[*A news ombudsman is employed by a newspaper to receive and investigate complaints from newspaper readers (or listeners or viewers of radio and television stations) about accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste in news coverage. He or she recommends appropriate remedies or responses to correct or clarify news reports.]

1.  In his analysis of the Washington Post ombudsman's analysis, Mr. Taranto asserts: "The reporter's insistence on anonymity is telling. If he really believes that propagandizing for same-sex marriage constitutes good journalism, why wouldn't he leap at the opportunity to express that view openly in the pages of the newspaper? There are two possible answers. One is cognitive dissonance: Upon further reflection, he realized that his view was illogical and would make him look foolish. The other is social pressure."  
Define propagandizing, cognitive dissonance and illogical.  Do you agree with Mr. Taranto's assertion about the reporter's reason for not wanting his name to be publicized even though he says he is being objective?  Explain your answer. 

2.  Mr. Taranto questions: "Why would the Post agree to grant one of its own reporters anonymity to ventilate views that make the paper's own newsroom look like a den of bias and unprofessionalism?"  Why do you think the Post would do so?  

3.  Mr. Taranto notes: "Surely Pexton's spotlighting a particularly egregious example of journalistic bias at the Post doesn't enhance the paper's credibility," and then goes on to explain that discussions are underway within The Post about abolishing the position of ombudsman, implying that perhaps Mr. Pexton is not happy about having the ombudsman's position eliminated from the newspaper.  What do you think about Mr. Pexton's motive?