Washington Post - January 4, 2004
Ombudsman Too Important for Style?
By Michael Getler
Two of the most talked-about articles in the paper during the holiday season appeared next to each other on the front page of Style on Tuesday, Dec. 23. They were both by veteran Pentagon correspondent Tom Ricks. A common headline stripped across the top of the page, "Holding Their Ground," joined the two stories.
This was a good headline because the individual stories were based on solid, probing interviews by Ricks of two respected figures -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz and retired four-star Marine Corps Gen. Anthony C. Zinni. The two differ profoundly on the question of whether the United States should have invaded Iraq and on the direction and impact of post-invasion policy.
Essentially, these two stories -- one focused on Wolfowitz, a major force in making the case for war, and the other on Zinni, the most credentialed critic of that policy -- captured the experience and arguments of two men who are leading advocates of opposing views about a seminal event of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Most of the calls and e-mails were focused on the reported views of Gen. Zinni, and many of those readers also asked, as one put it, "why these articles appeared in the Style section." "I read every word," said another, "wondering the whole time, why is this in Style? And on a slow news day to boot!" Zinni's remarks, said another caller, "were incredibly important. They really should have been on the front page. I've never heard his viewpoint before." Another said this was "too significant for Style. It really deserved the A-section. This is serious business." "For crying out loud!" said another. "This is not a Style article; this is an important political story concerning the lives of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens." There were lots more.
I agree with the readers on this, but the culprit here is not the Style section. In fact, it is to the credit of alert Style editors that they recognized the power of these stories, took them as a package and gave them plenty of space and prominence on their front page. Lots of people read Style and lots of people, judging from the response, read these stories. Furthermore, these stories were not written in the typical news style. They were approached much more as news-feature stories, albeit ones that probed in some depth the views of two authoritative figures on a crucial question of our time.
Yet I believe that putting these stories by a National staff reporter in Style reflects a missed obligation by the paper to its readers, and perhaps a lack of understanding about how important these stories would be seen to be. The Post didn't even have any reference, in what newspapers call "keys," to these stories on its front page that day, a tool that is used every day to alert readers to other important stories inside the A-section or in other sections. For thousands of other readers, it would have been very easy to miss these important contributions.
Editors point out that the paper had provided extensive coverage of Wolfowitz before, and that Zinni, a former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, is a known critic of the war and had spoken out before. That is true. But the story about Zinni's previous criticism was also used inside the paper, on Page A16 on Sept. 5, and it dealt mostly with the post-invasion phase. The more recent story was much more far-reaching. Gen. Zinni is, indeed, well known, but mostly within a core group of people who follow national security matters very closely. He is not exactly a household name for the wider audience, nor are his views widely known.
The point here is that the administration can, and has, commanded attention, frequently on the front page, for its war policy and rationale. The alternative view is always harder to make and to present. This is true in part because outsiders don't have access to all the information to back up their criticism, and in part because the challenges are most often made by opposition party politicians, or commentators, whose views are often perceived as simply partisan.
Zinni, however, cannot be easily dismissed, and no matter how one views this war, it is a disservice to readers not to air these views fully and prominently. The Post did air these views. But by not putting this on the front page, which is supposed to be the most important space in the paper, or not even pointing readers toward the Style package from the front page, The Post essentially said one of four things: (1) we didn't think this was quite important enough; (2) we didn't have the space in the front section; (3) the Style section could do a better job; or (4) we think most of you know all this.
Michael Getler can be reached by phone at 202-334-7582 or by e-mail at ombudsman at washpost.com.