Deborah Howell On The Obama Smear

More than a week after the Washington Post decided that rumormongering was appropriate fodder for the front page of a national newspaper, our ever-vigilant ombudsman Deborah Howell is all over the story:

Stories about rumors are tricky and easily misconstrued. A Nov. 29 story and headline that explored Barack Obama’s “connections to the Muslim world” and rumors that he is Muslim were met with a swift Internet reaction that left some staffers stunned at its ferocity. Even Post editorial cartoonist Tom Toles was “so upset” that he took the unusual step of taking potshots at the story in an editorial page cartoon.

My problems with the story by National Desk political reporter Perry Bacon Jr. and the headline (”Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him”) were that Obama’s connections to Islam are slender at best; that the rumors were old; and that convincing evidence of their falsity wasn’t included in the story.

But there was no deliberate “smear job,” as some readers charged. The story said clearly in the second paragraph that Obama is a member of a United Church of Christ congregation in Chicago.

In order:

• Stories about rumors are probably easily misconstrued because they are about, you know, rumors.  That’s why a credible newspaper doesn’t print them on their front page.  That valuable real estate is generally saved for things like news and facts and stuff.
• One assumes that Howell is aware that the word, “potshot,” means an unfair criticism.
• Howell’s problem with the story should be that perpetuating rumors is not the function of a newspaper, unless it is a newspaper that also carries the latest news on impregnating aliens and beyond-the-grave messages from Elvis.
• True, it did clearly say that Obama is a member of a United Church of Christ church.  Of course that was clearly followed with:

  …he has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama’s stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.

  Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a “Muslim plant” in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible.

And hey, the Washington Post did give Obama the opportunity to deny the rumors, so no, no “smear job” here, right?  But Howell is thorough, if nothing else, so she went to the editor of the hit piece, Bill Hamilton, who said:

It seemed to me the story made clear that Obama was not a Muslim but that the campaign was having trouble contending with people spreading that rumor. I thought that in this context saying it was a rumor meant it wasn’t true, but clearly some people didn’t see it the same way. The Post has a responsibility to confront seemingly credible rumors and that was one of the reasons for the story.

So, what were the other reasons?  And did Hamilton mean that Obama had trouble contending with people spreading the rumors when the Washington Post reporter came to him for his denial?  Because otherwise the sources cited in the story were from such stalwarts of truth like Insight Magazine, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh.  And “credible” rumors?  Apparently a few minutes googling those rumors was too much responsibility for Hamilton, given that all of them had been thoroughly debunked long ago.  So, what was the reason for the story again?  Says Hamilton:

Reasonable people can disagree on this. But the people I have heard from are not reasonable. What I find especially disheartening is the idea that our motives are simply assumed to have been malicious.

Uh oh.  Sounds like some bloggers used nasty language when calling out the Washington Post for their unprofessional, ill-conceived, poorly researched, piece of garbage, hit piece.  But given that Hamilton’s rationale for printing the article, his, “responsiblity to confront seemingly credible rumors,” is laughable at best, what was their motive?  Deborah Howell doesn’t answer that question.  

Sphere: Related Content