News outlets generally like to claim a separation between their editorial pages and their news pages. The Washington Post has long ignored this distinction in pursuing its agenda for cutting Social Security, however it took a big step further in tearing this barrier in a business section story that would have been excluded from most opinion pages because of all the inaccuracies it contained...read on
And Duncan finds that they have an opening for a new ombudsman. Didn't one of their last executive editors declare that they needed to cover Glenn Beck and movement conservatives more closely because their reporting is so awesome? Yes, and he was backed up by an ombudsman too.
For a few weeks last fall, editors and ombudsmen at The Washington Post and New York Times seemed obsessed with the idea that they should be paying more attention to right-wing media and websites. In the wake of some wildly hyperbolic claims about ACORN, the nation's leading news outlets apologized for being too slow to run chasing after every "scandal" ginned up by Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Beck, and their ilk.
Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli worried "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It's particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view" -- a concern echoed by his deputies and Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander.
Alexander gives us a detailed account as to why the WaPo is so slow to cover conservative
Still not swayed? Just take a look at the amount of MSM coverage was given to the bogus conservative lie about the $16 muffin.