WashPost Ombudsman Responds: What bias?

November 1, 2009

Washington Post Ombdsman Andrew Alexander responded in his weekly column to our posting last week (“Juliet Eilperin and the Saudia Arabia of Bias“) about reporter Eilperin’s conflict of interest — her husband works on global warming for the alarmist activist group Center for American Progress.

On one hand, we’re glad to see Alexander discuss the issue in his column and actually quote us, albeit anonymously — our statement, “Wouldn’t it be nice if every activist group owned its own Washington Post reporter?”, was attributed to “one [blogger].”

On the other hand, Alexander failed to explain precisely the nature of Eilperin’s journalistic sin. The problem is not simply that she is married to a global warming activist; the problem is that her articles are demonstrably biased. Post readers missed this distinction because Alexander neither gave examples (as we did) nor identified our blog, which raised the issue in the first place.

Alexander allowed Eilperin to get away with claiming that a “church-state separation” exists where her and her husband’s work overlaps. You mean, he works on climate for a major activist group and she reports on climate for a major newspaper — and they never talk about the subject? Is this realistic?  Does Alexander respect the intelligence of his readers?

In any event, shouldn’t the self-proclaimed flagship paper in the world’s most powerful city hold itself to a higher standard than such self-policing? How about the standard to which Caesar supposedly held his wife, i.e., avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Is Eilperin the only Post reporter who can use “carbon dioxide” in a sentence?

Alexander also excused Eilperin with the fact that she covered climate before she married her now-activist hubby. According to Alexander’s logic, then, since Eilperin’s reporting has always been biased, her marriage to an activist is not really relevant.  We disagree. Eilperin’s marriage to an activist makes unbiased reporting from her even less likely.

Alexander then resorts to the old Washington trick of citing a “conservative” to let Eilperin off the hook. American Spectator and  Washington Times‘ editorial writer Quin Hillyer “believes [Eilperin] to be ‘a very hard working journalist who tries very hard to be fair,'” wrote Alexander.

But Hillyer’s “belief” about Eilperin’s “trying hard” is as ridiculous as it is biased itself. First, Hillyer’s evidence of Eilperin’s absence of bias is her 2008 article about  ethanol’s greenhouse gas emissions.

But this example only reveals Hillyer’s own unfamiliarity about ethanol and the greens, who only ever supported ethanol to mobilize farmers on the climate issue. When farmers served their purpose, the greens switched and began to oppose biofuels. The purpose of the exercise, as is often the case with green activism, was to play interests off each other and to cause public policy/economic/energy chaos that requires government intervention.

Next, Hillyer has a personal soft spot for Eilperin because, when he worked for Rep. Bob Livingston and she wrote for Roll Call, Eilperin “was always willing to listen.”

Gag us with the Sunday insert.

Comically, Alexander concludes,

It’s a close call, but I think she should stay on the beat. With her work now getting special scrutiny, it will become clear if the conflict is real.

What “close call”? Alexander’s article also excused three other Post reporters who have conflicts of interest. Maybe he meant to say, “It’s no contest” instead.

And what “special scrutiny” is he talking about? Her conflict is glaring and the Ombudsman just publicly excused her.

I’m not even sure that Alexander understands what journalistic bias is or how it can manifest itself.

In excusing Post editorial writer Ruth Marcus, who is married to the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Alexander wrote,

… she recuses herself from discussions involving FTC matters and doesn’t write about them.

Of course, not writing about the FTC — i.e., self-editing — is also a form of bias. And then there’s the larger issue of her husband being appointed to a political position by President Obama. Forget about the FTC, would Ruth Marcus ever dare criticize any part of the Obama administration?

Alexander is no doubt familiar with “buy-us” at the Post — remember the “salons” with Post reporters that were up for sale at $25,000 a pop? But he seems to need a tutorial on “bias.”

5 Responses to “WashPost Ombudsman Responds: What bias?”

  1. […] the paper’s ombudsman gave her a polite spanking for biased climate reporting last fall, he concluded by saying: It’s a close call, but I think […]

  2. harryeagar Says:

    I used to work for Mike Gartner, editor of The Des Moines Register, president of NBC News and Pulitzer Prize winner and juror.

    We didn’t always get along, so I’m just giving that out to show that he ain’t chopped liver.

    His position was that men and women are independent actors, and the mere fact that one is married to another does not create a conflict of interests.

    I agree.

    No opinion about this particular reporter’s work or ethics, but no conflict.

  3. moronpolitics Says:

    Perhaps you would understand these people better if you didn’t mispell their title. I think it should be ON buds, man! Far out! Heavy! Priapistic….

  4. bear865
    Please refrain from using the term horseshit in a negative context. It offends me and my horses. I know you really meant to say “green” human excrement, which is what the “NWO” conspirators all are. Meanwhile, Barry dithers, golfs and takes his Dover photo ops over the body of one he disdains. Best use of WashPost, cleaning human excrement. Ombudsman uses it.

  5. bear865 Says:

    Well. Now isn’t this such a big surprise.

    Gerald Celente is saying that the “endgame” for all of these bastards is to leave the USA “undeveloped”. Not 3rd world. Not “underdeveloped”.

    “UNDEVELOPED”. Does this also mean unpopulated so that the “NWO” elites can have the entire USA (and probably Canada too) for a “rewilded” playground? (Meanwhile what do with do with the Mexicans. Genocide all but what we need as slaves and make sure those left living keep the playground wild and undeveloped?”

    The intent of “Obama” ganstahs is to destroy the USA. The “green” horseshit is just one part of the “NWO” plan, all run by the world wide bankstah gangstah set, who really want the whole world for themseves and if you are to believe the Obamaland “science advisor” we need to genocide between 50% and 90% of the world’s population before that can happen.

    BTW, genocide=MURDER. Aren’t you happy for the “change” that “Barry” is bringing in? Does it not just THRILL you??


Leave a Reply to bear865 Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: