Silenced? Washington Post to terminate Dan Froomkin

What is too liberal for the liberal media? Apparently, Dan Froomkin.

After five and a half years as a regular feature on the Web site, Dan Froomkin's White House Watch column is being axed.

Froomkin was quietly passing the word today that he was told by The Post that his contract will be terminated in early July.

Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti confirmed it with this response to a query:

"Editors and our research teams are constantly reviewing our online content to ensure we bring readers the most value when they are on our Web site while balancing the need to make the most of our resources. Regrettably, this means that sometimes features must be eliminated, and this time it was the blog that Dan Froomkin freelanced" to The Post's Web site.

"I'm terribly disappointed. I was told that it had been determined that my White House Watch blog wasn't 'working' anymore. But from what I could tell, it was still working very well," Froomkin said. "I also thought White House Watch was a great fit with The Washington Post brand, and what its readers reasonably expect from the Post online."

(Alexander)​

Fred Hiatt, the Post's editorial page editor said that "political orientation was not a factor in our decision", but few believe it. Deborah Howell, the former ombudsman for the Washington Post wrote in 2005 that, "Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's 'White House Briefing,' which is highly opinionated and liberal." And current ombudsman Andrew Alexander claims that Froomkin's readership slipped with the advent of the Obama administration:

He does not operate as a White House reporter. Rather, he compiles material about the White House and offers his own commentary, often with a liberal bent.

That slant seemed to attract a large and loyal audience during the Bush administration, but it may have suffered when Barack Obama became president.​

Steve Benen, of The Washington Monthly, sees the political issue somewhat differently:

The Politico says the move is "sure to ignite the left-wing blogosphere," but Froomkin's departure, if true, should disappoint anyone concerned with insightful political analysis. Indeed, far-right complaints notwithstanding, Froomkin has spent months scrutinizing the Obama White House, cutting the Democratic president no slack at all. Just over the past couple of days, Froomkin offered critical takes on the president's proposed regulations of the financial industry, follow-through on gay rights, and foot-dragging on Bush-era torture revelations.

Froomkin was one of the media's most important critics of the Bush White House, and conservative bashing notwithstanding, was poised to be just as valuable holding the Obama White House accountable for its decisions.​

And Glenn Greenwald, incensed at Froomkin's firing, wrote of Benen's point—

To how many people in the establishment media can that last sentence be applied? Very, very few -- and, as of yesterday, one fewer.

This is how warped and broken our establishment media is, and it is a big part of why it is dying. Froomkin was one of the very few journalists in the establishment media who practiced real journalism rather than banal stenographic servitude to the political establishment, and for that reason was disliked by Post functionaries like John Harris; considered a leftist, biased ideologue; and deemed someone who undermined their imaginary "credibility." How many other columnists does the Post have whose firing would spark the level of anger or even interest that Froomkin's has? And how can The Post justify firing one of its most popular and unique commentators when it continues to serve as a factory of trite, extremist neoconservative propaganda?​

One of Greenwald's readers makes the point that the Post Ombudsman's blog had received nearly 400 reader comments about Froomkin's termination, and the vast majority negative.

[Alexander's] previous post, on Howard Kurtz, has 9. The post before that has 25. The one before that 0, as in none [and the 3 posts prior to that have 3 each, and the one prior also has zero]. Genius of the WaPo to get rid of the writer who readers are most passionate about.

(qtd. in Greenwald)​

"Number of comments," notes Greenwald, "isn't a perfect barometer of interest, but when the disparities are that large, it is certainly probative."

There is no word at this early stage on Froomkin's future, but it may well include White House Watch through another outlet. We can only hope it comes about.

What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit.

Calling bullshit, of course, used to be central to journalism as well as to comedy. And we happen to be in a period in our history in which the substance in question is running particularly deep. The relentless spinning is enough to make anyone dizzy, and some of our most important political battles are about competing views of reality more than they are about policy choices. Calling bullshit has never been more vital to our democracy ....

.... I'm not sure why calling bullshit has gone out of vogue in so many newsrooms — why, in fact, it's so often consciously avoided. There are lots of possible reasons. There's the increased corporate stultification of our industry, to the point where rocking the boat is seen as threatening rather than invigorating. There's the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There's the fear of being labeled partisan if one's bullshit-calling isn't meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.

(Froomkin)​

____________________

Notes:

Alexander, Andrew. "Post Axes Froomkin's 'White House Watch'". Omblog. June 18, 2009. WashingtonPost.com. Accessed June 20, 2009. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2009/06/post_axes_froomkins_white_hous.html

Howell, Deborah. "The Two Washington Posts". Washington Post. December 11, 2005; page B06. WashingtonPost.com. Accessed June 20, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121000938.html

Benen, Steve. "Froomkin Out?" Political Animal. June 18, 2009. WashingtonMonthly.com. Accessed June 20, 2009. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018675.php

Greenwald, Glenn. "The Washington Post, Dan Froomkin and the establishment media". Unclaimed Territory. June 19, 2009. Salon.com. Accessed June 20, 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/19/washpost/index.html

Froomkin, Dan. "On Calling Bullshit". Watchdog Blog. November 30, 2006. NiemanWatchdog.org. Accessed June 20, 2009. http://blog.niemanwatchdog.org/?p=53

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hurrah for the establishment!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Me-ow! Froomkin to Huffington Post

First, the strange.

Andrew Alexander, the Ombudsman for The Washington Post, followed up on the termination of popular and widely respected columnist Dan Froomkin, with a strange blog post a week after the word got out that the White House Watcher's contract would not be renewed:

His release sparked an outcry from a loyal audience built after five and a half years. My June 18 Omblog item reporting that he had been axed brought more than 870 comments -- nearly all of them expressing outrage. Other bloggers weighed in, questioning The Post's decision. And I received several hundred e-mails, all of them from readers upset by the decision. Many said Froomkin's dismissal is part of an effort to purge The Post's opinion section of left-oriented voices. Typical was this e-mail I received Thursday from Bill Ziebell of Eugene, Ore.:

"I have lost my respect for the Post. It's obvious that at the very time the country is turning to the left, the Neo-Con movement has taken over the editorial control of the Post. I have been reading the Post for years, but I will now go elsewhere. If I want to hear/see what the Loonies on the right are up to I can take a look at Fox. I don't want, nor need more neo-con nonsense spewing forth from the editorial pages of what used to be a great paper...you've managed to become just another package of right-wing fishwrap."

Institutionally, The Post is now responding by circling the wagons -- ironic for a news organization that insists on transparency from those it covers. Its initial statement on June 18 from spokeswoman Kris Coratti lacked substance ("Editors and our research teams are constantly reviewing our online content to ensure we bring readers the most value...while balancing the need to make the most of our resources").

I was off much of this week with a minor medical problem. But when I was able to start querying editors yesterday, a wall of silence was erected. Raju Narisetti, the managing editor who oversees the Web site, declined to go beyond last week's PR statement. Online Opinions Editor Marisa Katz, after talking Thursday with the Washington CityPaper, said she had been instructed not to respond to additional queries. And Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, who had previously responded to questions from me and other journalists (including the CityPaper on Thursday), today said he was unable to comment.

(Alexander)​

Or, as Glenn Greenwald put it, "Under still-unclear circumstances, which executives refuse to discuss even with their own Ombudsman, Froomkin was fired by The Washington Post a little more than two weeks ago ...."

But there is good news to be found here. Again, from Greenwald, last Tuesday:

In yet another sign of how online media outlets are strengthening as their older establishment predecessors are struggling to survive, The Huffington Post has hired Dan Froomkin to be its Washington Bureau Chief and regular columnist/blogger. Froomkin will oversee a staff of four five reporters and an Assistant Editor, guide The Huffington Post's Washington reporting, and write at least two posts per week to be featured on its main page and Politics page. I learned last night of the hiring and spoke to both Arianna Huffington and Froomkin this morning.​

A cat always lands on its feet. It doesn't appear that the White House Watch, in and of itself, will be revived at this time, but it's good to see that quality still counts for something.

I'll raise a congratulatory glass to both Froomkin and The Huffington Post, and mention at least that I now have a reason to visit the site regularly.
_____________________

Notes:

Alexander, Andrew. "Froomkin Departs, Leaving Angry Loyalists And Questions". Omblog. June 26, 2009. WashingtonPost.com. July 10, 2009. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2009/06/froomkin_departs_leaving_angry.html

Greenwald, Glenn. "Dan Froomkin hired by The Huffington Post". Unclaimed Territory. July 7, 2009. Salon.com. July 10, 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/07/froomkin/index.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.