[an error occurred while processing this directive]
RADAR ALERT: Washington Post: 'In no way does our coverage of this issue stereotype or vilify men...
posted by Matt on 06:12 PM January 17th, 2005
RADAR Project Contact the Washington Post and tell them the following:

  1. The Washington Post series on Maternal Homicide sensationalizes and distorts an important social problem.
  2. By failing to place the issue in proper context, the series serves to stereotype and malign men.
  3. Mr. Downie’s letter, which does not respond to any of the requested actions, insults the basic notion of media accountability.

Click "Read more..." for backround and contact information.


Washington Post: "In no way does our coverage of this issue stereotype or vilify men generally."

Here’s the contact information:

  1. Leonard Downie: Telephone: 202-334-7512 (please be nice to the polite lady who will answer your call)
  2. Michael Getler, Ombudsman:
    1. Telephone: 202-334-7582
    2. E-mail: ombudsman-at-washpost.com

  3. Letters to the Editor:
    The Washington Post
    1150 15th Street, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20071
    letters-at-washpost.com
    (Include your name, address, and daytime telephone number)

To help generate media interest in RADAR, please mention you are contacting the Post in response to a RADAR Alert.

Folks, it’s time to take action. Can we generate at least a thousand phone calls, e-mails, and letters this time?

____________________________________________________
BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Beginning December 19, the Washington Post ran a three-part, front-page series on Maternal Homicide.

The series has received intense criticism from persons representing the full gamut of political perspectives. These essays can be found on the RADAR website: http://www.mediaradar.org/.

On December 24, the NCFM-DC sent a 5-page letter to Leonard Downie, Executive Editor of the Washington Post. You can read the letter here.

The letter detailed the journalistic problems with the Post’s Maternal Homicide series, and explained why the series did a disservice to the Washington Post readers. The letter concluded with three requests:

“1. Schedule an educational session for your reporters and editors, to be presented by one or more of our Chapter members, on the scope, nature, and trends of domestic violence, based on the findings of scientific research.

2. Research and run a three-part series that features domestic violence against men. The series should address the following topics: research findings, how male victims are often ignored by DV programs and services, and what male victims can do to protect themselves and get help.

3. In all future DV articles, the Washington Post should assure that your reporters and editors provide a balanced and fair perspective.”

On January 4, Mr. Downie responded. His letter, which can be read at the end of this message, did not respond to any of the requested actions. In fact, his letter denies any journalistic flaws with the series whatsoever.

Mr. Downie’s response is identical to how CBS News handled the Rathergate scandal: deny, dissemble, and stonewall.

Mr. Downie’s letter concludes, “In no way does our coverage of this issue stereotype or vilify men generally.”

Many would disagree with Mr. Downie’s conclusion. In fact, some would label it absurd.

__________________________________________________________________
THE WASHINGTON POST
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071-5502
(202) 334-6000

Leonard Downie, Jr.
EXECUTIVE EDITOR
(202) 334-7512

January 4, 2005
NCFM – DC Chapter
PO Box 1404
Rockville, MD 20849

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed letter of December 24 critiquing the series of articles that The Washington Post recently published about maternal homicide.

I understand the viewpoint that you are expressing, but this series of articles did not cover the entire subject of domestic violence. It was focused only on homicide cases involving pregnant women and women who had recently become mothers. It never stated that this phenomenon was widespread and did not generalize beyond the specific studies it covered and the research our own reporter did.

The stories made clear that, because the research done so far and the statistics kept by law enforcement agencies are fragmented on this subject, the cases presented to readers were not necessarily a representative sample. However, the research made clear that this is a significant and newsworthy phenomenon that had not been reported elsewhere in the media. In no way does our coverage of this issue stereotype or vilify men generally.

Sincerely,

/s/ Leonard Downie, Jr.
Executive Editor

Salvation Army converted to feminism? | F4J campaign showing results  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
usual BS (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 07:52 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#1)
the research made clear that this is a significant and newsworthy phenomenon that had not been reported elsewhere in the media.

Intimate partner violence against women has been extensively reported, discussed, and studied. The Post's lack of reporting on domestic violence against men stereotypes men as evil brutes. The narrow-minded bigotry of the Post would be shocking if it weren't some prevalent across the whole old media.
 
Re:usual BS (Score:1)
by ArtflDgr on 09:25 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#7)
I have noticed more that this is a sign that they are running out of angles on the only thing they are 'allowed' to report on.

another way to look at it is that when you first start covering a subject you have the main examples. ok, then you move to other examples. eventually you get archaic looking for odd correlations and causations are speculated circularly.

In case no one has noticed, after 30 years they are trying to find fresh angles any way they can. of course there are other things that are public that would make good news and such but there must be some 'force' keeping them from reporting facts that would make a lot of money.

[pausing for the conspiracy theorists to wipe the drool off their lips]

newspapers live on advertising, and advertising in newspapers is dominated by retailers. Retail is dominated by the purchases of those that control the purse strings.

bottom line is that its time to vote with our wallets. rather than just writing also stop your subscriptions. dont tell me that the WSJ has anything that someone reading the WSJ cant get already online or at work or with some other paper. shoot even if you cancel your subscription with a fourish and a note as to why... and then re-up a month later with no notice is better than nothing.

if men are such a source of economics then we should start exercising those economic rights. choose where our dollars go, and do without sometimes when there isnt an alternative, and dont forget to let them know why you withdraw your graces.

newspapers are already on shakey ground, and they are damn well scared of stiring up too much and losing too much. they are balancing on razorblades economically, and between two pits of the buyers and the retail advertising.

Anything that can shake up the known balance for a new equlibrium will make a difference in their behavior. otherwise the only reaction will be a constant output of pseudo ameliorating letters whose only opjective is to keep you from exercising your monetary rights, even if just barely. The letter is not intended to make you happy. its intended to make you say, oh.. ok.. that sounds thoughtful.. and on to the next thing you go. this works most of the time.

awareness is key... f4j has done a lot in a little time cause they raise awareness.

dont just write the WSJ. look inside and write letters to the large firms that advertise in the WSJ. i will tell you that one advertiser removing their input because they are guilty through association will do more to change whats being reported than 1000 letters to the editor.

retailers want to sell... let THEM know what you think, why you think it, and why you will or will not buy their products or services. they are all to happy to hear from you. be polite. be short and simple, you dont need to educate them as to what is happening in the world, just as to why you are making the choice you are making. something like.

Dear Retailer,
    thank you for all the years of fine products and the enjoyment i have had with them. It pains me to say that due to my strong beliefs i will no longer purchase your products nor my family.

    I have recently canceled my subscription to the wall street journal given that over time their reporting has been less than fair to subjects relating to men and how they are perceived. the recent article on was a bit over the top and given the follow up reports in and as to the lack of good reporting this represented i decided that i no longer wished to spend my money there.

at this time i also noticed that you were a regular advertiser and i believe as such condone and promote such behavior by spending your ad dollars there. Given the false inflamatory nature of the article and your complicity, i must also spend your dollar elsewhere.

yeah, that one was a bit hokey, but you get the idea... make it work originally...

it will make more of a difference.. it will also get the companies to start policing the content of where they advertise. they wont go head to head to balance the book as the larger buying power has the favor, but they will react to the patently false. so while you cant stop the paper from being more slanted toward women, you can get the paper to stop printing lies or stretching truths to keep propping things a bit more.


hhmm (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 08:17 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#2)
"In no way does our coverage of this issue stereotype or vilify men generally."

I've noticed that often racists will say, "I'm not racist but.....", right before they say something racist.

p. george
Re:hhmm (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 09:37 AM January 18th, 2005 EST (#4)
I've noticed that, too.

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
Re:hhmm (Score:1)
by The_Beedle on 02:16 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#5)
"In no way does our coverage of this issue stereotype or vilify baby-rapers and mother-stabbers generally."
Re:hhmm (Score:1)
by Clancy (long_ponytail@yahoo.com) on 07:08 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#6)
"If I throw this rock at your head and it hits you, it will not cause any harm generally".
cancel your subscription (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 08:18 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#3)
There's no point in reading the WoPo. They've been running the same stories for decades. Read 'em on the web if you must.


[an error occurred while processing this directive]