Post ombud received just 11 emails about Herman Cain coverage

The Washington Post
Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton gets about 80 emails when he or the Post writes about Rick Perry or Ron Paul. The tally of emails about Herman Cain coverage last week: 11.

Two readers complained, naturally, that the only reason The Post was reporting on the [Cain sexual harassment] allegations was to take down another Republican. … Two readers wrote to complain about the use of a particular photo of Cain used online.

Pexton told me that “the lack of e-mail on Cain is probably because … people are still making up their minds on the sexual harassment allegations. Except for the defend-Cain-at-any-price readers, I think people take this seriously and want to know more before passing judgment, at least for readers of The Post.” In addition to the 11 emails, there were three phone calls — two for Cain, one against. || Related: Spotlight on Cain shows four phases of campaign coverage (Poynter) | Cain blames media for sexual harassment controversy (Yahoo) | The Post’s 5 goals for its front page (The Washington Post)

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rp509855 Rod Paul

    Child, considering I voted absentee while serving in the military in Europe, I’m fairly confident I voted against Carter before you did.

    As for the rest, 25 years as a working journalist constitutes “in the media” I think.

    You continue to damage your position with every post.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rp509855 Rod Paul

    Child, considering I voted absentee while serving in the military in Europe, I’m fairly confident I voted against Carter before you did.

    As for the rest, 25 years as a working journalist constitutes “in the media” I think.

    You continue to damage your position with every post.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rp509855 Rod Paul

    Never actually worked in a newsroom, have you? Obviously, you’ve never seen, much less been involved with, political reporting – where the scoop trumps personal politics virtually every time.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rp509855 Rod Paul

    Never actually worked in a newsroom, have you? Obviously, you’ve never seen, much less been involved with, political reporting – where the scoop trumps personal politics virtually every time.

  • Anonymous

    comparing the cain and edwards stories is like trying to compare bananas and grapes. there’s nothing to compare. cain is running for president now. edwards isn’t, and his campaign ended more than three years ago. the cain story erupted only a couple of weeks ago, and has been kept aflame from one day to the next by new revelations AND cain’s own ever changing explanations.

    the edwards story has been reported very thoroughly as far as i know. it just happens to be in one of those lull periods at the moment as the legal issues evolve as they have for, what, a couple of years? i haven’t noticed anything that i think could be considered spiking edwards stories on the “national level” and can’t figure out why anyone would even make such an argument. i regularly see news reports about the latest devlopment in the edwards story, and it’s unclear to me why some others don’t, too.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504633504 Dan Mitchell

    Thanks for contributing your levelheaded insight on all this. 

  • http://regimeofterror.com ikez78

    Right on mom griz

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QO6LYHW6XJYVW2DJB4POEW5HOQ Mom Griz

    Oh please!  The majority of people in America know that they cannot and do not believe a word the MSM publishes or states.  There’s a reason that your revenue are down every quarter; it’s just that you haven’t figured out yet that Americans don’t care what you have to say or profess.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R77E5J2BFU22NMUNOL6MI27ZXE Evan

    Local reporters and anchors do not drive national media coverage. ABC/CBS/NBC, TIME, AP, Reuters and most importantly the NYTimes and the WaPost do.

    Bias at these outlets is a much more significant problem than at the local Eyewitness News or the Portland Oregonian because these local outlets get their national news from the national organizations. Herman Cain stories spread like wildfire and John Edwards stories get spiked because of the news decisions made at the national level.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_53YAPDXSTIGEDINDXF46CAB7ZY voted against carter

    So you have your asshat on really tight I see. CAN YOU SAY ” journoLIST???

    Silly libratard.

    Have some more obama kool aid.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_53YAPDXSTIGEDINDXF46CAB7ZY voted against carter

    well rodp,…

    You being a libratard it is apparent you are NOT very observant. 

    As for “those of us actually in the media observed in 2008.” LOL!! YOU in the media??? NOT.

    Keep dreaming libratard.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_53YAPDXSTIGEDINDXF46CAB7ZY voted against carter

    jtf,…

    LOL Silly Libratard.

    The reason Bush WAS elected twice is the “lame-stream media’s”LACK of honest journalism.

    Oh, and EVERYONE who is NOT a LIBRATARD such as your self, KNOWS this.

    PLEASE remove your asshat prior to your posting.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_53YAPDXSTIGEDINDXF46CAB7ZY voted against carter

    rodp,…

    “As for 2008, you forget/ignore the media love affair with McCain that only ended when he ceased to be the McCain they thought he was.”

    NO,.. AFTER the media helped “chear-lead the GOP selection of the WEAKEST candidate possible” to insure an Obama win.

    Also PLEASE remove your rectalhat prior to posting. You are an IDIOT. STOP proving it with every statement you make.

  • Anonymous

    this totally misses the point, which the claims do not address. the issue is NOT who reporters vote for but rather whether their stories are biased and if so for whom.

    there has long been a theory that reporters bend over backwards to be fair to candidates they personally do not vote for – EVEN TO THE EXTENT of being biased AGAINST the candidates for whom they DO vote.  this argument that a journalist’s stories reflect their own political preferences is painted with such a broad brush as to be meaningless.

    the only way such a survey would actually mean anything would be to look at individual journalists, see how they voted and THEN look at their BODY OF WORK to determine whether their coverage was slanted to their own personal views. as far as i know, nobody has attempted such a survey which, of course, would be impossible to conduct.

    for some reason, conservatives love to play the, uh, victim card when, in fact, IF their arguments were remotely true there would NOT have been a two-term george w. bush. and then, of course, there’s the right-wing media (newssmax, the limbaughs, fox noise etc.) that give the rightists a loud voice that they would have us believe does NOT even exist. horsedung. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/rp509855 Rod Paul

    Using a small subset of “media elite” and extrapolating that to something like “90 percent of journalists” is blatant misuse of data.

    the overwhelming majority of journalists do NOT work for the NY Times, Wash Post or ABC/NBC/CBS – they work for regional and local outlets – and if you read into the deeper studies listed in your link, you see that most have found only a slight majority lean Democratic.

    As for 2008, you forget/ignore the media love affair with McCain that only ended when he ceased to be the McCain they thought he was.

  • F. Douglas

    I haven’t seen any study that puts a number on the percentage of journalists who voted for Obama, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was close to 90 percent. (I don’t know how you can say you don’t think most journalists didn’t vote for Obama — that appears to be what you are saying — as there seemed to me as to be a feeling in the journalistic community that they were part of something historic when Obama was elected.) There have been a number of studies in the past that have showed that journalists tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic presidential candidates:

    http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

  • http://profiles.google.com/rp509855 Rod Paul

    We’d all love to see your source for that 90 percent claim… especially since it runs contrary to what those of us actually in the media observed in 2008.

  • Anonymous

    this is rediculous. it is pathetic. conservatives are hardly the victims of biased media coverage as they like to claim. and IF the “media” were as liberal and all pervasive and all powerful as some would have us believe (obviously it’s not), then george w. bush would not have been elected twice.

    the “media” has not “done” a frigging thing to perry. and cain’s coverage is his own fault. when conservatives have the likes of rush limbaurgh and dozens of want-to-bes around the country AND a 24-hour cable channel like fox noise that truly is a sad commentary on honest journalism, they and their right-wing-kook brethren can no longer claim to be victims of anyone.

  • http://regimeofterror.com ikez78

    For an organization that I thought was working to improve the media you sure do about as miserable of a job covering for the media’s obvious weakness.  It’s bias and/or denial of the bias.  Unless you can explain to everyone how an industry who voted 90 percent for Obama and does the same for Dem’s every election cycle can do so without ANY impact on their story selection or source selection then the onus is on the media, not the accusers.  You can trust like clockwork that any liberal cause or candidate who is under fire will have its opponents attacked, the story ignored or downplayed and a conservative accused of something will have the “death through repetition coverage” just like the media did too Perry, has been doing to Cain and countless others.  Conservative critics are treated with kid gloves for the most part and often reporters flat out echo liberal grievances as “facts.”  (The rich hold too much wealth, global warming is real, Bushlied, etc. etc.).

    How DARE you and your organization allow the field of journalism to die this slow death because of its rank dishonesty and bias instead of doing something to help and RESTORE IT???