What is the aversion that editors and reporters at the Washington Post have to standing up to the White House and their allies?
If you missed it, Dan Froomkin has been under fire at the washingtonpost.com recently for his White House Briefing column (if you don't read that daily, I highly recommend it). The cover argument pushed by the paper's Ombudsman and Political Editor was that the column's name leads people to think that Froomkin is an actual White House Reporter rather than a columnist.
Fair point.
Except we are now at the point where the real agenda is coming out. Suprise!! There are clear signs that someone (can you say - the White House and its allies?) are working the refs. Yup. And Booby's friends and defenders are at it again - carrying their water and covering up for it.
[MORE]
Let's look at the tape, shall we?
It starts this weekend when ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that, "Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal." But no supporting evidence for her "opinionated and liberal" comment. Makes you wonder - just who is saying that?
After a Froomkin response, Political Editor Harris felt like he needed to respond. Did he respond by addressing facts and laying out specific items. Don't be silly. He works at the Washington Post!
Here's what he had to say,
"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. Dan, as I understand his position, says that his commentary is not ideologically based, but he acknowledges it is written with a certain irreverence and adversarial purpose. Dan does not address the main question in his comments. He should. If he were a White House reporter for a major news organization, would it be okay for him to write in the fashion he does? If the answer is yes, we have a legitimate disagreement.
The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work."
An obstacle? A liberal prism? He's the Post's Political Editor. Surely he gives some examples, right? No.
OK - now we get to today. This is where it gets good.
Today on a live chat with reporter Peter Baker, there was this exchange:
Austin, Tex.: I might as well ask (I'm sure you're getting a lot of this) - but what is your take on Froomkin and his column?
Do you get a lot of flak about it from peers and sources at the White House? Do White House staffers ever comment on his column to you?
Peter Baker: Can't say any White House staffer has ever mentioned Dan's column to me, at least not that I recall. They're pretty sophisticated over at the White House and understand he's not a reporter. I think the concern on the part of our ombudswoman and political editor is about readers more generally, including some in the political class who may not be as closely attuned to how this works as the White House. John Harris has told us that even some of his normally savvy contacts have been confused over this.
Hmmmm.... Not a single White House staffer - that he can recall. Jeez, is he channeling Judy Miller or Viveca Novak? What is it with these guys?
Now - let's get down to the end of this. Or at least to the beginning so we can so who is behind the curtain.
Here's an exchange with John Harris today in an interview with Jay Rosen:
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.
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.
Did you get that? He doesn't give any examples. The one he does give is from "someone who runs campaigns." Want to guess which party that person belongs to? Harris can't point to any columns, can't give any specific examples, can't do a single damn thing except point to a post authored by the guy formerly in charge of THE BUSH/CHENEY CAMPAIGN BLOG.
And, finally the kicker from Harris:
"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."
Ladies and gentlemen, I suspect what we're seeing here is a bit of a campaign by the Republicans. They see the popularity of Froomkin and they figure they can muddy the waters a bit by marginalizing him by labelling him a liberal and "balancing" out his voice with a conservative one.
Harris and Howell are going along with it. I can figure out why Harris is pissed - Froomkin tweaks him and his folks the wrong way and this is payback. Howell is a little harder to figure.
I was wandering by the Post the other day, and I wished I had looked around for fucking Nero. Because with all the shit they've had going on there recently - from Booby Woodward to the unflinching embrace of Bush's War, to burying the weapons of mass destruction stories, to swallowing White House propaganda on Katrina, to the fucking inexplicable embrace of the Pentagon's march on the Mall, the Post is being burned down from the inside. You'd think the last thing those fools would want is another controversy that makes it look like the Administration is manipulating them once again.
You'd be wrong.
Fuck the Post. Because they sure don't care about fucking us over for their friends.