Yesterday George Will published an appallingly dishonest column in the Washington Post about Jim Webb. Here's our letter to Post ombud Deborah Howell about it:

In your most recent column, you ironically share with readers the following quote: "An old newsroom saying goes: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story." In that spirit, I wanted to direct your attention to what Will did in his column yesterday. Will relied on some reporting in the Post from the day before on a now well known episode where Webb and President Bush exchanged words at a White House reception. But in recounting the episode, Will completely misrepresented the Post's reporting on it in order to change the storyline into one that fit the column he was writing.

Full letter after the jump.

Full letter to Post ombud Deborah Howell:

Dear Ms. Howell, I'm writing you to ask if you intend to address the controversy around George Will's column yesterday about Democratic Senator-elect Jim Webb, criticism of which could be found all over the blogosphere yesterday. In your most recent column, you ironically share with readers the following quote: "An old newsroom saying goes: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story." In that spirit, I wanted to direct your attention to what Will did in his column yesterday. Will relied on some reporting in the Post from the day before on a now well known episode where Webb and President Bush exchanged words at a White House reception. But in recounting the episode, Will completely misrepresented the Post's reporting on it in order to change the storyline into one that fit the column he was writing. I've laid out what I hope is the full case here: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/nov/30/george_will_distorts_wapos_own_reporting_to_smear_jim_webb As you can see, this is not simply a case of a columnist simply expressing an opinion. It is a very clear-cut case of journalistic malpractice, and indeed it seems very likely that it was a deliberate act of dishonesty. Will cut out key facts from the Post's own reporting on the episode to completely change the tenor of the exchange in order to fit the column he was trying to write. It would be bad enough if Will had simply distorted the reporting of another news org. But in this case, he distorted and cherry-picked from the reporting in his and your own newspaper in such as way as to completely misrepresent what your paper had told its readers just the day before. In other words, he attributed what he was writing to your paper -- and then gave an accounting of the episode that suggested very nearly the opposite of what your paper's reporting had found. As such, Will has done a disservice to your readers and your paper in not one, but two ways: First, through his own distortion of the available facts, and second, by falsely attributing that distortion to your paper's reporting. Judging by the external criticism of the column, as well as the dismay among Post readers about it expressed directly to the paper, this would seem to call from some sort of response on your part. As the reader's representative, do you intend to address this subject or to take action in some way? And if not, should Post readers conclude that Will's egregious distortions and clear-cut misrepresentation of the facts are considered journalistically acceptable by the Post's editors and leadership? Should they conclude that the Post's columnists are above being required to observe even the most basic journalistic standards? Thanks for taking the time to read this.

We doubt she'll answer us. But if she does, we'll let you know.

Meanwhile, Howell has posted the following email for readers who wish to share their opinions with her: ombudsman@washpost.com