The Washington Post and the New York Times have shown me that the conservatives are right about one thing. You cannot trust the major media outlets.

Very disturbing and sad.

Thanks to Democratic Underground, you can decide for yourself if the response to Ms. Howell was so "hate-filled" it had to be stifled.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/archive/2006/wapo

Will this nightmare never end?

Well, which is it? Who does the Washington Post serve? The Bushites? Or the Establishment?

It clearly doesn't serve the public. So why does

the public continue to buy and pay?

How many current buyers and subscribers would

have to cancel and/or otherwise stop buying before

the Washington Post entered Roach Motel Bankruptcy? And how will an honest newspaper ever

arise in the Greater Beltway Area until that happens?

That's Right, children, good and thinking people get pissed off, and demand the Truth.

I'm proud of those angry --even if rude-- bloggers.

What on earth was that Dreadful woman thinking?

Money-Given, Money-Directed. Oh, it's all the same to little-ole me.

The WP has now joined the NYT. Both newspapers have become useless rags that glorify the Bush administration.

Reporters at both these so-called bastions of enlightement have become puppets at the service of Bush Co.

The NYT refused to inform the public a year ago about the illegal spying on American citizens and residents. By doing so, they effectively condoned this gross violation of our civil rights. Yet, they went along with the WH.

Had the NYT owners and editors of the NYT had any guts, they would have broken the story before the 2004 elections. And, maybe, this global menace of a President would not have been elected (Remember, he was NEVER elected; he was put on the throne by the Supreme Court in 2000).

The WP is not blameless either. They knew about the illegal spying, and kept it off the front pages too.

So much for the so-called "liberal" media. Both the NYT and the WP have become docile shills for an administration that has succeeded in terrorizing them into obedience.

It is really great that the Bush administration is trying to spread freedom abroad while shutting up dissent at home. His AWOLness must have taken a leaf from the President of Uzbekistan.

Watch for those black helicopters landing in your neighborhood!

I haven't read the Post's letters to the editor in the past several weeks - but I stopped because their letters column seems to be sanitized. One might think that the major newspaper in the nation's capital would have a lively debate in its letters column, but they print a very boring sample and don't ever seem to print any critical of the Bush Regime. It's not surprising that they won't accept emails that they don't want to have to share.

My thanks to those who responded to the Post about the ombudsman's misrepresentation of the facts - the print and TV media must not be allowed to let the image of an equal opportunity corruption scandal stand.

Unfortunately, I have seen rudeness and profanity by liberals on various blogs etc. I think this kind of thing makes us liberals look bad and makes it easy for recipients like the Post to dismiss our arguments. I, too, get very emotional over the misstatements in the media, but I believe that our complaints should be written in a rational, polite manner. Nobody likes to receive hate-filled, intemperate rants. I do encourage fellow liberals to continue to respond to write in to news media to object to mistakes or biased reporting. But Please, for our own sakes, be reasonable and fair. Leave the vile rants to the O'Reillys of the world.

T

um, i assume you've missed all those ranting, vile blogs and letters that "compassionate conservatives" spew all over the internet and the editorial pages? by you easter-egging the word "liberals" throughout your letter, you give yourself away. "we liberals" sure do know how to spot a repug in "liberal" prose, that's for sure.

-------------

Here's an idea for reasonable and fair: the Post ombudsman just does her damn job. For those who've forgotten, that would mean stating actual facts, not parroting the words of criminals. That's pretty reasonable and fair, don't you think?

When that happens, I promise you that all those mean, nasty liberals who unreasonably and unfairly expect the media to tell the truth as it unfolds will stop hurting the poor Washington Post's feelings.

NYTimes has an article titled: “Paper Closes Reader Comments on Blog, Citing Vitriol”

Salon’s own Joan Walsh is quoted in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/business/media/20blog.html

Unfortunately the Times doesn't use the correct quote from Howell that started the furor in the first place.

I rarely, if ever, post anything using profane language. Adn I certainly didn't do it when I posted in the blog; yet...my post was deleted!

To, Deborah Howell and Who ever else it may concern,

Deb, nice try but no cigar! Your connecting both parties to Abramoff leaves open the suspicion that both were also implicit in his crimes as well. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But your graying of the lines, casts shadows over both parties rather than on the one, the Republicans, where the blame to this date lays squarely upon.

First, bare in mind the percent break in contributions was: 63.7% Republican, and 35.1% Democrat, and the Democrat's portion went down as Abramoff gained influence with the Indian Tribes.

Now lets actually think about what your trying to say. What you seem to imply, is that Jack Abramoff, "had influence over and or directed" where these 8 Indian tribes 5.3 million in political contributions were going over a 5 year five period. If he did, then your statement would be true, and he would have indeed directed some money to the Democrats.

Question, Deb? Do you seriously believe slick old Jack Abramoff had that much power and influence over the Indian Tribes! That they didn't have some say in where their money was going, that wasn't influenced by Abramoff! Surely the Indian Tribes were making political contributions before Abramoff started his con game, and like most groups they would have hedged their bets with both the Democrats and Republicans, especially since both were on the key committee that handled their interests. So the fact that the Indians gave to both parties is meaningless in regards to what Abramoff was up to.

There is no evidence that Abramoff directed any Indian contributions to the Democrats, that the Indians were not going to do anyway or were already doing. Abramoff was a Republican Lobbyist lobbying for Republicans! So why would he direct money to the other side? More important, there is no evidence, that even if he had some effect on contributions going to the Democrats, that Abramoff used that to influence them, and that through this supposed influence, they were in any way connected to his crimes. Your correction tends at the very least, to leave this possibility open, or even imply that it is a forgone conclusion. When in fact, it is only a weak supposition based on circumstantial evidence. Your certainly sound like a partisan when you make statements the way you have.