Can The Washington Post go one week without giving its ombudsman something to investigate? Apparently not.
As Lowell detailed, Anita Kumar reported on the Washington Post's Virginia Politics blog that Gus Deeds, Creigh Deeds' 20-year-old son, was charged with drinking at a party. On my list of public safety threats, a 20-year-old having a drink at a friend's house ranks near the bottom (drinking & driving is obviously vastly more serious). I don't care who his dad is. It's not a news story.But the Post decided to report it anyway. OK, fine. Anita Kumar and I have different news judgment, you say. So what?
Here's where it gets curious -- even though the incident happened in May, the Washington Post suddenly decided to report the story today. Kumar's version says nothing about how she found out about it. And as NLS tells us, the Virginian-Pilot reported being fed the story by Republican slime-trawlers. According to the Virginian-Pilot's version, "[Gus Deeds'] legal entanglement was unearthed by political operatives digging for dirt."
So where did Anita Kumar get the story? Was she fed the tip by dirt-diggers? If so, why didn't she feel compelled to mention that to readers? And if Kumar wasn't acting on a tip from a rumor monger, why did the Virginian-Pilot attribute the story to Republican operatives?
As is too often the case lately, the Washington Post's actions leave us with more questions than answers.
UPDATE: Commenter siegead1 at Kumar's post:
