WaPo follow up - how low can they go!

On July 2 (see below) I posted "WaPo is caught in the act!" explaining the paper of record's efforts to hold "salon's" at the house of their Publisher, giving lobbyists access to BHO administration officials for a fee. Conflict of interest? I think so!

WaPo ombudsman - Andrew Alexander - yesterday reported on the incident. Remember, he is there to protect the public - us - from the misdeeds of his employer if they occur. The NYT has the same position. In fact this position is a feeble effort to placate critics.

Let me quote the 11th paragraph:


"Some at The Post view Pelton as overly eager and not attuned to the newsroom's ethical sensitivities. But Pelton raised questions about some of those very issues in a May 21 e-mail to Weymouth, Brauchli and Stephen P. Hills, The Post's president and general manager. Pelton reports to Hills, who declined to be interviewed."


So, we are to trust this ombudsman though his president and general manager can decline to be interviewed by his own ombudsman???

How anyone can read or trust the NYT or WaPo can only be driven by ideology or a "head in the sand" evaluation of news sources!