The WaPo Ombudsman and John Belushi

I love the movie Animal House. Even though I have it on DVD, it is one of few movies that if it happens to pop on television when I am channel surfing I am drawn to it like a bug to a zapper.

I especially love the scene where John Belushi (as future US Senator John Blutarski) comes down the steps during a fraternity toga party and forcibly shows his objection to a folk singer's song choice by grabbing the singer's guitar and wildly smashes it against the wall then hands the shattered pieces back to the singer with the comment, "sorry", then proceeds to other bacchanalian entertainment.

I think the Washington Post Ombudsman likes that same scene, as this is the method Deborah Howell has chosen to respond to criticism of the WaPo coverage of the Allen Senatorial campaign.

While conceding that the massive coverage the paper gave was overkill, the ombudsman goes on to rationalize the need for and give overall approval to the massive numbers of individual stories.

In one paragraph, Howell writes "Did The Post overplay the incident? Not initially, but the coverage went on for too long after he apologized", but finishes the paragraph by saying "No one piece was over the line. But when you put it all together, it looked [my emphasis added] like piling on".

Translation-we weren't really piling on.

Then, after noting that it only seemed like piling on, Mrs. Howell vacilates between using her report to editorialize and rationalize WaPo coverage (example: It was Allen's "sputtering response" Peggy Fox's coverage that served to justify coverage) and finding some way to tortuously show contrition (example: haltingly admiting the Post violated its own guidelines and standards in using anonymous sources to attack Senator Allen with unsubstantiated allegations).

Mrs. Howell also notes that: "Does all the coverage hurt Allen's reelection prospects? The stories -- six of them were on Page 1 -- don't help him, but there are five long weeks before Election Day."

So we are to infer from this that if the stories had come out closer to the election day the WaPo wouldn't have run them? Or is she really telling that it is OK for the WaPo to run inflammatory stories that violate the Post guidelines of fairness as long as we are not too close to election day?

The Washington Post does not like George Allen, and that is their right. But don't try to seem fair and balanced by attacking the man day in and day out, then print a buried Ombudsman report noting that things should have been done differently.

There is little sincerity and no honor in that course of action.

And in that, I guess it may not be fair to compare the WaPo to John Blutarski.

At least Blutarski said, "sorry."