1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party and that you will remove the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party’s right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or that is otherwise inappropriate. You will indemnify Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, its employees, agents, and affiliates from any and all claims and/or damages (including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees) resulting from any claim brought by any third party relating to content you have posted. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence will not be tolerated.

Hummm. looks like, according to the WAPO’s own blog posting guidelines, he DID violate their policy. They should remove his ability to post as they would any other violator of that policy. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen, it never will.

Since the Washington Post allows bloggers to appear under the WashingtonPost.com masthead, it should strongly consider whether those blogs should go through the same editorial process as its op ed opinion pieces.

As show by the Arkin fiasco, the Post is allowing whatever reputation it has to be befouled by foul mouthed guttersnipes and low life weasels.

The Post should learn from the experience, not give crybaby excuses.

“Armed Liberal” writes:Deborah Howell, the Post ombudswoman, has a piece up on l’affaire Arkin. It’s a reasoned, establishment take on blogging, is appropriately critical of Arkin – even though she understates the loathsomeness of what he said – an…

This is typical of how Deborah Howell approaches these controversies. Up to a point it can be reasonably explained by space constraints in print. But very often, and certainly in this case, the result is to misrepresent the force and scope of the controversy. I may blog on this later today if I have the time. The same thing happened–was it just last week?–when she wrote about disproportionate antiwar- and abortion-protest coverage. She limited her analysis to the fact that the pro-life march was on A10, the antiwar on the front page. This ignored the fact that the antiwar story was twice as long and that there were two or three other stories about the antiwar march as opposed to the single pro-life story. Not to mention a similar online imbalance.

So.

I guess there’s two different worlds in journalism; the real world where the print edition is located and another ‘virtual’ world where the on-line edition is located. Each world has their own separate editors, their own separate standards, and their own separate perceptions of decency. These two worlds are completely different from each other and are not inclusive, according to the post.

I wonder if the post and their supporters wold be willing to extend the acceptance of a two-world/dual-standard approach to journalism to other journalistic entities, like Fox News or the Washington Times? I doubt that very much.

One of my shooting buddies is a journalist. He’s an exception to the rule in that he is a gun owning, competitive target shooter. And I have no doubt that he would agree with everything you say.

“It’s ALL tabloid journalism.”
(There isn’t any OTHER kind of journalism.)

You got that right, CyberCipher. The WaPo and the National Enquirer are approaching a Harmonic Convergence of Critical Mass B.S.

In fact the underlying tone is annoyance – with the readers. Kick the customers when they find your product sucks and have the cheek to complain to their friends an aquaintences about it. That’s what happens to every other company with a crap product

. Why should the media be exempt from such treatment?

Yes, oh yes, let the awful truth be told. The WaPo scribblers look at the rest of us and see Larry the Cable Guy and Anna Smith. At best, they see us as children, and it’s Okay for adults to lie to children if the adults can convince themselves that their motives are worthwhile

“When, sir, was ‘mercenary’ ever an accurate description of the American soldier?”

Pardon the profanity, but no other word fits.

Professional writers choose words carefully; professional editors consider all of the obvious buzz words thoroughly.

I guarantee the word “mercenary” was vetted, discussed, considered … and then green-lighted.

Arkin knew what he was doing. His editors knew what they were doing. The paper knew what it was doing.

The only thing they didn’t know was the reaction they’d get.

Which – when you surprise yourself with imbeciles trapped in the same brainwashing bubble – isn’t really surprising.

The discussion about William Arkin’s offensive blog/columns continues, with the WaPo ombudsman now applying a little last minute (too late?) damage control.
Hat tip to Hot Air.
A Blog’s Blast Damage
The fact that The Post and washingtonpost…

WaPo ombudsman: “Arkin’s column did not meet Post standards”

Is Arkin headed to rehab?

WaPo ombudsman: “Arkin’s column did not meet Post standards”

‘ya think?

which means he should have been more tactful in his blatant hatred of the military and republicans

Take a look at this over at Hot Air. You can also read about the WaPo covering its a– here from a previous story.Here’s also a good analysis of Keith Olberman support of that Arkin idiot.Anyway, there is the AP covering for CAIR in a story about A…

And Why should I give a rats butt what “tiny limp-dick” (JD Mark Levin’s label for Olbermann) thinks? He’s nothing but a pig liberal anyway?

Levy on February 10, 2007 at 7:22 PM

bah… you beat me by a half a second :)

Arkin apologized. He said he was “dead wrong” to use the word “mercenary,” that it “is an insult and pejorative, and it does not accurately describe the condition of the American soldier today. I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally.”…

Okay, I see a pattern here with the halfwits at the newspapers/newsblogs and the more notorious lefty/liberal bloggers.

Whenever anyone who takes “the pen is mightier than the sword” to the next level, the level of defamation/libel of groups of people, it’s all just “satire” or “Hey, I was just kiddin! C’mon…” after the fact. If no one kicks up a stink about it, it’s all good and it stands.

Bull pucky. These people are pathetic.

If we’re not supposed to take his words literally, why are we reading them?

Unless maybe Arkin’s a satirist, like Amanda Marcotte…

More experienced eyes see a story or a column before it goes into the paper; The Post has several levels of rigorous editing

Translation:
Most of our reporters are just jumping at the bit to publish bilge like this but we won’t let them express their honest opinion ’cause then we’d look like loons.
But trust us anyway.

I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally.

Literally? Was there any other way to take it?

.