Washington Post invites criticism, then censors it

In a column last Sunday, the Washington Post's ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff donated money to both political parties. That is false, as Abramoff only gave campaign donations to Republicans. Not only was Howell's assertion objectively false, but also it comported perfectly with Republican spin on the scandal--Republicans are trying to convince the public that the Republican corruption scandal is really a bipartisan affair.

So it was a rather big mistake for Howell to make, one that deserved an immediate correction.

But instead of correcting it, she largely stood by it.

And when some readers posted critical comments to a Post blog, those comments were censored from the site. Editor Jim Brady claimed the comments were removed because they contained "profanity, hate speech or personal attacks."

Guess which of the following comments were deleted for containing "profanity, hate speech or personal attacks":

--Ms. Howell hasn't quite yet mastered the art of 'truthiness' because the essence of that is avoiding the appearance of 'wronginess'. She's being called out by the readers by her inartfulness. We need an ombudperson for the ombudsperson!

--Why did you not report the fact (available from Bloomberg) that while tribes continued to give to democrats the level of giving to democrats DECLINED after their relationships with Abramoff began? Is it really that hard for you to get the picture of what was going on there?

--As a longtime reader of the Washington Post, I am appalled at Deborah Howell's performance as the paper's ombudsman. I am a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and I can not imagine an editor at my former paper allowing such poorly researched material to get into print--whether as a news story, opinion column, or God forbid, an ombudsman's essay.

Answer: All of them.

(UPDATE: The General has an exclusive.)