I don't know if you all have been following the flap over WaPo ombudsman Debbie Howell's comment that Democrats and Republicans equally got "Abramoff money". There's plenty of info on the net if you need background. Remember this point throughout the following post. Debbie Howell is the WaPo ombudsman. It's her job to represent the readers point of view and interests to the Washington Post staff.

Howell has put up an explanation of the whole flap from her perspective. While calm and reasoned, it shows that she still just does not get "it". Atrios has attempted to explain to Howell exactly why there was a firestorm. But this comment tells me that she's still in the dark:

But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.

It's so frustrating when those in the media apparently do not understand the law or the nuances of politics. First of all, the Indian tribes do not belong to Abramoff. They were clients of Abramoff. If I give money to a tribe, are they mine and forever linked to my behavior? If I'm a hired consultant by a tribe, are they mine and responsible for me? Of course not. Second, Indian tribes have an extensive history of giving primarily to Democrats. So why is it so unusual for the tribes to make contributions to Dems? Third, Abramoff tried to tell the tribes who to give money to. Where's the evidence that there was a quid pro quo, i.e. I'll give you the money only if you give it to candidates I designate who then vote according to my wishes? This is the crux of the corruption and illegality. To date, the only politicans being investigated for corruption from illegal influence peddling are Republicans. Does anyone really doubt that if there was any evidence of Democrats being corrupt in the Abramoff scandal, that a Republican justice department wouldn't be all over it?

These are some of the specifics that much of the media in general, and Debbie Howell in particular, just do not understand much to the pleasure of the GOP. She continues to imply that Democrats are involved in the "Abramoff Scandal". Yes, she has some "evidence". But she has no evidence of Democratic wrongdoing while there is plenty of evidence of Republican wrongdoing.

How can we explain this obvious discrepancy in Howell's statements versus the facts?

Blogs and blog readers have interpreted Howell's error in every way under the sun including stupidity, mendacity, personal corruption, being a Republican hack, a shill Republican whore and on and on. And indeed, sometimes the terms of protest have been abusive. But from what I've seen, these types of comments (and I read a bunch of them) have been a distinct minority. Most of the comments would fit in a category of being angry, often quite angry, without being particularly abusive. Several "liberal bloggers" have been quite moderate and reasoned in their disagreement with Howell, including Michael Crowley who Howell quotes in her piece. In other words. Opinions and reactions from the left have been generally negative in content, and all over the place in method. But in classic debate school tactics, Howell and the WaPo have mostly focused on tactics they think abusive rather than on the substance of their error. And as I said, in fact they still don't get "it".

Personally, I think her continued insistence on linking Democrats to the "Abramoff Scandal" is simple ego that refuses to admit error of having repeated "conventional wisdom" invented by the GOP. But that's not even the point.

As I said above, Atrios addresses the liberal reaction better than I could. The right has been "working the refs" for years, often in shrill terms while the left has generally ignored the right as being screaming nutjobs and in-credible. But what we've seen in the tabloid-ization of the media is that, like negative campaigning, shrill works. Like it or not and for a variety of reasons, media outlets proclaim to dislike a flood of negative feedback while responding to it with positive reinforcement.

Want another example? Chris "Tweetybird" Matthews makes an outrageous statement comparing Osama bin Laden to Michael Moore. The emails flood in, the phone lines light up, criticism pours in. How does cable news respond? Matthews does another show on the topic with further comparisons as does Tucker Carlson and every other infotainest on the planet. And I'll bet you that ratings were up.

The message from the media is quite clear. If you want to have your point of view represented fairly in the media, you have to scream ... loudly, often, and shrill-ly. The left blogosphere gets the message and is using the tactics to good effect like the right has for years (we just needed a more left-friendly tool, the internet). Democratic politicians are very slowly starting to catch on (check out John Kerry on "This Morning with George Stephanopoulos") while Republicans have been hammering the media and the left for years.

Progressives may be slow, but we're not stupid. And I'll bet you that Debbie Howell, despite her comments, will be much more careful the next time she casually quotes "conventional wisdom". And she should be. It's too bad screaming is part of the equation. And it's too bad that "journalists" such as Howell don't understand their role in creating the current "polarization" where screaming is a norm. But it is what it is and the left must do what works.

Added: Here's an example of how it is properly reported.