This past Sunday, the Washington Post’s freshly-minted ombudswoman Deborah Howell wrote an article in which she meditated on the differences between the Washington Post and Washingtonpost.com, which, she explained, is run as a separate company known as the Washington Post-Newsweek Interactive (WPNI). Along the way, Howell noted some cultural differences between the two entities.
“Political reporters at the Post don’t like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin’s ‘White House Briefing,’ which is highly opinionated and liberal,” wrote Howell by way of example. “They’re afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.”
Howell then quoted John Harris, national political editor at the newspaper, who said: “The title invites confusion. It dilutes our only asset — our credibility … I wish it could be done with a different title and display.”
Howell’s column immediately touched off a frenzy at the paper, with a passel of Posties, including Froomkin and Harris, adding their own two cents to the controversy.
In the meantime, the brouhaha has some liberal bloggers revving their engines (froom, froom, frooooom …) and chasing down what they imagine to be yet another right-wing conspiracy.
“A lot of people have noticed the recent ‘controversy’ (incredibly silly whining seems a better description to me) that basically involves complaints by Republicans that Dan Froomkin occasionally says negative things about the White House on his Washington Post weblog,” wrote Bloodless Coup. “These complainers say the blog should be renamed so that people don’t think Froomkin’s an actual White House reporter. You know, because people reading the blog are apparently too stupid to figure this out.”
“This flap is brought to you courtesy of the Republican party, who will not stand to see itself criticized by...
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.
Mr. Harris has come out looking like a chump. More than a thousand email responses were generated over this issue over a period of more than 48 hours. Some were tasteless and crude but most were trenchant or thoughtful. His response to all of this is, to be polite, hapless.Maybe you haven't noticed but there is a real crisis going on in journalism in the US. This crisis has played a big part in the political mess in which the country finds itself. One would think that an august organization such as yours would be more alert to this matter. There is indeed humor to be found in the situation but, more importantly, there is a need for careful reflection and consideration of a fundamental change in the way business is done in the public sphere. Any chance of that happening?
Posted by fahrender on Sat 17 Dec 2005 at 01:44 AM
I am quite disappointed to see the CJR taking the position that the criticism of Harris and Howell is a "liberal" attack. In published interviews, Harris explicitly linked his concern to critiques of Froomking from Ruffino while ... oops .... forgetting to mention that Ruffino was a professional republican campaign operative. At the same time Downie stated that the issue was raised out of concern for the White House reaction to Froomkin's columns.
I may be getting along in years, but even I can see the "Opinion" labelling on Froomkin's column - it is quite clearly *not* a News product.
And we now have the esteemed CJR belittling readers who complain when the paper's management of the Post not only bows to political pressure but also freely admits it as if keeping the White House happy were the central tenet of good journalism. Perhaps this explains the state of american media today. I seem to recall a press that fought hard to maintain its standing a "Free Press."
Posted by Siun on Sat 17 Dec 2005 at 01:53 AM
Gillette should be complimented for making a Brad DeLong, a Stanford University Economics Professor, look like just "some liberal blogger"
It was brilliant of Gillette to not cite DeLong's detailed explanation of who Patrick Ruffini is, to wit:
Harris calls him a "conservative weblogger." He doesn't call him "the former head webmaster for Bush-Cheney 2004" or "the current eCampaign Director for the Republican National Committee."
Is Gillette really this clueless, or just sucking up to Harris and Downie in the hope of getting a job when his CJR gig ends?
Posted by p.lukasiak on Sat 17 Dec 2005 at 11:01 AM
The barrage of emails from Dan Froomkin fans came primarily from the left, which like much in this episode didn't do much to undermine Howell's unremarkable observation that Froomkin is liberal and opinionated. Neither is a crime, both are plain as rain and suitable for a columnist. Harris's main point also should be unremarkable: Let's make sure it's clear that the Post doesn't represent his work as straight reporting.
Meanwhile the rage generated by Harris's consideration of complaints by a conservative like Ruffini is very instructive, but then we're talking about a cohort that, as far as scientists can determine, really does believe the Post has become the White House Court Stenographer. So much for the reality-based community.
Posted by Chris Fotos on Sat 17 Dec 2005 at 12:27 PM
So when did "the sun rises in the east" and "unwarranted domestic wiretapping is illegal" become "liberal?"
Truth is truth and wrong is wrong, and when you fail to include Jeffrey Dahmer's recipes for chili, it does not make your article on cannibalism "unbalanced."
The right needs to suck it up: the Bush administration has been a failure in ideology, vision, and competency. What's the witticism - even in Mussolini's Italy, the trains ran on time. Bush apologists can't even claim that.
The slow train wreck that is the Bush administration has led many journalists to question whether reporting that fact is evidence of "liberal bias," but a train wreck is a train wreck.
Bias for truth.
Posted by masonmcd on Sat 17 Dec 2005 at 02:21 PM
Thanks to Paul Lukasiak for defending my reputation. But I kind of think there is more honor now in having John Harris call me a pajama-clad blogger from the crankosphere than in my more traditional descriptions:
Professor of Economics at U.C. Berkeley
Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research
Formerly Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
And now, if you will excuse me, I have to go put on my bathrobe...
Posted by Brad DeLong on Mon 19 Dec 2005 at 09:21 PM
Yes, Republicans are worried that someone might believe Froomkin is a real White House Press reporter. You know, wouldn't want him to be a fake like Jeff Gannon right?
Oh wait! Gannon was perfectly fine and credible. Since Republican moral values dictate that it doesn't matter what kind of slime you are in real life as long as you willingly tow the party line.
So just to recap:
Froomkin - NOT A REAL WHITE HOUSE REPORTER!
Gannon, gay prostitute - REAL WHITE HOUSE REPORTER.
Gotcha.
Rp
Posted by Robert Poole Jr on Wed 22 Mar 2006 at 10:06 AM