Post Ombudsman

[bobquasit]

The Washington Post's ombudsman is pretty much a joke. So since she's doing a chat right now, I couldn't resist commenting.

From your answers so far I suspect that you view your task here as holding the line against a rampaging mob.

I am a proud member of that mob; I frequently disagree with Mr. Hiatt's editorial positions, and feel that too may reporters are far too comfortable repeating the party line rather than pushing for the truth (with a few notable exceptions). That said, the Post website gets far more of my attention and time than any other site. Why?

Comments and chat. The chance to give feedback and actually interact with journalists and newsmakers - and to know that they are actually LISTENING - is invaluable to me.

To be honest, that's why I'm a little disappointed in this chat in particular; your answers so far have fallen into two categories, either "I'll pass that on" or a non-detailed defense of a policy which amounts to nothing more than a pat on the head.

I'd put the odds of her selecting my comment at 100 to 1, and of a substantive response at 10,000 to 1.

Later - I am surprised. She responded, and the response could be called substantive.

Comments

[fickledame.livejournal.com]

What was her reply?

[bobquasit.livejournal.com]

"Well, this is my first chat, so I'm getting used to it. I have been critical of The Post in many columns and will continue to be. I can see how you might think I sound like I'm holding the line against a rampaging mob. I don't disagree with feedback, comments or live discussions. And I totally agree with you that pushing for the truth is always important."

Okay, perhaps not the most substantive answer in the world, but not quite the kiss-off I expected. I'll admit that my expectations were very low.