OK The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that you have one. The Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell has admitted that there is a grain of truth to the fact that the newspaper has a liberal bias. It must be snowing in hell and somewhere pigs are flying. Read the full story below:

WaPo Ombudsman: Okay, So Maybe, Just Maybe, We Are Biased By Ken Shepherd Created 2008-11-04 14:38

Dismissing the notion as “simplistic” that her paper is liberally biased, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell [1] wrote on Sunday that there is “a grain of truth” to the lament from conservatives that the Post skews leftward (emphases mine):

Neither the hard-core right nor left will ever be satisfied by Post coverage — and that’s as it should be. But it’s true that The Post, as well as much of the national news media, has written more stories and more favorable stories about Barack Obama than John McCain. Editors have their reasons for this, but conservatives are right that they often don’t see their views reflected enough in the news pages.

Aside from bias, Howell confessed another journalist sin on behalf of the Post, arrogance (emphases mine):

It is a disease easily caught by journalists, who can overlook its symptoms. We believe that we have a collective “nose for news” and the judgment to know best what readers need to know and how to present it. We believe in our own wisdom and experience and in the purity that keeps us out of politics and special-interest groups. We have our own rules, and we don’t change them. We seldom ask for input from readers. We believe that if it weren’t for us, the world couldn’t be as well informed and democracy wouldn’t operate as it should. But this sounds self-important to readers. That arrogance can come into play in political coverage. While much Post coverage has been straightforward and some of it is excellent, the predominance of horse-race coverage has not satisfied what readers wanted to know about the candidates. Tactics, strategy and polls are important, but last week readers were still begging for coverage of where the candidates stood on the biggest issues. They asked for such coverage beginning in the primary season. They didn’t get much information from The Post. Reporters have even complained to me that suggestions for issues coverage have been turned aside. Even for the “Potomac Primary” on Feb. 6 for voters in Maryland, the District and Virginia, readers only got one large graphic box on issues — on voting day. Too little, too late.

But that arrogance and liberal bias are not separate symptoms, as indeed a lack of attention to the issues has played out in the media’s lack of interest in the implications of Sen. Obama’s tax plan or his pursuit of cap-and-trade policies that could “bankrupt” the coal industry. Come to think of it, “too little, too late” may be an apt description of Howell’s admission of the Post’s biases.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/31/AR2008103103523.html