Responding to the washington post online and their continuing insistence that a) comity is more important than truth and that b) jack abramoff was a bid democrat, i write as follows:
if one thousand readers respond to a story, using language so foul it would curl the very hair of a sea captain, and those thousand responses were right on the facts--would their intemperate language change the underlying facts?
it's a yes or no question.
let me save you the trouble. no. the facts would remain. swearing is the reddest of herrings.
deb howell either lied or was hideously incompetent.
you covered up for her by removing non-profane posts which made substantive points that were not refutable and that put you in a terrible light. they showed that you were compounding your initial lie with further ones.
that's two really ugly lies, both which happen to support a republican narrative, one that (provably) has been deliberately crafted.
your readership, particularly on line, skews both left and sophisticated when it comes to these things. we saw through this in, oh, 2 minutes.
you aren't servicing that readership. that's bad business practice.
you should be fired. deb howell should be fired in disgrace. Derek Willis should either show us his evidence or be fired. sue schmidt should prove to us she doesn't do what she is told by republican operatives, or she should be fired.
you aren't just bad reporters and editors, you are people whose ethics are anethema to everything i believe in and try to teach my daughter. it's sickening.
profanity, or lack thereof, changes none of this.