Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

The Washington Post Says It has an Ombudsman

Posted on March 2, 2011 by Michael Froomkin

How, I wondered, could I get it so wrong, sending an email to an ombudsman who had left the Post? Indeed, if I had just read his last column Can The Post regain its legacy of excellence? I’d have seen him saying it was his swan song.

But in fact, the reason I got it wrong is … I relied on the Washington Post. On the Opinions page, the sidebar reads as follows:

Ombudsman

Andrew Alexander serves as The Post’s internal critic and reader representative. Read his blog and his latest column. Or e-mail him.

There’s a moral there somewhere, and I’m sure Brad DeLong knows what it is.

Update: Hey, guess what — according to a Feb. 23 item on WashPost PR: a tumblelog,

The Washington Post today announced that Patrick Pexton will become the news organization’s ombudsman. Formerly deputy editor for National Journal, Pexton’s two-year term with The Post begins March 1.

Maybe someone should tell the Washington Post?

Posted in The Media | 2 Comments

We Write Letters (to the WashPo Ombudsman)

Posted on March 2, 2011 by Michael Froomkin

Just sent this to the Washington Post’s Ombudsman:

Today’s lead editorial on the Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft case blindly repeats a piece of government propaganda that has been decisively falsified in the court proceedings of that very case.

“High Court Should Overturn Kidd v. Ashcroft” begins like this:

ABDULLAH AL-KIDD was arrested at Dulles International Airport in 2003 after purchasing a one-way, first-class ticket to Saudi Arabia.

In fact, testimony and subpoenaed airline records establish that Al-Kidd had a round-trip coach ticket. The government’s false statement — originally made to the court to justify arresting him — misled the court and it is this very pattern of government misrepresentations that played a significant role in the judicial turn against immunity which the Post (in my opinion wrongly) critiques. The Post’s error is no mere detail but serves as means of obfuscating — avoiding — the central facts that undermine the argument the Post wishes to make.

I guess if you use fake facts it’s easier to write editorials in favor of unlimited and un-accountable state power to detain US citizens (AP: “Over the next 16 days he would be strip-searched repeatedly, left naked in a jail cell and shower for more than 90 minutes in view of other men and women, routinely transported in handcuffs and leg irons, and kept with people who had been convicted of violent crimes. On a long trip between jails, a federal marshal refused to unlock al-Kidd’s chains so he could use the bathroom.”).

No mere factual correction can fix this problem since that would fail to make clear that the factual change undercuts the entire logic of the editorial, but I have never yet seen a correction which makes such an admission, and don’t have much hope here.

The question for you, though, is this: how could the Post allow someone to write an editorial on such an important matter who isn’t even aware of one of the better-known facts of the case? And who doesn’t then check the facts. Or read the AP feed on the subject (2/27/11) which in addition to summarizing the vile conditions of confinement in which the government held Al-Kidd states,

But the sworn statement the FBI submitted to justify the warrant had important errors and omissions. The $5,000 one-way, first-class seat that the agents said al-Kidd purchased was, in reality, a coach-class, round-trip ticket. The statement neglected to mention that al-Kidd had been cooperative or that he was a U.S. citizen with a wife and children who also were American.

In other words, the accurate facts were and are no secret: it almost takes work to avoid them.

And one more question for you: even as the Post preaches a doctrine of no-accountability for government officials who lie about and mistreat US citizens, does it practice a similar doctrine of non-accountability for editorialists who get basic, key, facts this badly wrong? Or will there be some internal sanction?

Update:

I got this auto-reply a little while later:

I will be out of the office starting 01/31/2011 and will not return until 12/31/2011.

Thanks for writing. My two year term as ombudsman has ended and a replacement will be named soon. In the meantime, if you have questions or concerns about news coverage, I’d suggest you e-mail or call the appropriate department in the newsroom. Among them:

Local: 202-334-7300 metro@washpost.com
National: 202-334-7410 national@washpost.com
Business: 202-334-7320 business@washpost.com
Sports: 202-334-7350 sports@washpost.com
Foreign: 202-334-7400 foreign@washpost.com
Style: 202-334-7535 style@washpost.com
Obituaries: 202-334-7389 newsobits@washpost.com
Book World: 202-334-7882 bookworld@washpost.com
Food: 202-334-7575 food@washpost.com
Health: 202-334-5031 health-science@washpost.com
Travel: 202-334-7750 travel@washpost.com
Photo/video: 202-334-7380
Graphics: 202-334-7380
Post Main Number: 202-334-6000

A variety of other contact information, including e-mail links to reporters and editors, is provided through this page on The Post’s Web site: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/contactus/index.html

Letters to the Editor should be addressed to: letters@washpost.com

For circulation or delivery issues, call the subscriber services department at 202-334-6100, or homedelivery@washpost.com

-Andy Alexander

So it looks as if the Post has been Ombudsless for a month (suggesting that filling the job is not a priority, or perhaps no one good wants to touch the job with a ten foot pole). And also that the Obmudsman role doesn’t extend to editorials. I don’t know that there’s much point in sending this in as a letter to the Editor. They’ll just chop it to bits even if they run it.

Update 2: More on the Post and Ombudspersons at The Washington Post Says It has an Ombudsman.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law, National Security, The Media | 1 Comment

Guilty as Charged

Posted on March 1, 2011 by Michael Froomkin

Seth Finkelstein is cross with people like me:

I’m basically completely unable to get the law/policy types to realize the enormous extent to which Wikipedia is de facto subsidized by Google. Here, not only is Wikipedia getting yet another boost, but some of its arguable commercial competitors are being killed! It’s not because Wikipedia has some magic itself, in "community" or "civility", or whatever huckerism is being hyped. Rather, it has the algorithm support of Google.

I accept this is true. So?

Seth’s complaints seem to be (1) that Google’s ranking algorithms are not neutral; (2) that they tend to favor large corporate aggregator sites over blogs like his or mine; (3) that there is a real chance that this favoritism is driven by a self-dealing agenda, since Google owns sites like YouTube that do well off point 2, and even if that isn’t what drives it, we should worry about it; (4) that it is wrong to excuse Google’s choices on the grounds that true search neutrality is impossible, because neutrality might be possible if we worked harder on the problem.

Of these, I guess I accept that (1) is true. And (2) may be true, but I’m ready to believe that it satisfies consumer demand. So barring new evidence, I am only concerned about (3), that is the possibility of self-dealing and self-favoritism. For which we don’t yet have much evidence, although it pays to be vigilant. As for (4), well, Seth has me dead to rights.

And I still don’t see why Google’s favoring of Wikipedia should bother me.

Posted in Internet, Law: Internet Law | 5 Comments

Students Should Be Glad I’m a Slow Grader

Posted on February 28, 2011 by Michael Froomkin

Those high-stakes grade-school standardized tests with essays on them? The ones that determine schools’ and sometimes students’ futures? Like, for example, Florida’s FCAT? The grading may be shoddy and arbitrary.

Read the exposé by Jessica Lussenhop, Inside the multimillion-dollar essay-scoring business: Behind the scenes of standardized testing.

Posted in Etc | Comments Off on Students Should Be Glad I’m a Slow Grader

What Counts as News, and What Counts as Important

Posted on February 28, 2011 by Michael Froomkin

This will be a one-day story: Report: U.S. Has Wasted Tens Of Billions Of Dollars On Contractors In Iraq And Afghanistan.

A new report from a bipartisan commission set up to scrutinize the unprecedented use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan concludes that the United States has wasted tens of billions of the nearly $177 billion that has been spent on those contracts and grants since 2002.

The report, titled “At What Risk? Correcting Over-reliance on Contractors in Contingency Operations,” said its estimate may even understate the problem because it may not take into full account ill-conceived projects, poor planning and oversight by the U.S. government, as well as criminal behavior and blatant corruption by both government and contractor employees.

“For many years,” the report says, “the government has abdicated its contracting responsibilities – too often using contractors as the default mechanism … without consideration for the resources needed to manage them.”

But the political rhetoric will continue to be about reducing the number of government workers, instead of the logical thing, which would be to increase them in order to reduce (note that I did not say “prevent”) this sort of ripoff.

Not invading foreign countries also helps.

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on What Counts as News, and What Counts as Important

Procrastination Prediction Vindicated

Posted on February 26, 2011 by Michael Froomkin

A month ago I noted that I’d requested the Miami-Dade Library’s copy of Procrastination: Why You Do It, What to Do About It Now, but I made this prediction:

Unfortunately, it seems there is only one copy in the collection and it is checked out. Given the sort of person this work likely appeals to, I am not hopeful that it will be returned any time soon.

The MDPLS only lets you check out books for a month at a time, so even if the person who has it had checked it out the day before I put in my hold request, it’s got to be overdue now. And I still don’t have it.

Posted in Completely Different | Comments Off on Procrastination Prediction Vindicated