Ombudsman: (n) One who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization.
This piece by the Washington Post’s Ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, is a must-read. Excerpts with commentary:
Overall, The Post’s record on Paul coverage is sparse.
… The Post’s main politics blog, The Fix by Chris Cillizza and compatriots, had by the far the most coverage of Paul of any of The Post’s publishing venues, with about nine posts mainly or substantially about Paul, but dozens more where he is mentioned once or twice along with the other GOP candidates.
If you’re a print reader, you don’t see much of this, but I’ve compiled it all on the omblog.
The last is a very important point. Much of the (already sparse) coverage of candiate Ron Paul does not go to print. The little they do publish is mostly on blogs, and at least some of that is “dismissive”, according to Mr. Pexton. Those who only read the print version of WaPo may barely know Paul is in the race.
The GOP’s “top tier”, as judged by the Washington Post (and others), curiously excludes Mr. Paul, as noted by Mr. Pexton:
Post political correspondents Dan Balz and Philip Rucker declared on Aug. 14 that Perry, Romney and Bachmann were the top tier, with barely a reference to Ron Paul.
And when you look a the numbers, a bias, of some sort, becomes apparent:
In the past six months, The Post has published online or in print 34 staff-written stories plus 12 wire service stories on Bachmann, who has served not even five years in the House, and that doesn’t count the blog posts about her on The Fix or Glenn Kessler’s Fact Checker pieces. The Post published 19 staff-written stories on former House speaker Newt Gingrich in that time, plus one wire story and many blog posts. On Paul, a congressman for more than 20 years, who was No. 2 in fundraising after Romney in the last report, The Post has published just three full stories, a couple more that had large sections on him along with other candidates, two wire stories and The Fix blog posts.
Thank you, Mr. Pexton, for writing this.
And thanks to fellow Ron Paul supporters, for flooding WaPo with complaints on the lack of coverage. Pexton cites this as a major factor in his decision to write it.
Mr. Paul is arguably the only non-interventionist candidate in the race. He’s been singing the same tune for decades. Watch this clip of him warning of blowback from Middle East interventions, in 1998:
It’s curious that a “left” paper such as the Washington Post would be so quick to dismiss him. Then again, maybe not. The WaPo, along with the NYT, has become increasingly hawkish.
The mainstream right also wants to discredit him. Here’s Rush Limbaugh saying Dr. Paul could “destroy the Republican party”.
Destroy the GOP, he says? You’d think the left would be more open to the possibility. Nope, they appear to agree with Rush, not Ron. If this shared aggression between neocons and neolibs towards Ron Paul isn’t a sign of a true anti-establishment candidate, I can’t imagine what would be.
Money bomb, Sep 17th.
