Anyone interested in the astonishing dismissal of Dan Froomkin from the Washington Post needs to read these two pieces by Paul Krugman and Glenn Greenwald.
This is perplexing on many levels.
Froomkin is a model journalist: somebody who seeks the truth, holds those in power to account, and never lets partisanship get in the way. His critiques of both Bush and Obama reflect his loyalty to principles and to morality -- not to people. And, especially not to some fictitious center-point between two opposing factions. This type of journalist is very rare -- and even more valuable.
And, as sad as I am to see Froomkin's voice no longer represented on the Washington Post (I'm certain he'll find another platform), I'm more troubled by what is says about the journalism industry. Indeed, eliminating a voice that is not only exceptional in its appraisal of serious issues, but popular among viewers, simply makes no sense.
All signs point to the fact that Froomkin was let go because of his progressive views.
And we can't have a progressive voice, especially now that the country is more supportive of liberal policies than in decades. Or that the modern conservative movement, whose voices are increasingly available on the WashPost opinions section, is operated almost exclusively by fringe radicals who represent no more than a small fraction of the public's views.
Yes, the Post is offering tons of print and online space to neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, John Bolton and so on -- a group whose ideas and viewpoints have been so thoroughly discredited by reality. Here's a major national newspaper taking their math problems to a group of folks who adamantly believe two plus two equals five.
Is it really that surprising that traditional journalism is racing down the toilet? Newspapers who behave this way deserve to fail, period.