Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
The irony is that by choosing to tow the white house line so openly (see white house's ABC health care infomercial) they are inadvertently helping sell anything an Obama critic might have to offer. Not to mention Fox soaring ratings.This is a great time for any former WH official to write a book.I predict Cheney's book is going to sell big time ;)
I guess the White House can be trusted to operate without watchdogs now that the evil ol' Bushitler is gone. So must run the Post's rationale.
In other news, displaced Washington Post's best columnist to take job as world's tallest midget.
I wonder if there's more to the story, other than cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Drudge is going to be in seventh traffic heaven.Same goes for bloggers like Althouse as well I predict.
Has Froomkin been sharply critical of O?WH pressure?
I bet somebody starts a White House Watch just like it.
Spake the Young King: "Will no one rid me of this troublesome blogger?"
Is "Yay!" an inappropriate response?
The first people leftists shoot are the ones on their side not viewed as pure enough. No criticism of The Obama will be tolerated.
Is it just me, or has anybody else heard of this guy? Maybe it's just my reaction to Glenn Greenwald saying it, but if he was "the Washington Post's best columnist" we'd have heard more about him. I wonder, at least a little bit, if this has more to do with budget tightening than ideological purity.
Froomkin got the broomkin.
Klein probably costs less than Froomkin.
You folks on the center and center-left expected what else?
'Froomkin'?Sounds like a minor character in a Tolkien fantasy rip-off, or an adversary of the Care Bears.It's a down-economy, so best to reduce, re-use and recycle those WaPo columns. Get some free intern to do the few fact-checks you need, feed it into the laptop Random Lefty Column Generator, and away you go!I mean, really, conservatives have long made use of a reusable template, so get wid' it, liberals!A portion of the template:Final Paragraph = [(0.5 WFBuckley + 0.1 George Will - 0.75 David Broder)* Charles Krauthammer] ÷ Robert Kagan
I agree with salamandyr. The local paper carries op eds from a variety of sources. They have never run a Froomkin column. Moreover, Froomkin is a blogger, not a columnist. A blogger can set up his tent anywhere; if he's good he doesn't need the aegis of the Guapo. Further, if he was so dang good, did they run him in the print edition?
Just love the Andrew Sullivan take... Froomkin was doing too much on torture and this pissed of the neo-con right editorial board of the WaPo. Uh huh. The WaPo is neo-con. And Andrew Sullivan is the only true conservative left in Andrew Sullivan's world.
I will take heart when MoDo and Frank Rich get fired by the NYT.
WaPo angling to become the Right's version of the NYT?
'Froomkin'?Sounds like a minor character in a Tolkien fantasy rip-off, or an adversary of the Care Bears."Frum" is Yiddish for "pious", akin to the German Fromm. Froom would be a phonetic spelling.Frume would be the female version; Frumke the diminutive of Frume. The -in ending makes it a surname. So Froomkin means something like "child of the little pious woman."
"So Froomkin means something like "child of the little pious woman."Wow, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's love child??
I never heard of Froomkin. He must be a flower born to blush unseen.
Given the panoply of right and far right columnists on WaPo's masthead, how could one perceive the paper as anything but neo-con, or neo-con friendly?To answer someone's question, yes, Froomkin had been sharply critical of Obama, as well he should have been. I suspect the impetus for Froomkin's firing was his recent column taking thuggish shrink (and WaPo columnist) Charles Krauthammer to task for asserting in a recent column of his own that torture was "impermissable" and then following up that assertion with reasons why and when the impermissable could be permitted. Froomkin's criticism of Krauthammer was sharp and well-taken, and it may have prompted the well-favored but presumably thin-skinned Krauthammer to pressure WaPo management to punish Froomkin through termination.
Well, it is hardly a "White House Watch" when the blogger is knob-gobbling the President.
Someone in the White House saw that Froomkin's column was titled, "White House Watch," and mistakenly assumed that he was some sort of inspector general. So of course Froomkin had to go.
Dirty Neocons to Blame.
sg wins the thread.
Well, Robert Cook, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, however ill-informed it may be. That doesn't make it true, however.
What took so long? Hardly WP's best writer, not by a long shot, saying so is like saying the muculent Greenwald is Slate's best writer.
"thuggish shrink" LOL
Froomkin dutifully spooned out the doctrinaire liberal talking points. Since he had nothing unique to say, he paid the price for the shrinking market for dinosaur media news pablum.This too will happen to the Katie Courics and Brian Williams of the world. Why should NBC, CBC etc pay top dollar for what any old college kid could read aloud on the nightly news?The best part is that these idiots continue to be surprised when they hit the street without a job!
The best part is that these idiots continue to be surprised when they hit the street without a job!The Brian Williams and Katie Courics of this world won't have to hit the street job-hunting. Their substantial assets will see them through many lifetimes.
No, Robert Cook is correct - after all, he voted for Nader, so he is obviously smarter than everyone else!
It's about ideology, not popularity stupid. Criticize a powerful Marxist and look where you end up. Well, now you are no longer part of the stimulus.
For the first time, I can pinpoint what Obama does REALLY WELL. He gets his critcs fire left and right. I can almost guarantee you that the Washington Post got pressure from the White House for this.
Hardly WP's best writer, not by a long shot, saying so is like saying the muculent Greenwald is Slate's best writer.it's not just greenwald. wilson & rick ellers think he's the best too.
Never heard of him.Rich and Dowd won't get fired. they are fab.
'Muculent", eh? Good one. I'm totally ripping that off.
Robert Cook: Given the panoply of right and far right columnists on WaPo's masthead, how could one perceive the paper as anything but neo-con, or neo-con friendly?Maybe I'm missing something - I just pulled the list of WaPo columnists and I count the following conservatives: Will, Kristol, Krauthammer and Kagan. You might be able to count Kathleen Parker but she voted for Obama so explain that to me. So that's 4 (or 5) out of 30. That's between 13 and 16%. Explain to me how that's a "panoply". I'll wait.
Never heard of the guy.Getting fired is his 15 minutes.
Randy:I agree with you. The highest paid of them are likely set for life. For instance, at $15 Million per year, Couric should have a gigantic nest egg.
Jeez, let's start nominating these gone but not forgotten liberal media to a Hall of SAME. Requirements are that they must have lost a job and it must be unlikely they will re-surface in a prominent new job. Here is my list:Dan Rather, Aaron Brown, Paula Zahn, Dan Froomkin, Ted Rall, Howell Raines, Chris Satullo (Philly Inquirer).
I've never heard of the guy, but is it all possible that his firing had to do with some personal matter that the Washington Post is prohibited by law from discussing? What if the guy had a penchant for urinating on people's desks? Or simply pissed his boss off once to often over something completely non-political? Or, daresay, someone pulled out a calculator and figured out the guy was costing the Post more money than he brought in?
Hardly WP's best writer, not by a long shot, saying so is like saying the muculent Greenwald is Slate's best writer.He's at Salon, not Slate - just in case anyone goes looking for him.
David said..."Never heard of the guy. Getting fired is his 15 minutes."Well, if YOU haven't heard of the guy...Read much?
presumably thin-skinned Krauthammer Why would you presume that?
Freeman Hunt said..."Why would you presume that?"Maybe because that's what is being reported by some, and it's no secret they were at odds?
Yeah, Freeman, "some have reported."Duh!
Yeah. Slate is wapo isn't it? I haven't read Salon for ages since they have really annoying ads.
rocketeer67 said..."Yeah, Freeman, "some have reported." Duh!This isn't new news, diptstick.There have been numerous articles written about the fact that they had problems.Maybe if you were to actually read something before posting inane comments?
The imitation of real life liberal mantras are just boring. Think of John Edwards mantra trying to get elected so he could give away warm coats in the winter to the freezing masses. After the shock value from someone pretending everyone else, but the liberal hero, is guilty for ignoring a faux evil has worn off, then the mantra maker is only yesterday's trash.Truth is interesting. For example, Jeremy's way of equating evil thoughts and actions with traditional good thoughts and actions wears off fast. Moral equivalence mantras of good and evil are not a sign of an open mind, rather they are a sign of a decieved mind. Free speech will do its job once we see thru initial confusion and avoid the close mindedness that comes from a constant attribution of bad motives to others.
traditionalguy - What the fuck are you trying to say?"The imitation of real life liberal mantras are just boring."What "imitation of real life liberal matras" are you talking about??And somehow you rope me into this mishmash of garbled insanity?"For example, Jeremy's way of equating evil thoughts and actions with traditional good thoughts and actions wears off fast."When was I "equating evil thoughts and actions with tradional good thoughts"???WHAT??And what the hell does this mean?"Moral equivalence mantras of good and evil are not a sign of an open mind, rather they are a sign of a decieved mind."What "moral equivalence mantras of good and evil" are you referring to??And this...??"Free speech will do its job once we see thru initial confusion and avoid the close mindedness that comes from a constant attribution of bad motives to others."What the hell are you drinking or smoking, Dude?Do you read this crazy shit before posting it?
"Santa Monica College. Budding mental case & psychology teacher Gene Olson." Whenever I type that, Jeremy goes away for a few hours and hides under his bed.
Yiiiippppeeee kayaaaaaa all you Mofo's.It's Friday and time to paarrrrtttttttayyyy! Have a good weekend all!
Jeremy...Thanks for repeating my good points for everyone to read again. To answer your question,I am still drinking from Old Ronald Reagan single truth whiskey, aged 30 years, served on the Rock of Natan Sharansky who was freed by the Gippur's traditional good sense that could spot evil. Reagan was the only politician in my lifetime to actually reduced taxes on the middle class. By the way, when do Pres. Obama and Speaker Pelossi start hearings on the central promise mantra which Obama bought his Presidency with: a middle class tax cut? I will wait for it, but I just wondered if it is under wraps so as not to anger the Iranians out of their final assembly of their Jew Exterminator Special. There must be a good reason.
My best watchdog, still on the job, senses cat in the back woods yesterday evening.She's mapping out the air scent.Important to know where the cat has been.She needs a column.
Washington Post editor Fred Hiatt's email to Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic may clear up the issue for some:I had forgotten until today that Dan (Froomkin) had gone after Charles (Krauthammer), which Sullivan says 'almost certainly' would have 'enraged' me. If Andrew wants to know whether it enraged me, why does he not call and ask? That's called reporting, and I would be happy to tell him. In fact nothing pleases me more than when our columnists engage with each other, in print or on Post Partisan, as any of them could tell you. It's good for traffic, and it makes for lively debate.The disappointingly dull truth is that the decision not to renew Dan's contract--which was not made by me, but which I supported--was based on viewership data, budget constraints and judgments about how well the column was or was not adapting to a new era."
There is an article: The Firing Of A White House Watchdog that suggests that part of the problem is that he was a self-styled watchdog who quit watching his target, the White House, when its occupants changed, and has not even mentioned Gerald Walpin and his firing by name. What good is watchdog when he is in bed with his master?
In fact nothing pleases me more than when our columnists engage with each other, in print or on Post Partisan, as any of them could tell you.That's what I was thinking. Editors love it when columnists attach each other. It gets peoples' blood boiling and brings attention to the newspaper.The idea that Froomkin was canned because he and Krauthammer were at loggerheads is at odds with how newspapers really work.
Sorry to burst your ballons, Froomkin wasn't fired!http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/dan+froomkin/
Post a Comment