|
|
December 13, 2005
John Harris and Jim Brady Get Into It About "White House Briefing." Dan Froomkin Replies.PressThink interviews two key players in a dispute at the Washington Post over Dan Froomkin's Web column, White House Briefing. National politics editor John Harris, and washingtonpost.com's executive editor Jim Brady explain what's going on. Then Froomkin talks back.(New Froomkin Fallout post, Dec. 17: Two Washington Posts May Be Better Than One.) Background is here and here and here. Deborah Howell’s ombudsman column started it. Then Froomkin replied, and readers responded (673 comments as of post time). Harris replied to Froomkin’s readers and got hundreds more comments. Now (updating to Dec. 14) the Post’s Joel Achenbach, with a devoted read/write following, weighs in via his Achenblog. Achenbach describes some of what lies behind the seemingly “small” events in The Froomkin Foofaraw (his term.) I promised one of the participants that I would start with some words of caution. All were aware that there’s high interest in the story among online readers and writers. They said there may be a dispute, but there isn’t any crisis over Froomkin’s White House Briefing. His column is popular; it isn’t going away. (Users do have some power in the equation.) John Harris knows that. He told me he is not on any campaign to sink the column. He’s concerned about truth-in-labeling, but not in a state of alarm about it. “On the list of things I worry about in my job as political editor at the Post, Froomkin is not at the top.” I asked Harris and Brady similar questions, then gave Froomkin a chance to reply. I confirmed with Brady that Froomkin’s column is typically among the top ten content pages at washingtonpost.com. I tried to get better numbers, but they’re trade secrets.
Q: What sort of complaints or reactions have the political writers received (and from whom) that would lead them to think that White House Briefing is harming their credibility? John Harris: I don’t keep a running log, but I regularly run across people who think Dan is one of our White House reporters. One of them was a very news-saavy source of mine who actually runs campaigns. That tells me there is a large chunk of readers—I’m not saying most but a lot—who are not clear who he is and that he is writing as a commentator and not a White House reporter. The ombudsman says she regularly gets comments on the theme of how can you pretend to objectivity when your White House reporter writes “insert Froomkin quote here.” The question is has the website done enough to address such confusion? They are doing better. Most of the time (but with some slips) he is presented as an “opinion columnist.” But I think the title “White House Briefing” (which, as Dan acknowledges, is really a pretty minor issue) invites confusion. Q: Have officials from the White House complained to you or to Post political reporters about Froomkin’s column? John Harris: They have never complained in a formal way to me, but I have heard from Republicans in informal ways making clear they think his work is tendentious and unfair. I do not have to agree with them in every instance that it is tendentious and unfair for me to be concerned about making clear who Dan is and who he is not regarding his relationship with the newsroom. Q: You say, “The confusion about Dan’s column unintentionally creates about the reporter’s role has itself become an obstacle to our work.” What kind of obstacle do you mean? John Harris: As you surely can appreciate in your position, there are many people—especially conservatives but increasingly many liberals as well—who have no regard for the tradition of objective journalism and view much of our work as an ideological weapon in the guise of neutral reporting. I profoundly disagree with this view, but this view is a reality and I believe we have to push back against it and do our work as best we can. To the extent that some people believe Dan represents the voice and values of the Washington Post newsroom, that seems to me to be leading with our chin. Again, since many people seem to lose this point: I’m not trying to shut Dan down, just make sure we are presenting his work in a way that does not invite confusion. To the extent he presents a distinct ideological orientation in his column, we should make sure we offer other voices. This issue is really the heart of it. I would agree with Dan that his words in response to the ombudsman—about demanding answers, crying foul on “disingenous talking points,” and so on—do not represent ideological values. They would seem to me to represent basic journalistic values, and democratic values. This is probably why my comments caused such a stir: People bridled at what they interpreted as my view that challenging the White House on evasions, misstatements, or contradictions is evidence of “liberalism.” By no means is that my view. So my reservations about “White House Briefing” are not in theory but in practice. It seems to me that if you read his column over time he is presenting a pretty standard liberal critique of Bush. That is fine for a columnist or blogger but in my view would not be appropriate at all for a news reporter. Dan has not yet responded to my question of whether it would be okay with him if his column appeared exactly as he writes it under the byline of Jim VandeHei, Peter Baker, or Mike Fletcher, our three White House reporters. You are a press critic: Would you be comfortable with that? Again, I know most readers are not idiots and get the idea that we are sponsoring a blogger. But we know there is confusion on the point. And even a lot of conservatives who get the idea of what Dan is would say, “Yes, of course it figures that the Washington Post would sponsor a liberal blogger.” Q: You also said, “I perceive a good bit of his commentary on the news as coming through a liberal prism—or at least not trying very hard to avoid such perceptions.” But you don’t give any examples or links to past columns, and Deborah Howell, who also made this point, doesn’t give any examples, so it’s hard for readers to judge what these observations are based on. Could you help me out here? What issues does WHB tend to view through a liberal prism? Can you point to columns that you had in mind? You also say that it may be true that Froomkin would do the column the same way if Kerry had won the ‘04 election; but if that’s so, doesn’t that undercut the notion of a liberal prism? John Harris: How Dan would be writing about a Kerry administration is obviously an imponderable. Does Dan present a liberal worldview? Not always, but cumulatively I think a great many people would say yes—enough that I don’t want them thinking he works for the news side of the Post. Without agreeing with the views of this conservative blogger who took on Froomkin, I would say his argument does not seem far-fetched to me. Q: What else do you think it’s important for me and PressThink readers to understand about this episode? John Harris: What irked me about Froomkin’s reply to the ombudsman was his pompous suggestion that he is a lonely truth-teller at the Washington Post and the way he held himself up as a high priest and arbiter of good journalism: “The journalists who cover Washington and the White House should be holding the president accountable. When they do, I bear witness to their work. And the answer is for more of them to do so — not for me to be dismissed as highly opinionated and liberal because I do.” Many readers responding to his blog—the ones that prompted my response—hailed what Dan does as courageous reporting and denounced other reporters as stenographers. To be blunt: that is total bullshit. First, Dan is not principally a reporter. He is a commentator on what other people report. I took his comment to be by implication a smear on Washington Post reporters who work hard every damn day to do precisely the kind of tough-minded, accountability reporting he says he admires. I’m not trying to make this a bigger matter than it is. What we are really discussing is the title and presentation of “White House Briefing” and whether he should be complemented by another voice. I responded to your questions at some length because they touch on issues about the web and traditional news organizations that go beyond this episode. Thanks, John Harris. We want to make sure we understand, so… Some excerpts from an e-mail he sent to Jim Brady explaining the discomfort with Froomkin’s column.
Even so, the responses rallying to Dan’s defense and denouncing the Washington Post newspaper were troubling to me. A great many of them showed little understanding of how we do our work as reporters and editors, and of the distinctions we make between news and commentary. Many of them displayed a common attitude these days—that every article must be either a weapon or a shield in the great ideological arguments of the moment.
Q: How did you first become aware of the political reporters’ concerns, and what did you understand them to be about? Jim Brady: I became aware of their concerns right after I began this job in January. The Post’s political staff has always been up front about their concerns over Dan’s column. I have been equally up front in saying that White House Briefing is an integral part of the site and that we have no intention of killing it. It’s built a tremendous audience, it serves as an informative roundup on what news organizations are saying about the White House and it’s written with a strong voice and a wry sense of humor. Dan’s column, to me, takes advantage of the Internet’s ability to link and the Web’s appetite for voice. This isn’t anti-Post; it’s one of many ways The Post organization is adapting to a new medium with enthusiasm and vigor. One concern the newspaper raised early on was that Dan’s column was treated as a news column, when they felt it was an opinion column. I happen to agree with that assessment — though I know Dan does not — so we have been labeling it as an opinion column since the summer. Beyond that, The Post’s main concern is the name “White House Briefing,” which they feel implies that Dan is a White House reporter for The Washington Post, which he is not. I felt labeling WHB as an opinion column, and continuing to use the tagline “special to washingtonpost.com” under Dan’s byline did enough to separate it from the paper’s news content. But there’s obviously a disagreement there, and I’m certainly willing to keep talking to John to get to the heart of the matter. Q: Which arguments of John Harris and his staff did you find most persuasive, and which did you not share, or see differently? Jim Brady: I agree with John that where Dan’s column resides philosophically on the site has not always been clear. It was promoted as a news column/analysis for more than a year, until I decided to put it under an Opinion label over the summer. I also think John’s comments in Deborah’s column on Sunday and his response to Dan on washingtonpost.com on Monday have been misconstrued by many of those who have commented publicly. They’re accusing John of saying that no Washington Post reporter would dare criticize the White House; that’s not at all what he said. His point is that The Post has a very clear line of demarcation between news content and editorial page content, and that he believes Dan’s column creates confusion in that area. I’m not as sold on the second point, but again, I’m certainly willing to hear him out. But he’s right to say that Jim VandeHei would not be able to write — in the news pages — what Dan writes daily for the Web site, since Jim’s not an opinion writer. But E.J. Dionne could write what Dan writes, as could Richard Cohen or anyone else on The Post’s editorial page. So John’s not saying The Post can’t criticize the White House, but that when it does, that criticism needs to live in the editorial pages, not in its the news pages. Q: Howell and Harris both seem to charge Froomkin with writing from an ideological and left-leaning point of view. They do not give readers any examples. Froomkin denies it entirely. He says he is engaged in accountability journalism, and he was prepared to do exactly the same thing had John Kerry been elected. Harris says this may be true: “It might be the case that he would be writing similarly about John Kerry if he were president.” If so, then the charge of being liberal falls apart, and Froomkin’s description makes more sense. Do you think of Froomkin’s White House Briefing as somehow “liberal” or left-leaning? Or do you think he would be doing the same kind of column, asking the same kind of questions, highlighting the same kind of work, if a Democrat were in office? Jim Brady: Having read Dan’s columns for the past year, I do believe that it’s left-leaning. Other don’t agree, including Dan. I know he says that he’d have been just as tough on John Kerry, but since we have no way of knowing that, I have to rely on what’s in front of me to decide how to classify the column. I chose the latter. Don’t get me wrong, I think Dan writes a terrific column. It’s a great read, it’s built a huge following and Dan’s done a tremendous job interacting with his audience. But I do believe it’s an opinion column. Honestly, I don’t want to start pulling “examples,” since I don’t want it to seem like I’m bashing Dan. But having read it every day for the past year, I feel comfortable with the decision to move in into Opinion. Q: Howell says Brady is “considering changing the column title and supplementing it with a conservative blogger.” What do you want the title to reflect that it is not refecting now? Jim Brady: We have not really discussed the name in any depth, either internally or with the paper. As I said before, I’m willing to have a discussion about it with the newspaper. But I don’t know where we’ll come out. The issue is not what the title doesn’t reflect, it’s more the confusion that’s caused by use of the words “White House.” But it’s too early to tell where we’ll come out. Q: Could you elaborate on your thinking about possibly adding a conservative blogger? Does that mean you have accepted the view of Howell and Harris that White House Briefing is tough on Bush because Froomkin is a liberal? Jim Brady: Actually, the desire to bring on a conservative blogger has never been related to Dan. Ever since we launched our new Opinions area back in August, we’ve been trying to recruit someone from the right to help anchor that page. We do have a fair amount of online-only opinion columnists, but we don’t have one who clearly brings a conservative perspective on the issues of the day. For the sake of civic debate and assuring that the entire political spectrum is represented on post.com’s opinion page, we feel like adding someone from the right makes sense. But we’re not trying to find someone to rebut Dan; we’re looking for a different voice altogether. Q: What else do you think it’s important for PressThink readers to understand about this episode? Jim Brady: What worries me is when I see headlines that suggest there’s a huge battle between the newspaper and the Web site. It’s just not the case. Even with the national political staff—despite the obvious tension surrounding Dan’s column—we’ve made huge progress in the past six months. We recently hired Chris Cillizza to write a political blog for us, and to make sure he was able to be as effective as possible, we put him in The Post newsroom to interact with the national political staff. And “The Fix” is a huge hit. We recently started a Post political live discussion that runs every weekday at 11am ET. Last week, we launched a congressional voting database going back to 1991, the first in a series of political databases we’re looking to create. So I do worry that one issue like this is being used to suggest there’s a war going on between the two newsrooms. There isn’t.
Jay: First of all, let me say that I don’t like the fact that my readers are using me as cudgel to smack around The Post’s political staff. I think The Post’s political coverage is the best in the business. I’m proud to be ever-so-remotely associated with them. My column is largely a blog, and like my fellow bloggers, I would be at a loss without the news stories arduously pieced together by political reporters who, let’s remember, unlike me or bloggers, actually need to maintain their White House sources as they go. Talk about a highwire act. Noting my support for holding the president accountable, John Harris wrote on washingtonpost.com: “The reporters on the Post’s White House and political teams every day push through many obstacles and frustrations to do precisely this kind of accountability reporting—as I’m sure Dan would agree.” I certainly do. The Post political staff’s beef with my column, as reported by the ombudsman, is primarily a labeling issue. They just want it to be clear that I’m not one of their White House reporters. I don’t have a problem with that at all. I just happen to think it’s already clear to most readers that I’m a columnist, not a reporter. I’m Not Taking a Political Stand I am a bit frustrated that because my job is to hold the White House accountable, I’m accused of being biased. Being a columnist allows me to inject a lot more voice and personal observations into my work than I could if I were a reporter, but it doesn’t mean I’m taking a political stand. Should I also be critiquing the Democrats? There aren’t any in the White House. And my job is to watch the White House like a hawk. It’s also a job that the American public has counted on The Washington Post for during these past 30 years and that it appears a large number of readers from around the country and the world now come to washingtonpost.com for as well. This current tempest isn’t a clash of cultures, Jay, it’s just growing pains. Please remember that I was the editor of washingtonpost.com for three years before I started this column. In fact, I started working at the Web site in 1997, as a senior producer for politics, after 10 years as a daily newspaper reporter. The Washington Post newsroom has come a long way since 1997 towards embracing the Web and what it means to journalism — it just still has a long way to go. The Appetite for Voice To the extent that something good can come of all this, I hope it’s that the increased visibility for my column will call attention to its success as a new journalistic form, taking advantage of the Internet’s ability to link and the Web’s appetite for voice. The links, for instance, allow readers to assess my credibility on their own. My voice has helped create a large community of devoted, regular readers. This isn’t anti-Post; this is neo-Post; it’s one of many ways The Post organization is adapting to a new medium with enthusiasm and vigor. And despite some of the fears of my wonderful readers, the column is not in danger. I could not ask for more support than I have received from the highest levels of The Post and post.com — including Don Graham, Len Downie, Web site publisher Caroline Little and executive editor Jim Brady. Finally, I have been absolutely blown away by the expressions of support from readers, in their online comments and by e-mail, and from the blogging community. I am deeply moved and deeply appreciative and I wish I could thank everyone individually. If I ever had any doubts that this was worth the effort, they are gone. After Matter: Notes, reactions and links. Leonard Downie, executive editor of the Post, states his concerns (from E & P): “We want to make sure people in the [Bush] administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin’s column because it contains opinion,” Downie told E&P. “And that readers of the Web site understand that, too.” The reply… Washingtonpost.com Executive Editor Jim Brady said he does not plan to change the name, claiming it has not caused the misinterpretations that some believe it has. “The column has been on the site for two years and that is not something we have heard,” Brady said about concerns. “The column is extremely popular and it is not going anywhere.” I like it. A stand-off. “They decide what the column ought to be called,” Downie said about the Web editors. “We have discussed it and they will decide what to do. It is their decision, not mine.” This would not happen at the New York Times, where NYtimes.com was recently placed under the command of executive editor Bill Keller. He would have ordered the change and that would be it. The existence of Washington Post and Newsweek Interactive, a separate company headquartered in Arlington, VA, (it runs washingtonpost.com, and employs Froomkin) prevents that. Uh oh. Long-form blogger, academic economist and pissed-off press critic Brad DeLong phoned John Harris and interviewed him about one moment in my Q and A, where I was trying to get some specifics…(Dec. 14) Read the results. Not pretty. DeLong thinks Harris fell for an RNC ploy, or worse, by using “conservative blogger” Pat Ruffini for illustration. Brad’s post about it at TPM Cafe is actually clearer. Here’s a lot more about Ruffini from Tapped. Dec. 15: John Harris did a live chat with Post.com readers and got “tons” of questions about Froomkin but took only two to answer (here and here.) He did say: For those who are actually interested in the details, Jay Rosen’s site “pressthink” did a full and responsible airing of this relatively minor issue, and I said everything I need to say (and a little more) on that. Thanks, John— and for answering my questions. I dissent on “this relatively minor issue,” though. The events are small. The rummblings that led to them: not. If you dare follow Delong into The Future of the Washington Post? It’s all about the Froomkin episode and DeLong has plenty on his mind. Political reporter Peter Baker handles Froomkin questions in a live chat with washingtonpost.com readers (Dec. 13.) (“… Threatened by Dan Froomkin’s column? Hardly.”) Post humor columnist Gene Weingarten in another online chat with readers: “The Post reporters are wrong. Deborah is wrong. Froomkin is right. His column is really good, and I don’t much CARE if people get confused about whether he works for the Post or dotcom. Fact is, he works for both, and he is a columnist, and columnists have opinions, and people understand that.” Jeff Jarvis thinks Deborah Howell’s column about White House Briefing “illustrates, in its quotes from editors at the paper, the kind of clueless, destructive, and snobbish territoriality between print and online that is killing newspapers.” That sets off Dan Kennedy: see why. About the “atmospherics” at this post, Jarvis later writes: “The online folks are bending over backwards to be deferential to the print people. The print person is spitting lines like ‘pompous’ and ‘total bullshit.’” That’s because the online people know how strong their position is. More Jarvis, Dec. 15: A wise editor I know said it better in an email: “The elbows are getting very very sharp right now.” And the reason is that the business is shrinking and the print guys and online guys — forced together in newsroom meetings and mergers — are like dogs growling and snapping over that last scrap of meat. When the going gets tough the tough get snarky. “Watch the dodge,” says Ezra Klein at Tapped. “The question isn’t whether Froomkin pays secret homage to Karl Marx, but whether an undefined but nevertheless ‘great many’ people think he does.” CJR Daily goes sensible on us (Felix Gillette, Dec. 15): We prefer “White House Watch,” ourselves. That’s what Froomkin does on his blog — keeps a close eye on the White House and links right, left, hither and yon whenever he finds a kindred soul doing the same and doing it with panache. But hey, what do we know? We’re not the geniuses at Washingtonpost.com; neither are we the jealous Post reporters and editors lobbing the occasional grenade across the Potomac and into Froomkin’s tent. Responses on the Right to this post and the Froomkin flap: Stephen Spruiell at National Review; Bill Quick at Daily Pundit; Christopher Fotos at PostWatch. Fotos did several posts in fact. Also see Mark Kilmer at redstate.org. Then there’s Josh Trevino: “The flap over Dan Froomkin’s White House Briefing in the Washington Post is an instructive little incident that ought to alert the journalism community to an unpleasant reality: having been regarded as the enemy for so long by the American right, it is now equally detested by the American left.” See Franklin Foer on the same theme, but without the Froomkin. Panning left… Jane Hamsher on Post reporters: White House Pool Boys Get Crabby. What the WaPo writers are viewing through their Technorati tags is only a tiny crumb of a rage that threatens to sweep them into irrelevance. If they care about the preservation of superstar journalists and the politics of access above all else they blind themselves to the sea change that is taking place in how information is exchanged. In my last post I incorrectly termed Jane a “lawyer and writer.” She is not a lawyer, but is a writer. Her blogging partner ReddHedd, equally sharp, is a lawyer. My apologies to both. From the bio of the blogger John Harris linked to in support of his view that White House Briefing is left-leaning. (“His argument does not seem far-fetched to me.”) Patrick Ruffini is never far from the place where politics meets technology. Until recently, Ruffini was webmaster for the Bush-Cheney ‘04 presidential campaign, proudly serving as part of the team that executed the most sophisticated online strategy in political history. Oliver Willis weighs in on Froomkin, the press, and inequality. More Post-Centric PressThink: Grokking Woodward (Dec. 9) The New York Times is not any longer—in my mind—the greatest newspaper in the land. Nor is it the base line for the public narrative that it once was. Some time in the last year or so I moved the Washington Post into that position. The Post, I believe, is our great national newspaper now; the Times is number two. Still think that. Favorite quote from a Post reader defending Froomkin: “The fact that Froomkin is associated with the Post is what gives some plausible legitimacy to Harris, not the other way about.” (John Sundman, Dec 13, 2005 10:43:04 PM, found here.) Dan Froomkin’s brother, Michael, is an academic and blogger at Discourse.net (“on the fringes of the public sphere…”) He says he is watching all this with “great interest and not a little glee.” Marty Kaplan at the Huffington Post: We have reached the point where instead of assessing the objectivity and accuracy of statements in public discourse, we are told by journalistic traffic cops to treat them merely as theological observations that flow from one’s political religion. It’s a symptom of the same disease that already causes spineless editors to force apparently defenseless reporters to pair every truthful “he said” in an article with a bogus “she said” in service of some nihilistic postmodern notion of balance. Kevin Drum, agreeing with Atrios on it, says: “If you don’t want people to think that reporters have opinions, keep them away from shows that traffic primarily in opinion. That’s surely a much bigger deal than the ‘title and display’ of Froomkin’s column.” Here’s a full list of Washingtonpost.com blogs, which for some odd reason leaves out WHB. For a broad sampling of all the bloggers commenting on the Froomkin and the complaints about him see memeorandum. In May 2004, Dan Froomkin wrote one the best pieces ever about what the new platform offers print journalists— if they awaken to it.
Posted by Jay Rosen at December 13, 2005 2:57 PM
Comments
What a bizarre episode. Isn't Deborah Howell's job representing readers? She doesn't cite a single one; the genesis of her column appears to be an internal complaint from the White House desk. As for John Harris, if he's so concerned about his reporters being tinged by purveyors of opinion, then why does he allow them to appear on opinion shows? Posted by: Andy Vance at December 13, 2005 3:44 PM | Permalink The great playwright William Shakespeare once wrote this now famous stanza in Hamlet. To be, or not to be: that is the question: It is a profound question and you may interpret as you will. No doubt events in Shakespeare's life prompted him to write those lines, and perhaps he contemplated war and death due to the events of his time. As a mere journalist, there are some events making the rounds of the press and the blogosphere which cause me now to ask this question. To believe or not to believe, that is the question. Or, what is more worthy of belief, a newspaper or a Web site? Does one technology by its nature somehow engender more trust than the other? Let's examine a few cases and see if we can answer the question to anyone's satisfaction. http://www.locustfork.net/blog/ Posted by: Glynn Wilson at December 13, 2005 4:01 PM | Permalink Man, Harrris sounds like a whiny Bush apologist. Posted by: gogne at December 13, 2005 5:56 PM | Permalink Well, well. Mr. Harris really has his knickers in a wad now, doesn't he? He's really distressed and bent out of shape by the'bullshit' peddled by Froomkin's fans. Yet he himself felt that the 'Fundraising scandals' of the 1996 Clinton campaign deserved 'aggressive coverage' even though they led no where, and the Bush Whitehouse gets a pass on just about everything it does from most of the alleged political reports at the WaPo. I'd like to know several things about Harris: what was his view on the Iraq war? If he wants to start applying the 'liberal label' to Froomkin and argue that 'cumulatively' Froomkin is some sort of standard liber critic of the Bush Whitehouse, I say that we as readers of the WaPo have a right to know what Harris thinks about the administration. We know that Milibank and Vandehei have personal ties to Republicans. It certainly smells like Harris does too. Posted by: Max renn at December 13, 2005 6:07 PM | Permalink It's very clear that Dan Froomkin had better start cleaning out his desk. He's been branded with the Scarlet L (for Liberal) and therefore is not to be tolerated by today's "Free Press." Pravda copy boys like Brady can spin themselves right through the floor, but the handwriting is on the wall -- and has been for some time. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 13, 2005 6:08 PM | Permalink Things were much easier when the most important news topic of the day was the President's sex life. It made it much easier for guys like Harris..... Posted by: Hank Essay at December 13, 2005 6:16 PM | Permalink I just think it is so funny that Dan Froomkin doesn't think he's biased. Talk about bubbles. Froomkin, Terry Neal, Emily Messner, The Nation alum Jefferson Morley: left, left, left, left. It sure will be fantabulous if Brady adds one whole conservative blogger to washingtonpost.com. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 13, 2005 6:24 PM | Permalink Jay: First of all, let me say that I don’t like the fact that my readers are using me as cudgel to smack around The Post’s political staff. I think The Post’s political coverage is the best in the business. Saying that the Post's political coverage is the best in the business is not exactly high praise, to my mind. The MSM "political coverage" is woeful at best. Posted by: VG at December 13, 2005 6:29 PM | Permalink Wow. Okay, Mr. Harris, we get that you don't get it... So Harris weasels out of addressing your request for examples by referring "without agreeing" to Patrick Ruffini. Meaning that his roster of reputable media critics includes the likes of Mr. Ruffini but he's too chicken to say so out loud. Jeebus. Think you can get him to address the post entitled "Hilary-bashing is not enough" in some future interview? And how exactly did Harris get introduced to Ruffini's work in the first place? Perhaps some republicans informally introduced him to it? Alas, WaPo. Maybe it's time to encourage Froomkin to leave rather than defending his position there... Posted by: radish at December 13, 2005 6:33 PM | Permalink I wish someone would ask Howell or Harris what they think of Howard Kurtz. He has as much right tilt as Froomkin has left tilt, his wife is a former Republican party operative, and he has the CNN conflict of interest. Posted by: cafl at December 13, 2005 6:46 PM | Permalink Having cooled down a little, my sincere apologies to Dan for using him as a cudgel to smack around the Post's political staff despite his request not to do so. Perhaps I could even agree that the Post's coverage is the best in the business, if I didn't mind damning with faint praise ;-) Posted by: radish at December 13, 2005 6:48 PM | Permalink Howard Kurtz liberally (!) quotes politicians and bloggers from both the right and left. That, of course, makes him a rightie. Few things enrage liberals more than seeing the right treated respectfully in the media. It ain't supposed to work that way. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 13, 2005 6:56 PM | Permalink Few things enrage liberals more than seeing the right treated respectfully in the media. It ain't supposed to work that way. Posted by: Christopher Fotos Shorter version: Wah wah wah Posted by: Steve J. at December 13, 2005 7:01 PM | Permalink Ok, so Harris has a "news savvy source" who was confused about Froomkin? The facts that a) Harris uses a "source" for whom comprehension is so problematic; and b) Harris did not bother to go the next step to see if this "news savvy" source who "manages campaigns" could possibly have not been confused at all, but rather pissed and taking a poke in any manner available -- pretty much highlight the very concerns that posters have raised about WaPos reporting. Couple this with the presentation (no factual references or basis provided) and lack of clarity of Harris web response (engendering the need to keep "clarifying" what he meant) and the retaliatory feel of his linking, here, to a blog on "Dan Froomkin, Second-Rate Hack" and what journalist with actual training and objectivity would fail to understand a reader's annoyance? Posted by: Mary at December 13, 2005 7:16 PM | Permalink Dan Froomkin, live chat, Dec. 7: Plainwell, Mich.: Dan, Thanks for all the straight forward information you share with us on a regular basis. My question: What more can be done to raise up the cabal that exists in the writings of the New American Century Project? Is the media afraid of revenge or being set up again? Dan Froomkin: Well, I often send people to the Project for the New American Century Web site when they ask me: Why did we really invade Iraq? It offers a great primer in the new American imperialist philosophy shared by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the leaders of the ostensible "cabal."... Ostensible. Whew! Close call; unbiased political reporters are incessantly referring to the new American imperialist philosophy but you must insert "ostensible" before "cabal" or people could get the wrong idea. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 13, 2005 7:17 PM | Permalink Yeah, "imperialist" is wrong. It should be "global imperialist." Posted by: Steve J. at December 13, 2005 7:23 PM | Permalink Anyone that thinks Howard Kurtz swings more to the right than to the left probably should try reading his work instead of just basing it on what certain A-list bloggers peddle. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at December 13, 2005 7:25 PM | Permalink Yikes! The hate and vitrol on this thread is truly astounding. For a moment, I thought I was reading a Frank Rich column. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 13, 2005 7:44 PM | Permalink "Shorter version: Wah wah wah" is a Most excellent Troll Smackdown. this whole story is unbelievable. The whole MSM press corps is sooooooo corrupt in the USA. scary indeed. "Dan has not yet responded to my question of whether it would be okay with him if his column appeared exactly as he writes it under the byline of Jim VandeHei, Peter Baker, or Mike Fletcher, our three White House reporters. You are a press critic: Would you be comfortable with that?" Mr. Harris, you know, YOU'RE the one who has trouble distinguishing commentary from news stories. No, Dan's COLUMN would not appear under the byline of Jim VandeHei, etc, because it is not a NEWS STORY. (Of course, I notice Jim VandeHei has no problem editorializing when he's on TV... so I suspect that his TV talk wouldn't fit under his byline either... what say you, oh Editor?) What makes no sense is that you have columnists right there in the Washington Post print edition, and editorialists too, who are far more opinionated than Froomkin. (Charles Krauthammer seems to spend his worklife in an apoplectic rage, for example.) Why aren't you insisting that they're too opinionated, adversarial, partisan, political, all that stuff? And you don't even seem to feel the cold breath on the back of your neck. You blithely report that your friend who runs campaigns-- that is, a pol-- and Republicans have complained. Instead of saying, "Wow! That means Froomkin is having an effect! Go, Dan!", you act as if politicians taking issue with a columnist is sufficient reason to take off after him. Doesn't that bother you, that the opinions of politicians matter more to you than the opinions of readers? And then you link approvingly to some blogger who headlines his much more opinionated and adversarial-than-Froomkin rant: "Dan Froomkin, Second-Rate Hack." You should be ashamed of yourself. This is your colleague. You of course say blah-blah-blah things about Froomkin being good, but then you link with approval to a headline like that. That's it, fella. Between you and Len Downie, the one who admits this is about White House complaints, I have no use for the "legitimate Washington Post". You're spending the day slamming Froomkin when your fair-haired boy Jim Vandehei is backtracking on an idiotic and very likely slanderous mistake he made about (surprise!) the CIA leak. Excuse me, don't you have a reporter to chastise? You know, the one who -reported- that Hadley was Rove's source? Erroneously? There's a story here, and you're not telling it-- why suddenly you decided to make this an issue, why you took it public rather than handling it inside the Post (to distract us all from Woodward, maybe?), who is this complaining friend of yours who runs campaigns and why do you think his opinion is so important, why the ombudsman dismisses the Web side as being useful for archiving big documents that would use too much newsprint, what the White House had to do with the complaints, who of your reporters has complained (they seem all to have checked in and said, "Twasn't me!"), why you assume that your readers are so stupid and partisan that they'd hate Froomkin if he was taking on a Kerry administration, why Mr. Downie joined in and added his little bit about Republicans complaining, and why other columnists including Howard Kurtz manage to remain under your radar. I await the real story. I hear you have some good reporters. Maybe you should assign them to this! Posted by: listener at December 13, 2005 8:11 PM | Permalink What I find as one of the most interesting aspects of this controversy is how it started. The ombudswoman's column was published in the print edition of the post on Sunday. But it apparently barely caused a ripple and no one saw it. It wasn't until Froomkin on Monday used the web to make people aware of her comments, followed by his response that the issue exploded. To me the most important aspect of this debate is how little impact a print story has now until the electronic world makes it relevant, for better or worse. Posted by: Jeff at December 13, 2005 8:14 PM | Permalink Re: Howell's position. It is my understanding that she works for the print edition of the Post, and would remind people that "ombudsman" is different from "readers representative". That being said, Howell's column was still a pile of horse manure. She stuck her nose somewhere it didn't belong (in a dispute involving wpost.com) and got rightfully slapped down by Froomkin's readers. ***************** As far as Harris is concerned, the fact that he cited a "conservative blog" that is written by the webmaster of the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign tells you everything you need to know about what can most charitably be described as his absolute cluelessness about what is really happening here. Did Harris know that Ruffini worked for Bush/Cheney during the last campaign, yet stupidly cited his blog anyway? The fact that Harris (who took a completely different view of "agressive journalism" when he was providing us the details of Clinton's sex life) validates the opinions expressed in a blog written by a known partisan operative for Bush tells you everything you need to know about Harris's own obvious biases. *************** As for Dan Froomkin's "make nice" comments about the Post's "political staff" -- well, lets just assume he's being gracious, and ignoring the calumny that is Steno Sue Schmidt and the cluelessness of Jim "Pool Boy" VandeHei. *************** Finally, perhaps Harris can explain the difference between "news analysis" and "opinion" that made it so vital to label Dan's daily summary of White House coverage "opinion" rather than "analysis." To me, Dan does infintely more "analysis" than "opinionating", and the "analyses" that do appear in the Posts contain far more "opinion" that virtually any Froomkin column.
"To me the most important aspect of this debate is how little impact a print story has now until the electronic world makes it relevant, for better or worse." I'm going to agree with Jeff here, and add that I think that the reason this whole thing blew up like it did was not really similar to the way Christian interests groups get their hardcores to write to the FCC every time an nipple wants to be free, this outpouring of reader sentiment and support has a truly spontaneous and genuine feel to it. I also agree with Ron B. that many A-list bloggers and their readers accept a very simplified view of things, shortcuts or what have you, but they were not the real cause behind the interst in this...readers really value the column. It provides something unique, a real resource. Maybe Chris Foto should try to write something one tenth as insightful (as opposed to inciteful) and submit it to the WaPo balance brigade. Maybe he can be the new conservative blogger over there, though goodness knows not he or any other shill can match up if they ain't got truth on their side. Posted by: stack at December 13, 2005 8:49 PM | Permalink Harris said: "He’s entitled to his opinion, and he’s entitled to be proud of what is obviously a devoted audience. But you know how I feel—his column, under its current title and display, does dilute the Washington Post’s reputation, and more serious care should be given to its editing and presentation. —" Once again, without providing any evidence at all, Harris decides that Froomkin is wrong-- and while he has previously said it's just about the title, suddenly he's telling Froomkin's editor that he should be edited more? Again, not the slightest evidence that he's made mistakes, presented himself as one of Mr. Harris's reporters, or done anything beyond making some in the White House uncomfortable. And again Harris decides that his own readers are so stupid they don't know how newspapers work. Evidence? None. None. I guess we are stupid, because we sure didn't think that editors pay special attention to the complaints of their friends the politicians, or the White House. And we were too stupid to even imagine that most prominent reporter in the nation (and Post)could possibly comment repeatedly on a case that it turns out involved him! We were idiots enough to think that there was a thing called "Conflict of interest" that meant a reporter wasn't supposed to report on a story he was part of. We're so stupid we expect White House reporters to actually follow up their questions and, oh, yeah, notice when the press secretary is blowing smoke for a couple years. And we were so dumb that we believe a Post White House reporter when he casually drops the name of one administration aide as a leaker when he means someone else entirely (and then says he never said it... boy, the dedication to truth is alarming!). Boy, were we dumb!!! Oh, wait. Froomkin didn't do any of that. That was all Post PRINT REPORTERS and editors who let Scottie evade on and on, who privilege their sources over their readers, who jump whenever the White House complains!! Yeah, Mr. Harris, we are dumb-- but not as dumb as you seem to think. Posted by: jerri at December 13, 2005 9:19 PM | Permalink "But E.J. Dionne could write what Dan writes, as could Richard Cohen or anyone else on The Post’s editorial page." Would that Richard Cohen would simply write what Dan writes. Is Cohen supposed to be cranky liberal? or just easily confused as to what the administration's tactics say about it? Posted by: benton at December 13, 2005 9:29 PM | Permalink First - Second - Third - OK, let's assume that Froomkin did suggest this, pompously. Still, wouldn't it then matter whether his pompous suggestion was true or not? (i.e., does a reader typically learn more (and more important) information from reading his column than from reading another news article?) Fourth, What exactly does this mean, and would this 'complementing' be constructive? cost-effective? So to provide utility to the readers for 'columnist' dollars spent, wouldn't you need to hire a nonconservative conservative columnist? (Presumably White House press releases and talking points can be reprinted for free) Posted by: Anna Haynes at December 13, 2005 9:36 PM | Permalink Is this journalism or a territorial pissing match. Why is the news side thrown in a tizzy by the opinions expressed in a bloggy aspect of the Post's online version? Does Harris get that overwrought when editorial writers write about the goings on in Washington? Then again, I'm more fascinated that kilgore finds the comments here hateful and vitriolic. So far it's just been partisan-based opinion. No one's called Jay a liar yet! In this brave new world of communication, we're surfeit with opinion. Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 13, 2005 9:38 PM | Permalink well, since we're on the subject of the Post on-line edition, this probably deserves at least a little notice... a "Note from the Publisher" that is linked right below the masthead on wpost.com's homepage, which says You may have noticed that all of our major ads today have one thing in common – they're all from a single advertiser, the cable channel MSNBC..... Is it really necessary for Carolyn Little to suck up to advertisers in this fashion? While we're asking questions, what is particularly 'innovative' about a solo advertiser? Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 13, 2005 9:57 PM | Permalink You "reporters" are doing a bad tap dance in front of closed curtains as the country is being stolen and trashed behind them. You are in a self-important circle jerk while the real stories go unreporeted. So, is anyone going to ask how a 757 airliner fits into such a tiny hole in the Pentagon or why Sidel Edmunds can not go to trial. You pious reporters are a bad diversion for the criminals slight of hand. The Media is leading the deception of the masses. G. Keel Posted by: G Keel at December 13, 2005 10:01 PM | Permalink John Harris :"the responses rallying to Dan’s defense and denouncing the Washington Post newspaper were troubling to me. A great many of them showed little understanding of how we do our work as reporters and editors" I am one of the people who does not understand how the reporters and editors do their work at the Washington Post. You have a purported reporter, Bob Woodward, who not only refrains from telling readers what he knows about a highly publicized federal grand jury investigation, but he actively avoids letting readers know he is involved in the case under investigation while commenting upon the investigation on television as if he is not involved. What kind of "reporting" is that, Mr Harris? And no, I don't understand what editors do at the Washington Post when the newspaper pays Bob Woodward to be a reporter, then he doesn't report, and when it is revealed that he isn't reporting inside knowledge of a case under federal investigation the editors make little harrumphing nosies and then do nothing. So please explain further to me, Mr Harris --- exactly what is it that your reporters and editors do? It seems from the example set by Mr Woodward that they neither report nor edit a great deal these days. Posted by: wren at December 13, 2005 10:10 PM | Permalink The scales have now fallen from our eyes and we are ashamed. The Media Posted by: The Media at December 13, 2005 10:13 PM | Permalink Harrris is upset becaust Froomkin does not share his pro-establishment bias. How transparent to cite with approval a Buch-Cheney paid blogger? With Harris in charge, it suddenly makes sense to me why someone like Steno Sue continues to thrive at the Post. Posted by: joefromla at December 13, 2005 10:29 PM | Permalink Many of you sure seem to have strong opinions about how terrible it is to point to Patrick Ruffini without, you know, reading him. Ack! Bubble bursting! Ruffini's is a terrific collection of the Froomkin style. If you can read that and not understand that he's a liberal columnist, well.. you could be Dan Froomkin. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 13, 2005 10:44 PM | Permalink major disclaimer: I work for WPNI, but I do not speak for any Post company in any way, by choice I might add. I'm also not a reporter or involved in any content decisions. That said: Is it really necessary for Carolyn Little to suck up to advertisers in this fashion? Well, you know, they do pay the bills. :P Seriously, though, lots of people worked on lining up the campaign. I don't have a problem with her acknowledging the effort, but I know it's not everybody's cup of tea, so that's cool. As for the Froomkin flap, I'm surprised it's grown to such dimensions. Even the National Review Online doesn't have much of a problem with the column. What I find interesting is that so many people are focusing on issue of the column rather than the issue of the Technorati links, which I believe to be the more important in the long term. I think the Post has a great opportunity to become a key player in online discussion through things like the Technorati partnership, and I hope they continue to take steps in this area. I'm also pleased to see that the whole thing ended up on the post.com weblog where the world can read and respond, instead of buried internally. I don't think it's a fatal blow to either company. I believe the powers that be will work it out. (Gullible? Maybe. I prefer optimistic.) Christopher, Jay, Any chance you might consider a follow-up where you raise some of your concerns about the fallacies of the view from nowhere and help reframe the tautological claims to purity and higher calling that Harris's vitriolic, hacktastically "objective" voice itself shreds before he can finish uttering a single one of his "more objective" stabs in the back? Was it hard to resist the temptation to gag when he started spouting this crap or does your journalistic training cover stuff like that? Posted by: Mark Anderson at December 14, 2005 12:28 AM | Permalink The 1984-Soprano shroud in which we are being wrapped fold by fold explains the fierce defence by readers of Froomkin's column. The official doublethink, doubletalk reported by "real reporters," is more and more like eating stale toast, perhaps left over from some White House breakfast. Posted by: Druthers at December 14, 2005 4:01 AM | Permalink Can there be any lingering doubt that the once venerated Washington Post now funtions as the Bush Administration's own number one propanganda arm? To wit: ============ -John Harris: "...I have heard from Republicans in informal ways making clear they think his work is tendentious and unfair." -Woodward, Washington Post managing editor, who apparently no longer feels that he has any obligation to his readers, as the "official court stenographer of the Bush Administration" The staff at the Washington Post, along with Viveca Novak (and Judith Miller, goes without saying), make crystal clear that their loyalty lies first and foremost with themselves, second, with the Bush Administration and third, with their sources. Where are the readers in this equation? Posted by: Phredd at December 14, 2005 7:52 AM | Permalink How much of this dust-up is really about professional resentment at Froomkin for showing up the Post "political staff" each day? Lets face it, one of the things Froomkin is doing is telling readers "if you read just one newspaper, you aren't getting all the information you need. Here are links to other relevant information on today's top stories that the Post's White House reporters and editors didn't find out, or decided to keep from you." No wonder Harris has his knickers in a twist -- every day he is confronted on the Washington Post's own web site with the fact that reporters working for other editors are kicking his ass. (its really unfair in some ways, because Froomkin's links are generally to the best White House reporting each day, so Harris and his staff don't get compared to a representative sample of the work of their peers. But life ain't fair, Harris, so grow up.) I'm really concerned about the message the Washington Post is sending to its readers. That is, any critical look into the White House should automatically be considered liberal, and the only way to counteract that critique is with conservative "balance." I hate the notion that the only way to counteract critical reporting is to knowingly insert bias. This is not something a truth-seeking institution should do. Indeed, sometimes the truth isn't very flattering and perhaps with viewing the administration's claims with a more skeptical "prism" would benefit the Post and other mainstream media outlets. Posted by: DG at December 14, 2005 9:49 AM | Permalink Hi. Larious. This is Bizarro-world, where the Post is a tool of the Bush Administration. This does, however, explain where you guys think the center is. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 14, 2005 10:08 AM | Permalink
The quality and content of the responses to his "bullishit" rejoinder should give him pause. So should his resorting to vulgarity, which is a sure sign that POST nerves are still frayed The NY TIMES apologized for its flawed coverage. The POST, which ran the simple word "Irrefutable" after Powell's UN speech, has yet to retract that false judgment. Till we see that apology. Mr. Harris is wasting his and our time. Posted by: chefrad at December 14, 2005 11:01 AM | Permalink Christopher, I clicked through to your lame little wannabe David Horowitz blog. I want those five minutes of my life I wasted reading it back. Posted by: Hank Scorpio at December 14, 2005 11:24 AM | Permalink Thanks, Hank. Another poster said I might be capable of one-tenth of Dan Froomkin's insight, so that's my goal right now. Enjoy! Here are some of my quick thoughts about this issue. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 14, 2005 12:19 PM | Permalink So, is anyone going to ask how a 757 airliner fits into such a tiny hole in the Pentagon Good lord you're nuts. No wonder you think the press corps shills for Bush. Popular Mechanics did an article debunking all of the nutjob 911 conspiracies. Read it here. They have a hell of a lot more credibility than the Wapo fishwrap. Posted by: Jordan at December 14, 2005 12:32 PM | Permalink "Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal" - Deborah Howell, Washington Post Ombudsman, 12/11/05. So Jay, do you believe these comments by Howell, Harris and Brady make them dumber? The awful truth is, of course, that the ideological bias offered in Froomkin's briefings is all too similar in kind to that found in the Washington Post's (and in other dominant media outlets') hard-news coverage. It's just that bias in the news coverage is cleverly presented with more subtlety. One can imagine his White House news colleagues' distress: Here comes Froomkin onto the political playing field, tagging along with the news referees, but Froomkin's blue team jersey is sticking out beneath his black-and-white striped ref's shirt, making the players and spectators look more closely at the other referees' attire. Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 14, 2005 1:13 PM | Permalink "How much of this dust-up is really about professional resentment at Froomkin for showing up the Post "political staff" each day?" I'm quite sure some of it is the normal contempt the news side feels for those who make their living offering opinions on the news rather than gathering it. Editorial writers have been described variously as thumb-sucking wine-sippers and "the people who come down out of the hills after the battle is over and shoot the wounded." To the extent that a blogger is simply taking the hard work of others and offering personal opinions on it, that blogger is in the same class as an opinion writer. When the blogger is also offering opinions on the hard work done collecting information, without, perhaps, ever having done that kind of work, jeez, how hard to you need to look to see that some of the resentment is simply personal rather than philosophic or institutional? Posted by: Bill Watson at December 14, 2005 1:19 PM | Permalink "The awful truth is, of course, that the ideological bias offered in Froomkin's briefings is all too similar in kind to that found in the Washington Post's (and in other dominant media outlets') hard-news coverage. " The awful truth is, of course, that good journalism (Froomkin's unforgivable sin) is seen as "ideological bias," whereas repeating RNC talking points is regarded by the likes of you as being "fair and balanced." Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2005 3:14 PM | Permalink Harris is just complaining because of the sudden and well-deserved demise of all of the Posts Cheney-fellators. Froomkin is the only reason I even open up washpost.com's terribly-designed site. Posted by: Charles Few at December 14, 2005 3:19 PM | Permalink To show how bad it is for the Post, I didn't even know Froomkin EXISTED. And, the only time I read a Post story in when it is linked through another website, like antiwar.com, cursor.org or some other portal with themed content. In other words, I figured out that the Post was a joke a long time ago, and got my international news from a variety of sources contained within these portals, as well as visiting the sites of the Guardian and the Independent, papers with an aggressiveness, vibrance and exuberance sorely lacking in the gray, subdued stenographers for Bush over at the Post and the NYT. Discovering the people like Harris and Downie believe that the Post should be more attentive to the concerns of the White House and the Republican Party than it is to its readers is no great surprise to me, but, I must concede, I am amazed that they would openly display such arrogance to its readers and publicly admit it. For those with long memories, I recommend Carl Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article in which he described the CIA's role in shaping the message of the American mainstream media. Or, here's a similar summary, as provided by Alexander Cockburn last weekend: [Press manipulation was always a paramount concern of the CIA, as with the Pentagon. In his Secret History of the CIA, published in 2001, Joe Trento described how in 1948 CIA man Frank Wisner was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects, soon renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). This became the espionage and counter-intelligence branch of the Central Intelligence Agency, the very first in its list of designated functions was "propaganda". Later that year Wisner set an operation codenamed "Mockingbird", to influence the domestic American press. He recruited Philip Graham of the Washington Post to run the project within the industry. Trento writes that "One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers." Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA, included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times). By 1953 Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies, including the New York Times, Time, CBS, Time. Wisner's operations were funded by siphoning of funds intended for the Marshall Plan. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers." In his book Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA, Alex Constantine writes that in the 1950s, "some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts".] Harris and Downie are probably just descendents in a proud Post tradition of facilitating the propaganda of US intelligence. Except that they seem playing for the Pentagon and/or the Office of the Vice President. They certainly did a very good job of it, along with the NYT, by promoting the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Now, the goal seems to be undermining the Fitzgerald investigation, as Bob Woodward and other "journalists" like Miller and Novak are doing. Posted by: Richard Estes at December 14, 2005 3:56 PM | Permalink When the blogger is also offering opinions on the hard work done collecting information, without, perhaps, ever having done that kind of work, jeez, how hard to you need to look to see that some of the resentment is simply personal rather than philosophic or institutional? perhaps its unintentional, but this suggests that you believe that Froomkin doesn't understand what he's writing about from an "inside" perspective. As Froomkin himself noted above, he did spend 10 years as a daily newspaper reporting before getting involved with wpost.com in 1997. Of course, you could be referring to people like me... does a three month stint on my high school yearbook staff count toward "relevant experience"? :) If anyone's genuinely confused about Froomkin's column - is it or isn't it a WHPB?? - they can just scan for the presence of man-whores, yes? The answer should settle all doubts. Posted by: TonyRz at December 14, 2005 4:08 PM | Permalink Q: What else do you think it’s important for PressThink readers to understand about this episode? Jim Brady: What worries me is when I see headlines that suggest there’s a huge battle between the newspaper and the Web site. It’s just not the case. Even with the national political staff—despite the obvious tension surrounding Dan’s column—we’ve made huge progress in the past six months. We recently hired Chris Cillizza to write a political blog for us, and to make sure he was able to be as effective as possible, we put him in The Post newsroom to interact with the national political staff. And “The Fix” is a huge hit. We recently started a Post political live discussion that runs every weekday at 11am ET. Last week, we launched a congressional voting database going back to 1991, the first in a series of political databases we’re looking to create. So I do worry that one issue like this is being used to suggest there’s a war going on between the two newsrooms. There isn’t. Er...Mr. Brady, if you're concerned about the perception that there's an internal battle, you really should speak to your new ombudsman. It was Deborah Howell who first raised the issue. Publicly. And you expect your readers to just ignore it? Careful what you wish for. If/when the day comes when readers do ignore your ombudsman when she waves a red flag like this, the Post, and washingtonpost.com, might as well shut down. Posted by: Julie at December 14, 2005 4:30 PM | Permalink Long-form blogger, academic economist and pissed-off press critic Brad DeLong phoned John Harris today and interviewed him about one moment in my Q and A, where Harris mentioned Pat Ruffini, formerly of the committee to re-elect Bush, as support for the "Froomkin too liberal" charge... Read the results. Not pretty. DeLong thinks Harris fell for an RNC ploy. His post about it at TPM Cafe is actually clearer. Here's a lot more about Ruffini from Tapped. I'm not sure what Harris was thinking. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 14, 2005 6:34 PM | Permalink I think he was thinking they were revealing quotes. President Bush is barnstorming through five states to try to drum up support for remaking Social Security, but instead of fleshing things out and confronting his critics, he is surrounding himself with hand-picked flatterers and adoring crowds... That's Froomkin. It's an honest question: Are you under the impression this is how unbiased reporters write? I'm not sure what DeLong meant when he said he didn't know how Harris found Ruffini: I do wonder how Harris found Mr. Ruffini's website. It's not that easy to do. Ruffini is a well-known political blogger, especially in DC. It's child's play to find the site. Ruffini has also toggled back and forth from independent conservative blogging to working for the RNC. Maybe DeLong really doesn't know that--but that's his fault, Not Harris's. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 14, 2005 7:14 PM | Permalink [President Bush i |
Print