Toles v. Romano

During an online chat yesterday, Washington Post White House reporter Lois Romano was asked to comment on her paper's awful story about the Internet "rumors" that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Her responses were indicative of everything that is wrong with American political journalism.

Obama and "the rumors": Lois: I object to today's story in The Post talking about the "rumors" floating around that Obama is Muslim. It is simply inaccurate and poor reporting to call them rumors. They are false claims. Obama is not a Muslim; calling them rumors gives them credence. In fact, even using the phrase "Obama's Muslim ties" is debatable. Having a stepfather who did "occasionally attend services" at a mosque and having a Muslim grandfather who lived on the other side of the world are pretty slim "ties." Why is The Post perpetuating these unfair attacks?

washingtonpost.com: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him (Post, Nov. 29)

Lois Romano: We are getting many questions of our story on Obama today. I'll try to address this as best I can. These are always very difficult decisions-- how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehoods out there. This discussion has reached a high pitch on the Internet and our editors decided it was in the readers interest to address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because they read he doesn't put is hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this-- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

As far as the headline -- probably not the best.

So, to hear Romano tell it, the mere fact that these anonymous lies are bouncing around on the Internet compels the Washington Post to "fact check and lay out the facts." Why, then, did that process not involve mentioning the fact that Obama is not a Muslim, and that assertions to the contrary are not "rumors," but "lies"?

Instead, what the Post reported is that Obama "denies" being a Muslim. I suppose that was because, as Romano said also, the paper wanted to address the lies about Obama "without taking a position" on them. Well, they certainly accomplished that, but for the life of me I can't see the value in it.

On that score...

Anonymous:"...how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position..." But Lois, you should take a position. Not only has he denied it, but every legitimate report says it isn't true. I assume you take a position on the earth being round, because it is verifiable. Obama is verifiably not a Muslim ... if only because he denies that he is.

It isn't a question of fair and balanced when there isn't any serious foundation to the report. For The Post to perpetuate it without clearly stating it isn't true is a disservice to journalism, your readers and a U.S. senator. Let's not even get into the question of the fact that it isn't a crime to be a Muslim and run for office -- which isn't the Obama story at all.

Lois Romano:But we do chronicle his denials.

That is really just unbelievable. Romano truly does not seem to understand that "chroncling" Obama's "denial" about plainly, verfiably false asserstions is not the same thing as reporting that the assertions are false.

It is not evidence of bias to say that a lie is a lie. It is simply evidence of an unambiguous moral education. But elite members of the political media, such as Lois Romano, genuinely seem not to understand this. Can there remain any question as to why the coverage of politics in this country is so poor?

Meanwhile, Washington Post political cartoonist Tom Toles illustrates his paper's problem with devastating precision.