The Washington Post's ombudsman has a meandering, puzzling piece on the paper's coverage of the Wright matter, which begins with an acknowledgment that the paper only covered Wright's outrageous statements after the controversy broke out elsewhere and the internet videos "drove the story".
She admits that others had covered his fiery sermons even years earlier, that the Post's religious writer had twice pitched the story but "was turned down by[unnamed] editors on the Metro and National desks".
In the source of her rambling discourse on the matter, Ms. Howell reports
"[T]he Post hasn't reported in print that McCain has repudiated some views of supporter John Hagee, an evangelist, that were perceived as anti-Catholic. Clinton is a Methodist, and that church's governing body is considering divesting itself of investments in Israel; that's another story."
In the meantime,eyeonthepost.org reports: Philip Bennett, the Washington Post's Managing Editor, in addressing an audience at the University of California at Irvine, Center for the Study of Democracy, on March 3, 2008 spoke of the need for greater understanding of the tenets of the Islamic faith and its terminology. Bennett claims poor Arabic translations give rise to "confusion." Reminiscent of the Post's decision to stop calling Palestinian terrorists "terrorists" (now, they're just "fighters" to the Post), Bennett reported that Washington Post editors are now having a difficult time deciding whether they ought to call Islamists "Islamists." (Media to Blame for Islamic Misconceptions, Daily Pilot, 3-3-08). We can't wait to see the Orwellian distortion that will emerge from this internal debate.
There's much more about Bennett and his policies on avoiding the word terrorist and other linguistic contortions necessary to sugar coat the ugly truth.
Share