Washingtonpost.com
That's what Post White House reporter Michael Fletcher is asked in his Thursday morning chat. From the transcript:

Dallas, Tex.: You guys have been taking quite a beating in the blogosphere concerning your reporting Bob Woodward, the Froomkin Fiasco and as recently as this week with the polling for impeachment issue. I have seen some fairly hostile exchanges between WP staff and the internet community. Your credibility and objectivity has been challenged a number of times this year. Have the staff there made any decisions to regroup, or reevaluate their methodology to determine if there is any merit to the complaints and issues being raised. How do they determine if someone's reporting is undermining the credibility of the paper? Is it just editors? Any independent auditing?
Michael Fletcher: We talk about these issues all the time. As you know, Froomkin's blog, for example, is a far different form than the daily reporting we put into the paper. But these discussions make me, at least, reflect on our journalistic (newspaper?) tenets. How I go about being fair, providing balance, etc., without giving every story a he-said, she-said quality or making them impossibly confusing. In short, it's an ongoing, difficult -- and critical -- process.

Question for WP's Dana Priest: "What is your opinion on the NY Times holding the domestic spying story for a year?" Priest: "I would give them the benefit of the doubt that it was for a good reason."
E-mail this item | QuickLink this item: A94196


Romenesko Archive

View items published between:		and
	(MM/DD/YYYY)		(MM/DD/YYYY)

MAIN | Back to Top