Eugene David<br>...The One-Minute Pundit

Posted 3:21 PM by Gene

Another reason ombudspoops don't work: SUPERINSTAPROF links to AN ECONOMIST (or something) who complained to the WaPost:

I am a long-time subscriber and I like to read all points of view, but today's front page really troubled me. It contained two news-analysis articles, each of which read like a rally for opponents of President Bush.

The article on "health care vs. tax cuts" made it sound as if the only way I can spend more of my money on health care is if the government does it for me. The fact that people who have more discretionary income from tax cuts could choose to spend that income on health insurance or health care or something that is more important to them is left out. In that article, you quote Bruce Bartlett, who I know is completely disillusioned with President Bush for his *failure to cut spending* even more. He is disgusted with Bush for spending so much and thinks that Kerry would not be any worse. If you want to print a quote from Bartlett supporting your "analysis," then you ought to spell out where Bartlett is coming from, instead of making it sound like Bartlett is a Bush supporter on fiscal policy. Or find someone else to quote to balance the article.

Then there is the "analysis" which claims that the Bush doctrine has been undermined by events in Iraq. If anything, the Bush foreign policy has been undermined by relentless attacks in the media, such as your front page (which consistently runs editorials that are more anti-Bush and anti-war than what appears on your editorial page). The article is very selective and unbalanced in its choice of "experts" to quote. Robert Kagan is written off as an "Administration supporter," while all of the critics of the Administration are not labeled as such. Instead, for critics one sees things like "nonpartisan Brussels-based group," which is a standard way for the liberal media to identify left-wingers (and having Googled the International Crisis Group, my sense is indeed that is what they are).

I believe that the Post could do two things to remedy this. One is to simply drop the pretense of unbiased journalism, and simply say that the front page is used to promote the opinions of your reporters and editorial staff. Ultimately, I think that this is the most honest approach.

If you wish to try to hang on to the myth of an unbiased front page, then I think you ought to hire a conservative to scrutinize the front page before it is printed. That way, some of the bias will be caught ahead of time, rather than leaving it up to the readers.

Now imagine YOU'RE an ombudspoop, and you have to read dozens of letters like that, DAY after DAY after DAY. This is why the job is little more than a second repository for newspaper letter writers. It also explains why, especially with NEWS HACKS, the more things change....

Of course if PROF had his way such letters would be TEN TIMES as long. For ten times the effect, I guess. Ten times zero....