Got lots to do, and anyway I don’t want to say anything more about Dan’s current 15 minutes, lest someone think (wrongly, I assure you) that I’m acting as his mouthpiece. But I’m reading it all with great interest and not a little glee.
So here’s some of the more recent choice commentary elsewhere on the ‘new Post’ / ‘old Post’ kerfuffle.
Don’t miss: Jeff Jarvis, Splitting newsrooms and hairs and the twofer (content & linkfest) in Jay Rosen, Press Think John Harris and Jim Brady Get Into It About “White House Briefing.” Dan Froomkin Replies. Almost all the links are really good.
Bonus tracks: Brad DeLong, The Future of the Washington Post and Marty Kaplan, Journalism’s Slo-Mo Suicide.
And, despite the great attraction of the readers’ suggestion that Dan’s column be re-named “Dan Froomkin’s ‘Cooking with Walnuts’,” it seems that White House Briefing is here to stay.
What kills me about this whole thing is that Harris, Howell, and Downie are concerned that Dan is “liberal” because he is critical of the White House. Maybe this triumervate of cluelessness should check out the polls — well over half of Americans disapprove of Bush — and (according to Rasmussen, whose sample is generally more “Bush positive” than most polls) 41% “strongly disapprove.”
If Dan is critical of Bush, he’s only reflecting mainstream America. (and lets not even talk about how the residents of the city that the Post publishes in feel about Bush. Dan probably comes off as a raging wingnut when compared to that demographic — so why do Harris, Howell, and Downie have such a tough time with Froomkin reflecting what the Post’s local audience feel?)
“>another blog entry about your brother…
I first stumbled on this story through a Memeorandum link a couple of nights ago – and I spent more than 3 hrs reading responses to Froomkin’s reply to ombudsman and Harris’ reply to Froomkin. It was clear from the getgo that that this was a huge story, what with the massive and eloquent rage almost unanimously in support of what Froomkin does. But the framing so far seems to be an old media/new media kerfluffle. I’d like to see someone comb through all that reader response and come up with a definition of journalism and its issues as those readers see it, and perhaps to compare it with how journalism is being represented by Harris, et. al. There’s a huge disconnect there, and the Harris types seem to be totally blind to it. I’d try this myself, but it’s end-of-term and I’m already too far behind on final grading…
A Talking Points Memo reader analyzes the tea leaves and concludes: “The Post to some degree had access reduced or cut off, and the reason given was Froomkin. Harriss defense that the guy didnt work for him or the Post didnt suffice to restore access.”
The Chicago City News Bureau had, as its unofficial motto, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” It appears that the Post’s editors want to adopt a new motto: “If your father says your mother hates you, be careful to report that story in a way that doesn’t let anyone think you’re biased against him.”
Pingback: Brad DeLong's Website