other words, they were state-sanctioned murders. Nice comparison.)

Funny.

Perhaps when the two reporters for The Washington Post get back from Iraq and recover from their malaria they can come up with a reason why they decided that the most pressing news of the day was to slander a blogger who's only crime was to scrape together some money so he could go to Iraq and get the word out about what our fine soldiers are doing over there.

But don't hold your breath.