|
|
December 13, 2005
John Harris and Jim Brady Get Into It About "White House Briefing." Dan Froomkin Replies.PressThink interviews two key players in a dispute at the Washington Post over Dan Froomkin's Web column, White House Briefing. National politics editor John Harris, and washingtonpost.com's executive editor Jim Brady explain what's going on. Then Froomkin talks back.(New Froomkin Fallout post, Dec. 17: Two Washington Posts May Be Better Than One.) Background is here and here and here. Deborah Howell’s ombudsman column started it. Then Froomkin replied, and readers responded (673 comments as of post time). Harris replied to Froomkin’s readers and got hundreds more comments. Now (updating to Dec. 14) the Post’s Joel Achenbach, with a devoted read/write following, weighs in via his Achenblog. Achenbach describes some of what lies behind the seemingly “small” events in The Froomkin Foofaraw (his term.) I promised one of the participants that I would start with some words of caution. All were aware that there’s high interest in the story among online readers and writers. They said there may be a dispute, but there isn’t any crisis over Froomkin’s White House Briefing. His column is popular; it isn’t going away. (Users do have some power in the equation.) John Harris knows that. He told me he is not on any campaign to sink the column. He’s concerned about truth-in-labeling, but not in a state of alarm about it. “On the list of things I worry about in my job as political editor at the Post, Froomkin is not at the top.” I asked Harris and Brady similar questions, then gave Froomkin a chance to reply. I confirmed with Brady that Froomkin’s column is typically among the top ten content pages at washingtonpost.com. I tried to get better numbers, but they’re trade secrets.
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. That tells me there is a large chunk of readers—I’m not saying most but a lot—who are not clear who he is and that he is writing as a commentator and not a White House reporter. The ombudsman says she regularly gets comments on the theme of how can you pretend to objectivity when your White House reporter writes “insert Froomkin quote here.” The question is has the website done enough to address such confusion? They are doing better. Most of the time (but with some slips) he is presented as an “opinion columnist.” But I think the title “White House Briefing” (which, as Dan acknowledges, is really a pretty minor issue) invites confusion. Q: Have officials from the White House complained to you or to Post political reporters about Froomkin’s column? John Harris: They have never complained in a formal way to me, but I have heard from Republicans in informal ways making clear they think his work is tendentious and unfair. I do not have to agree with them in every instance that it is tendentious and unfair for me to be concerned about making clear who Dan is and who he is not regarding his relationship with the newsroom. Q: You say, “The confusion about Dan’s column unintentionally creates about the reporter’s role has itself become an obstacle to our work.” What kind of obstacle do you mean? John Harris: As you surely can appreciate in your position, there are many people—especially conservatives but increasingly many liberals as well—who have no regard for the tradition of objective journalism and view much of our work as an ideological weapon in the guise of neutral reporting. I profoundly disagree with this view, but this view is a reality and I believe we have to push back against it and do our work as best we can. To the extent that some people believe Dan represents the voice and values of the Washington Post newsroom, that seems to me to be leading with our chin. Again, since many people seem to lose this point: I’m not trying to shut Dan down, just make sure we are presenting his work in a way that does not invite confusion. To the extent he presents a distinct ideological orientation in his column, we should make sure we offer other voices. This issue is really the heart of it. I would agree with Dan that his words in response to the ombudsman—about demanding answers, crying foul on “disingenous talking points,” and so on—do not represent ideological values. They would seem to me to represent basic journalistic values, and democratic values. This is probably why my comments caused such a stir: People bridled at what they interpreted as my view that challenging the White House on evasions, misstatements, or contradictions is evidence of “liberalism.” By no means is that my view. So my reservations about “White House Briefing” are not in theory but in practice. It seems to me that if you read his column over time he is presenting a pretty standard liberal critique of Bush. That is fine for a columnist or blogger but in my view would not be appropriate at all for a news reporter. Dan has not yet responded to my question of whether it would be okay with him if his column appeared exactly as he writes it under the byline of Jim VandeHei, Peter Baker, or Mike Fletcher, our three White House reporters. You are a press critic: Would you be comfortable with that? Again, I know most readers are not idiots and get the idea that we are sponsoring a blogger. But we know there is confusion on the point. And even a lot of conservatives who get the idea of what Dan is would say, “Yes, of course it figures that the Washington Post would sponsor a liberal blogger.” 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. Q: What else do you think it’s important for me and PressThink readers to understand about this episode? John Harris: What irked me about Froomkin’s reply to the ombudsman was his pompous suggestion that he is a lonely truth-teller at the Washington Post and the way he held himself up as a high priest and arbiter of good journalism: “The journalists who cover Washington and the White House should be holding the president accountable. When they do, I bear witness to their work. And the answer is for more of them to do so — not for me to be dismissed as highly opinionated and liberal because I do.” Many readers responding to his blog—the ones that prompted my response—hailed what Dan does as courageous reporting and denounced other reporters as stenographers. To be blunt: that is total bullshit. First, Dan is not principally a reporter. He is a commentator on what other people report. I took his comment to be by implication a smear on Washington Post reporters who work hard every damn day to do precisely the kind of tough-minded, accountability reporting he says he admires. 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. I responded to your questions at some length because they touch on issues about the web and traditional news organizations that go beyond this episode. Thanks, John Harris. We want to make sure we understand, so… Some excerpts from an e-mail he sent to Jim Brady explaining the discomfort with Froomkin’s column.
Even so, the responses rallying to Dan’s defense and denouncing the Washington Post newspaper were troubling to me. A great many of them showed little understanding of how we do our work as reporters and editors, and of the distinctions we make between news and commentary. Many of them displayed a common attitude these days—that every article must be either a weapon or a shield in the great ideological arguments of the moment.
Q: How did you first become aware of the political reporters’ concerns, and what did you understand them to be about? Jim Brady: I became aware of their concerns right after I began this job in January. The Post’s political staff has always been up front about their concerns over Dan’s column. I have been equally up front in saying that White House Briefing is an integral part of the site and that we have no intention of killing it. It’s built a tremendous audience, it serves as an informative roundup on what news organizations are saying about the White House and it’s written with a strong voice and a wry sense of humor. Dan’s column, to me, takes advantage of the Internet’s ability to link and the Web’s appetite for voice. This isn’t anti-Post; it’s one of many ways The Post organization is adapting to a new medium with enthusiasm and vigor. One concern the newspaper raised early on was that Dan’s column was treated as a news column, when they felt it was an opinion column. I happen to agree with that assessment — though I know Dan does not — so we have been labeling it as an opinion column since the summer. Beyond that, The Post’s main concern is the name “White House Briefing,” which they feel implies that Dan is a White House reporter for The Washington Post, which he is not. I felt labeling WHB as an opinion column, and continuing to use the tagline “special to washingtonpost.com” under Dan’s byline did enough to separate it from the paper’s news content. But there’s obviously a disagreement there, and I’m certainly willing to keep talking to John to get to the heart of the matter. Q: Which arguments of John Harris and his staff did you find most persuasive, and which did you not share, or see differently? Jim Brady: I agree with John that where Dan’s column resides philosophically on the site has not always been clear. It was promoted as a news column/analysis for more than a year, until I decided to put it under an Opinion label over the summer. I also think John’s comments in Deborah’s column on Sunday and his response to Dan on washingtonpost.com on Monday have been misconstrued by many of those who have commented publicly. They’re accusing John of saying that no Washington Post reporter would dare criticize the White House; that’s not at all what he said. His point is that The Post has a very clear line of demarcation between news content and editorial page content, and that he believes Dan’s column creates confusion in that area. I’m not as sold on the second point, but again, I’m certainly willing to hear him out. But he’s right to say that Jim VandeHei would not be able to write — in the news pages — what Dan writes daily for the Web site, since Jim’s not an opinion writer. But E.J. Dionne could write what Dan writes, as could Richard Cohen or anyone else on The Post’s editorial page. So John’s not saying The Post can’t criticize the White House, but that when it does, that criticism needs to live in the editorial pages, not in its the news pages. Q: Howell and Harris both seem to charge Froomkin with writing from an ideological and left-leaning point of view. They do not give readers any examples. Froomkin denies it entirely. He says he is engaged in accountability journalism, and he was prepared to do exactly the same thing had John Kerry been elected. Harris says this may be true: “It might be the case that he would be writing similarly about John Kerry if he were president.” If so, then the charge of being liberal falls apart, and Froomkin’s description makes more sense. Do you think of Froomkin’s White House Briefing as somehow “liberal” or left-leaning? Or do you think he would be doing the same kind of column, asking the same kind of questions, highlighting the same kind of work, if a Democrat were in office? Jim Brady: Having read Dan’s columns for the past year, I do believe that it’s left-leaning. Other don’t agree, including Dan. I know he says that he’d have been just as tough on John Kerry, but since we have no way of knowing that, I have to rely on what’s in front of me to decide how to classify the column. I chose the latter. Don’t get me wrong, I think Dan writes a terrific column. It’s a great read, it’s built a huge following and Dan’s done a tremendous job interacting with his audience. But I do believe it’s an opinion column. Honestly, I don’t want to start pulling “examples,” since I don’t want it to seem like I’m bashing Dan. But having read it every day for the past year, I feel comfortable with the decision to move in into Opinion. Q: Howell says Brady is “considering changing the column title and supplementing it with a conservative blogger.” What do you want the title to reflect that it is not refecting now? Jim Brady: We have not really discussed the name in any depth, either internally or with the paper. As I said before, I’m willing to have a discussion about it with the newspaper. But I don’t know where we’ll come out. The issue is not what the title doesn’t reflect, it’s more the confusion that’s caused by use of the words “White House.” But it’s too early to tell where we’ll come out. Q: Could you elaborate on your thinking about possibly adding a conservative blogger? Does that mean you have accepted the view of Howell and Harris that White House Briefing is tough on Bush because Froomkin is a liberal? Jim Brady: Actually, the desire to bring on a conservative blogger has never been related to Dan. Ever since we launched our new Opinions area back in August, we’ve been trying to recruit someone from the right to help anchor that page. We do have a fair amount of online-only opinion columnists, but we don’t have one who clearly brings a conservative perspective on the issues of the day. For the sake of civic debate and assuring that the entire political spectrum is represented on post.com’s opinion page, we feel like adding someone from the right makes sense. But we’re not trying to find someone to rebut Dan; we’re looking for a different voice altogether. Q: What else do you think it’s important for PressThink readers to understand about this episode? Jim Brady: What worries me is when I see headlines that suggest there’s a huge battle between the newspaper and the Web site. It’s just not the case. Even with the national political staff—despite the obvious tension surrounding Dan’s column—we’ve made huge progress in the past six months. We recently hired Chris Cillizza to write a political blog for us, and to make sure he was able to be as effective as possible, we put him in The Post newsroom to interact with the national political staff. And “The Fix” is a huge hit. We recently started a Post political live discussion that runs every weekday at 11am ET. Last week, we launched a congressional voting database going back to 1991, the first in a series of political databases we’re looking to create. So I do worry that one issue like this is being used to suggest there’s a war going on between the two newsrooms. There isn’t.
Jay: First of all, let me say that I don’t like the fact that my readers are using me as cudgel to smack around The Post’s political staff. I think The Post’s political coverage is the best in the business. I’m proud to be ever-so-remotely associated with them. My column is largely a blog, and like my fellow bloggers, I would be at a loss without the news stories arduously pieced together by political reporters who, let’s remember, unlike me or bloggers, actually need to maintain their White House sources as they go. Talk about a highwire act. Noting my support for holding the president accountable, John Harris wrote on washingtonpost.com: “The reporters on the Post’s White House and political teams every day push through many obstacles and frustrations to do precisely this kind of accountability reporting—as I’m sure Dan would agree.” I certainly do. The Post political staff’s beef with my column, as reported by the ombudsman, is primarily a labeling issue. They just want it to be clear that I’m not one of their White House reporters. I don’t have a problem with that at all. I just happen to think it’s already clear to most readers that I’m a columnist, not a reporter. I’m Not Taking a Political Stand I am a bit frustrated that because my job is to hold the White House accountable, I’m accused of being biased. Being a columnist allows me to inject a lot more voice and personal observations into my work than I could if I were a reporter, but it doesn’t mean I’m taking a political stand. Should I also be critiquing the Democrats? There aren’t any in the White House. And my job is to watch the White House like a hawk. It’s also a job that the American public has counted on The Washington Post for during these past 30 years and that it appears a large number of readers from around the country and the world now come to washingtonpost.com for as well. This current tempest isn’t a clash of cultures, Jay, it’s just growing pains. Please remember that I was the editor of washingtonpost.com for three years before I started this column. In fact, I started working at the Web site in 1997, as a senior producer for politics, after 10 years as a daily newspaper reporter. The Washington Post newsroom has come a long way since 1997 towards embracing the Web and what it means to journalism — it just still has a long way to go. The Appetite for Voice To the extent that something good can come of all this, I hope it’s that the increased visibility for my column will call attention to its success as a new journalistic form, taking advantage of the Internet’s ability to link and the Web’s appetite for voice. The links, for instance, allow readers to assess my credibility on their own. My voice has helped create a large community of devoted, regular readers. This isn’t anti-Post; this is neo-Post; it’s one of many ways The Post organization is adapting to a new medium with enthusiasm and vigor. And despite some of the fears of my wonderful readers, the column is not in danger. I could not ask for more support than I have received from the highest levels of The Post and post.com — including Don Graham, Len Downie, Web site publisher Caroline Little and executive editor Jim Brady. Finally, I have been absolutely blown away by the expressions of support from readers, in their online comments and by e-mail, and from the blogging community. I am deeply moved and deeply appreciative and I wish I could thank everyone individually. If I ever had any doubts that this was worth the effort, they are gone. After Matter: Notes, reactions and links. Leonard Downie, executive editor of the Post, states his concerns (from E & P): “We want to make sure people in the [Bush] administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin’s column because it contains opinion,” Downie told E&P. “And that readers of the Web site understand that, too.” The reply… Washingtonpost.com Executive Editor Jim Brady said he does not plan to change the name, claiming it has not caused the misinterpretations that some believe it has. “The column has been on the site for two years and that is not something we have heard,” Brady said about concerns. “The column is extremely popular and it is not going anywhere.” I like it. A stand-off. “They decide what the column ought to be called,” Downie said about the Web editors. “We have discussed it and they will decide what to do. It is their decision, not mine.” This would not happen at the New York Times, where NYtimes.com was recently placed under the command of executive editor Bill Keller. He would have ordered the change and that would be it. The existence of Washington Post and Newsweek Interactive, a separate company headquartered in Arlington, VA, (it runs washingtonpost.com, and employs Froomkin) prevents that. Uh oh. Long-form blogger, academic economist and pissed-off press critic Brad DeLong phoned John Harris and interviewed him about one moment in my Q and A, where I was trying to get some specifics…(Dec. 14) Read the results. Not pretty. DeLong thinks Harris fell for an RNC ploy, or worse, by using “conservative blogger” Pat Ruffini for illustration. Brad’s post about it at TPM Cafe is actually clearer. Here’s a lot more about Ruffini from Tapped. Dec. 15: John Harris did a live chat with Post.com readers and got “tons” of questions about Froomkin but took only two to answer (here and here.) He did say: For those who are actually interested in the details, Jay Rosen’s site “pressthink” did a full and responsible airing of this relatively minor issue, and I said everything I need to say (and a little more) on that. Thanks, John— and for answering my questions. I dissent on “this relatively minor issue,” though. The events are small. The rummblings that led to them: not. If you dare follow Delong into The Future of the Washington Post? It’s all about the Froomkin episode and DeLong has plenty on his mind. Political reporter Peter Baker handles Froomkin questions in a live chat with washingtonpost.com readers (Dec. 13.) (“… Threatened by Dan Froomkin’s column? Hardly.”) Post humor columnist Gene Weingarten in another online chat with readers: “The Post reporters are wrong. Deborah is wrong. Froomkin is right. His column is really good, and I don’t much CARE if people get confused about whether he works for the Post or dotcom. Fact is, he works for both, and he is a columnist, and columnists have opinions, and people understand that.” Jeff Jarvis thinks Deborah Howell’s column about White House Briefing “illustrates, in its quotes from editors at the paper, the kind of clueless, destructive, and snobbish territoriality between print and online that is killing newspapers.” That sets off Dan Kennedy: see why. About the “atmospherics” at this post, Jarvis later writes: “The online folks are bending over backwards to be deferential to the print people. The print person is spitting lines like ‘pompous’ and ‘total bullshit.’” That’s because the online people know how strong their position is. More Jarvis, Dec. 15: A wise editor I know said it better in an email: “The elbows are getting very very sharp right now.” And the reason is that the business is shrinking and the print guys and online guys — forced together in newsroom meetings and mergers — are like dogs growling and snapping over that last scrap of meat. When the going gets tough the tough get snarky. “Watch the dodge,” says Ezra Klein at Tapped. “The question isn’t whether Froomkin pays secret homage to Karl Marx, but whether an undefined but nevertheless ‘great many’ people think he does.” CJR Daily goes sensible on us (Felix Gillette, Dec. 15): We prefer “White House Watch,” ourselves. That’s what Froomkin does on his blog — keeps a close eye on the White House and links right, left, hither and yon whenever he finds a kindred soul doing the same and doing it with panache. But hey, what do we know? We’re not the geniuses at Washingtonpost.com; neither are we the jealous Post reporters and editors lobbing the occasional grenade across the Potomac and into Froomkin’s tent. Responses on the Right to this post and the Froomkin flap: Stephen Spruiell at National Review; Bill Quick at Daily Pundit; Christopher Fotos at PostWatch. Fotos did several posts in fact. Also see Mark Kilmer at redstate.org. Then there’s Josh Trevino: “The flap over Dan Froomkin’s White House Briefing in the Washington Post is an instructive little incident that ought to alert the journalism community to an unpleasant reality: having been regarded as the enemy for so long by the American right, it is now equally detested by the American left.” See Franklin Foer on the same theme, but without the Froomkin. Panning left… Jane Hamsher on Post reporters: White House Pool Boys Get Crabby. What the WaPo writers are viewing through their Technorati tags is only a tiny crumb of a rage that threatens to sweep them into irrelevance. If they care about the preservation of superstar journalists and the politics of access above all else they blind themselves to the sea change that is taking place in how information is exchanged. In my last post I incorrectly termed Jane a “lawyer and writer.” She is not a lawyer, but is a writer. Her blogging partner ReddHedd, equally sharp, is a lawyer. My apologies to both. From the bio of the blogger John Harris linked to in support of his view that White House Briefing is left-leaning. (“His argument does not seem far-fetched to me.”) Patrick Ruffini is never far from the place where politics meets technology. Until recently, Ruffini was webmaster for the Bush-Cheney ‘04 presidential campaign, proudly serving as part of the team that executed the most sophisticated online strategy in political history. Oliver Willis weighs in on Froomkin, the press, and inequality. More Post-Centric PressThink: Grokking Woodward (Dec. 9) The New York Times is not any longer—in my mind—the greatest newspaper in the land. Nor is it the base line for the public narrative that it once was. Some time in the last year or so I moved the Washington Post into that position. The Post, I believe, is our great national newspaper now; the Times is number two. Still think that. Favorite quote from a Post reader defending Froomkin: “The fact that Froomkin is associated with the Post is what gives some plausible legitimacy to Harris, not the other way about.” (John Sundman, Dec 13, 2005 10:43:04 PM, found here.) Dan Froomkin’s brother, Michael, is an academic and blogger at Discourse.net (“on the fringes of the public sphere…”) He says he is watching all this with “great interest and not a little glee.” Marty Kaplan at the Huffington Post: We have reached the point where instead of assessing the objectivity and accuracy of statements in public discourse, we are told by journalistic traffic cops to treat them merely as theological observations that flow from one’s political religion. It’s a symptom of the same disease that already causes spineless editors to force apparently defenseless reporters to pair every truthful “he said” in an article with a bogus “she said” in service of some nihilistic postmodern notion of balance. Kevin Drum, agreeing with Atrios on it, says: “If you don’t want people to think that reporters have opinions, keep them away from shows that traffic primarily in opinion. That’s surely a much bigger deal than the ‘title and display’ of Froomkin’s column.” Here’s a full list of Washingtonpost.com blogs, which for some odd reason leaves out WHB. For a broad sampling of all the bloggers commenting on the Froomkin and the complaints about him see memeorandum. In May 2004, Dan Froomkin wrote one the best pieces ever about what the new platform offers print journalists— if they awaken to it.
Posted by Jay Rosen at December 13, 2005 2:57 PM
Comments
What a bizarre episode. Isn't Deborah Howell's job representing readers? She doesn't cite a single one; the genesis of her column appears to be an internal complaint from the White House desk. As for John Harris, if he's so concerned about his reporters being tinged by purveyors of opinion, then why does he allow them to appear on opinion shows? Posted by: Andy Vance at December 13, 2005 3:44 PM | Permalink The great playwright William Shakespeare once wrote this now famous stanza in Hamlet. To be, or not to be: that is the question: It is a profound question and you may interpret as you will. No doubt events in Shakespeare's life prompted him to write those lines, and perhaps he contemplated war and death due to the events of his time. As a mere journalist, there are some events making the rounds of the press and the blogosphere which cause me now to ask this question. To believe or not to believe, that is the question. Or, what is more worthy of belief, a newspaper or a Web site? Does one technology by its nature somehow engender more trust than the other? Let's examine a few cases and see if we can answer the question to anyone's satisfaction. http://www.locustfork.net/blog/ Posted by: Glynn Wilson at December 13, 2005 4:01 PM | Permalink Man, Harrris sounds like a whiny Bush apologist. Posted by: gogne at December 13, 2005 5:56 PM | Permalink Well, well. Mr. Harris really has his knickers in a wad now, doesn't he? He's really distressed and bent out of shape by the'bullshit' peddled by Froomkin's fans. Yet he himself felt that the 'Fundraising scandals' of the 1996 Clinton campaign deserved 'aggressive coverage' even though they led no where, and the Bush Whitehouse gets a pass on just about everything it does from most of the alleged political reports at the WaPo. I'd like to know several things about Harris: what was his view on the Iraq war? If he wants to start applying the 'liberal label' to Froomkin and argue that 'cumulatively' Froomkin is some sort of standard liber critic of the Bush Whitehouse, I say that we as readers of the WaPo have a right to know what Harris thinks about the administration. We know that Milibank and Vandehei have personal ties to Republicans. It certainly smells like Harris does too. Posted by: Max renn at December 13, 2005 6:07 PM | Permalink It's very clear that Dan Froomkin had better start cleaning out his desk. He's been branded with the Scarlet L (for Liberal) and therefore is not to be tolerated by today's "Free Press." Pravda copy boys like Brady can spin themselves right through the floor, but the handwriting is on the wall -- and has been for some time. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 13, 2005 6:08 PM | Permalink Things were much easier when the most important news topic of the day was the President's sex life. It made it much easier for guys like Harris..... Posted by: Hank Essay at December 13, 2005 6:16 PM | Permalink I just think it is so funny that Dan Froomkin doesn't think he's biased. Talk about bubbles. Froomkin, Terry Neal, Emily Messner, The Nation alum Jefferson Morley: left, left, left, left. It sure will be fantabulous if Brady adds one whole conservative blogger to washingtonpost.com. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 13, 2005 6:24 PM | Permalink Jay: First of all, let me say that I don’t like the fact that my readers are using me as cudgel to smack around The Post’s political staff. I think The Post’s political coverage is the best in the business. Saying that the Post's political coverage is the best in the business is not exactly high praise, to my mind. The MSM "political coverage" is woeful at best. Posted by: VG at December 13, 2005 6:29 PM | Permalink Wow. Okay, Mr. Harris, we get that you don't get it... So Harris weasels out of addressing your request for examples by referring "without agreeing" to Patrick Ruffini. Meaning that his roster of reputable media critics includes the likes of Mr. Ruffini but he's too chicken to say so out loud. Jeebus. Think you can get him to address the post entitled "Hilary-bashing is not enough" in some future interview? And how exactly did Harris get introduced to Ruffini's work in the first place? Perhaps some republicans informally introduced him to it? Alas, WaPo. Maybe it's time to encourage Froomkin to leave rather than defending his position there... Posted by: radish at December 13, 2005 6:33 PM | Permalink I wish someone would ask Howell or Harris what they think of Howard Kurtz. He has as much right tilt as Froomkin has left tilt, his wife is a former Republican party operative, and he has the CNN conflict of interest. Posted by: cafl at December 13, 2005 6:46 PM | Permalink Having cooled down a little, my sincere apologies to Dan for using him as a cudgel to smack around the Post's political staff despite his request not to do so. Perhaps I could even agree that the Post's coverage is the best in the business, if I didn't mind damning with faint praise ;-) Posted by: radish at December 13, 2005 6:48 PM | Permalink Howard Kurtz liberally (!) quotes politicians and bloggers from both the right and left. That, of course, makes him a rightie. Few things enrage liberals more than seeing the right treated respectfully in the media. It ain't supposed to work that way. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 13, 2005 6:56 PM | Permalink Few things enrage liberals more than seeing the right treated respectfully in the media. It ain't supposed to work that way. Posted by: Christopher Fotos Shorter version: Wah wah wah Posted by: Steve J. at December 13, 2005 7:01 PM | Permalink Ok, so Harris has a "news savvy source" who was confused about Froomkin? The facts that a) Harris uses a "source" for whom comprehension is so problematic; and b) Harris did not bother to go the next step to see if this "news savvy" source who "manages campaigns" could possibly have not been confused at all, but rather pissed and taking a poke in any manner available -- pretty much highlight the very concerns that posters have raised about WaPos reporting. Couple this with the presentation (no factual references or basis provided) and lack of clarity of Harris web response (engendering the need to keep "clarifying" what he meant) and the retaliatory feel of his linking, here, to a blog on "Dan Froomkin, Second-Rate Hack" and what journalist with actual training and objectivity would fail to understand a reader's annoyance? Posted by: Mary at December 13, 2005 7:16 PM | Permalink Dan Froomkin, live chat, Dec. 7: Plainwell, Mich.: Dan, Thanks for all the straight forward information you share with us on a regular basis. My question: What more can be done to raise up the cabal that exists in the writings of the New American Century Project? Is the media afraid of revenge or being set up again? Dan Froomkin: Well, I often send people to the Project for the New American Century Web site when they ask me: Why did we really invade Iraq? It offers a great primer in the new American imperialist philosophy shared by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the leaders of the ostensible "cabal."... Ostensible. Whew! Close call; unbiased political reporters are incessantly referring to the new American imperialist philosophy but you must insert "ostensible" before "cabal" or people could get the wrong idea. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 13, 2005 7:17 PM | Permalink Yeah, "imperialist" is wrong. It should be "global imperialist." Posted by: Steve J. at December 13, 2005 7:23 PM | Permalink Anyone that thinks Howard Kurtz swings more to the right than to the left probably should try reading his work instead of just basing it on what certain A-list bloggers peddle. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at December 13, 2005 7:25 PM | Permalink Yikes! The hate and vitrol on this thread is truly astounding. For a moment, I thought I was reading a Frank Rich column. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 13, 2005 7:44 PM | Permalink "Shorter version: Wah wah wah" is a Most excellent Troll Smackdown. this whole story is unbelievable. The whole MSM press corps is sooooooo corrupt in the USA. scary indeed. "Dan has not yet responded to my question of whether it would be okay with him if his column appeared exactly as he writes it under the byline of Jim VandeHei, Peter Baker, or Mike Fletcher, our three White House reporters. You are a press critic: Would you be comfortable with that?" Mr. Harris, you know, YOU'RE the one who has trouble distinguishing commentary from news stories. No, Dan's COLUMN would not appear under the byline of Jim VandeHei, etc, because it is not a NEWS STORY. (Of course, I notice Jim VandeHei has no problem editorializing when he's on TV... so I suspect that his TV talk wouldn't fit under his byline either... what say you, oh Editor?) What makes no sense is that you have columnists right there in the Washington Post print edition, and editorialists too, who are far more opinionated than Froomkin. (Charles Krauthammer seems to spend his worklife in an apoplectic rage, for example.) Why aren't you insisting that they're too opinionated, adversarial, partisan, political, all that stuff? And you don't even seem to feel the cold breath on the back of your neck. You blithely report that your friend who runs campaigns-- that is, a pol-- and Republicans have complained. Instead of saying, "Wow! That means Froomkin is having an effect! Go, Dan!", you act as if politicians taking issue with a columnist is sufficient reason to take off after him. Doesn't that bother you, that the opinions of politicians matter more to you than the opinions of readers? And then you link approvingly to some blogger who headlines his much more opinionated and adversarial-than-Froomkin rant: "Dan Froomkin, Second-Rate Hack." You should be ashamed of yourself. This is your colleague. You of course say blah-blah-blah things about Froomkin being good, but then you link with approval to a headline like that. That's it, fella. Between you and Len Downie, the one who admits this is about White House complaints, I have no use for the "legitimate Washington Post". You're spending the day slamming Froomkin when your fair-haired boy Jim Vandehei is backtracking on an idiotic and very likely slanderous mistake he made about (surprise!) the CIA leak. Excuse me, don't you have a reporter to chastise? You know, the one who -reported- that Hadley was Rove's source? Erroneously? There's a story here, and you're not telling it-- why suddenly you decided to make this an issue, why you took it public rather than handling it inside the Post (to distract us all from Woodward, maybe?), who is this complaining friend of yours who runs campaigns and why do you think his opinion is so important, why the ombudsman dismisses the Web side as being useful for archiving big documents that would use too much newsprint, what the White House had to do with the complaints, who of your reporters has complained (they seem all to have checked in and said, "Twasn't me!"), why you assume that your readers are so stupid and partisan that they'd hate Froomkin if he was taking on a Kerry administration, why Mr. Downie joined in and added his little bit about Republicans complaining, and why other columnists including Howard Kurtz manage to remain under your radar. I await the real story. I hear you have some good reporters. Maybe you should assign them to this! Posted by: listener at December 13, 2005 8:11 PM | Permalink What I find as one of the most interesting aspects of this controversy is how it started. The ombudswoman's column was published in the print edition of the post on Sunday. But it apparently barely caused a ripple and no one saw it. It wasn't until Froomkin on Monday used the web to make people aware of her comments, followed by his response that the issue exploded. To me the most important aspect of this debate is how little impact a print story has now until the electronic world makes it relevant, for better or worse. Posted by: Jeff at December 13, 2005 8:14 PM | Permalink Re: Howell's position. It is my understanding that she works for the print edition of the Post, and would remind people that "ombudsman" is different from "readers representative". That being said, Howell's column was still a pile of horse manure. She stuck her nose somewhere it didn't belong (in a dispute involving wpost.com) and got rightfully slapped down by Froomkin's readers. ***************** As far as Harris is concerned, the fact that he cited a "conservative blog" that is written by the webmaster of the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign tells you everything you need to know about what can most charitably be described as his absolute cluelessness about what is really happening here. Did Harris know that Ruffini worked for Bush/Cheney during the last campaign, yet stupidly cited his blog anyway? The fact that Harris (who took a completely different view of "agressive journalism" when he was providing us the details of Clinton's sex life) validates the opinions expressed in a blog written by a known partisan operative for Bush tells you everything you need to know about Harris's own obvious biases. *************** As for Dan Froomkin's "make nice" comments about the Post's "political staff" -- well, lets just assume he's being gracious, and ignoring the calumny that is Steno Sue Schmidt and the cluelessness of Jim "Pool Boy" VandeHei. *************** Finally, perhaps Harris can explain the difference between "news analysis" and "opinion" that made it so vital to label Dan's daily summary of White House coverage "opinion" rather than "analysis." To me, Dan does infintely more "analysis" than "opinionating", and the "analyses" that do appear in the Posts contain far more "opinion" that virtually any Froomkin column.
"To me the most important aspect of this debate is how little impact a print story has now until the electronic world makes it relevant, for better or worse." I'm going to agree with Jeff here, and add that I think that the reason this whole thing blew up like it did was not really similar to the way Christian interests groups get their hardcores to write to the FCC every time an nipple wants to be free, this outpouring of reader sentiment and support has a truly spontaneous and genuine feel to it. I also agree with Ron B. that many A-list bloggers and their readers accept a very simplified view of things, shortcuts or what have you, but they were not the real cause behind the interst in this...readers really value the column. It provides something unique, a real resource. Maybe Chris Foto should try to write something one tenth as insightful (as opposed to inciteful) and submit it to the WaPo balance brigade. Maybe he can be the new conservative blogger over there, though goodness knows not he or any other shill can match up if they ain't got truth on their side. Posted by: stack at December 13, 2005 8:49 PM | Permalink Harris said: "He’s entitled to his opinion, and he’s entitled to be proud of what is obviously a devoted audience. But you know how I feel—his column, under its current title and display, does dilute the Washington Post’s reputation, and more serious care should be given to its editing and presentation. —" Once again, without providing any evidence at all, Harris decides that Froomkin is wrong-- and while he has previously said it's just about the title, suddenly he's telling Froomkin's editor that he should be edited more? Again, not the slightest evidence that he's made mistakes, presented himself as one of Mr. Harris's reporters, or done anything beyond making some in the White House uncomfortable. And again Harris decides that his own readers are so stupid they don't know how newspapers work. Evidence? None. None. I guess we are stupid, because we sure didn't think that editors pay special attention to the complaints of their friends the politicians, or the White House. And we were too stupid to even imagine that most prominent reporter in the nation (and Post)could possibly comment repeatedly on a case that it turns out involved him! We were idiots enough to think that there was a thing called "Conflict of interest" that meant a reporter wasn't supposed to report on a story he was part of. We're so stupid we expect White House reporters to actually follow up their questions and, oh, yeah, notice when the press secretary is blowing smoke for a couple years. And we were so dumb that we believe a Post White House reporter when he casually drops the name of one administration aide as a leaker when he means someone else entirely (and then says he never said it... boy, the dedication to truth is alarming!). Boy, were we dumb!!! Oh, wait. Froomkin didn't do any of that. That was all Post PRINT REPORTERS and editors who let Scottie evade on and on, who privilege their sources over their readers, who jump whenever the White House complains!! Yeah, Mr. Harris, we are dumb-- but not as dumb as you seem to think. Posted by: jerri at December 13, 2005 9:19 PM | Permalink "But E.J. Dionne could write what Dan writes, as could Richard Cohen or anyone else on The Post’s editorial page." Would that Richard Cohen would simply write what Dan writes. Is Cohen supposed to be cranky liberal? or just easily confused as to what the administration's tactics say about it? Posted by: benton at December 13, 2005 9:29 PM | Permalink First - Second - Third - OK, let's assume that Froomkin did suggest this, pompously. Still, wouldn't it then matter whether his pompous suggestion was true or not? (i.e., does a reader typically learn more (and more important) information from reading his column than from reading another news article?) Fourth, What exactly does this mean, and would this 'complementing' be constructive? cost-effective? So to provide utility to the readers for 'columnist' dollars spent, wouldn't you need to hire a nonconservative conservative columnist? (Presumably White House press releases and talking points can be reprinted for free) Posted by: Anna Haynes at December 13, 2005 9:36 PM | Permalink Is this journalism or a territorial pissing match. Why is the news side thrown in a tizzy by the opinions expressed in a bloggy aspect of the Post's online version? Does Harris get that overwrought when editorial writers write about the goings on in Washington? Then again, I'm more fascinated that kilgore finds the comments here hateful and vitriolic. So far it's just been partisan-based opinion. No one's called Jay a liar yet! In this brave new world of communication, we're surfeit with opinion. Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 13, 2005 9:38 PM | Permalink well, since we're on the subject of the Post on-line edition, this probably deserves at least a little notice... a "Note from the Publisher" that is linked right below the masthead on wpost.com's homepage, which says You may have noticed that all of our major ads today have one thing in common – they're all from a single advertiser, the cable channel MSNBC..... Is it really necessary for Carolyn Little to suck up to advertisers in this fashion? While we're asking questions, what is particularly 'innovative' about a solo advertiser? Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 13, 2005 9:57 PM | Permalink You "reporters" are doing a bad tap dance in front of closed curtains as the country is being stolen and trashed behind them. You are in a self-important circle jerk while the real stories go unreporeted. So, is anyone going to ask how a 757 airliner fits into such a tiny hole in the Pentagon or why Sidel Edmunds can not go to trial. You pious reporters are a bad diversion for the criminals slight of hand. The Media is leading the deception of the masses. G. Keel Posted by: G Keel at December 13, 2005 10:01 PM | Permalink John Harris :"the responses rallying to Dan’s defense and denouncing the Washington Post newspaper were troubling to me. A great many of them showed little understanding of how we do our work as reporters and editors" I am one of the people who does not understand how the reporters and editors do their work at the Washington Post. You have a purported reporter, Bob Woodward, who not only refrains from telling readers what he knows about a highly publicized federal grand jury investigation, but he actively avoids letting readers know he is involved in the case under investigation while commenting upon the investigation on television as if he is not involved. What kind of "reporting" is that, Mr Harris? And no, I don't understand what editors do at the Washington Post when the newspaper pays Bob Woodward to be a reporter, then he doesn't report, and when it is revealed that he isn't reporting inside knowledge of a case under federal investigation the editors make little harrumphing nosies and then do nothing. So please explain further to me, Mr Harris --- exactly what is it that your reporters and editors do? It seems from the example set by Mr Woodward that they neither report nor edit a great deal these days. Posted by: wren at December 13, 2005 10:10 PM | Permalink The scales have now fallen from our eyes and we are ashamed. The Media Posted by: The Media at December 13, 2005 10:13 PM | Permalink Harrris is upset becaust Froomkin does not share his pro-establishment bias. How transparent to cite with approval a Buch-Cheney paid blogger? With Harris in charge, it suddenly makes sense to me why someone like Steno Sue continues to thrive at the Post. Posted by: joefromla at December 13, 2005 10:29 PM | Permalink Many of you sure seem to have strong opinions about how terrible it is to point to Patrick Ruffini without, you know, reading him. Ack! Bubble bursting! Ruffini's is a terrific collection of the Froomkin style. If you can read that and not understand that he's a liberal columnist, well.. you could be Dan Froomkin. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 13, 2005 10:44 PM | Permalink major disclaimer: I work for WPNI, but I do not speak for any Post company in any way, by choice I might add. I'm also not a reporter or involved in any content decisions. That said: Is it really necessary for Carolyn Little to suck up to advertisers in this fashion? Well, you know, they do pay the bills. :P Seriously, though, lots of people worked on lining up the campaign. I don't have a problem with her acknowledging the effort, but I know it's not everybody's cup of tea, so that's cool. As for the Froomkin flap, I'm surprised it's grown to such dimensions. Even the National Review Online doesn't have much of a problem with the column. What I find interesting is that so many people are focusing on issue of the column rather than the issue of the Technorati links, which I believe to be the more important in the long term. I think the Post has a great opportunity to become a key player in online discussion through things like the Technorati partnership, and I hope they continue to take steps in this area. I'm also pleased to see that the whole thing ended up on the post.com weblog where the world can read and respond, instead of buried internally. I don't think it's a fatal blow to either company. I believe the powers that be will work it out. (Gullible? Maybe. I prefer optimistic.) Christopher, Jay, Any chance you might consider a follow-up where you raise some of your concerns about the fallacies of the view from nowhere and help reframe the tautological claims to purity and higher calling that Harris's vitriolic, hacktastically "objective" voice itself shreds before he can finish uttering a single one of his "more objective" stabs in the back? Was it hard to resist the temptation to gag when he started spouting this crap or does your journalistic training cover stuff like that? Posted by: Mark Anderson at December 14, 2005 12:28 AM | Permalink The 1984-Soprano shroud in which we are being wrapped fold by fold explains the fierce defence by readers of Froomkin's column. The official doublethink, doubletalk reported by "real reporters," is more and more like eating stale toast, perhaps left over from some White House breakfast. Posted by: Druthers at December 14, 2005 4:01 AM | Permalink Can there be any lingering doubt that the once venerated Washington Post now funtions as the Bush Administration's own number one propanganda arm? To wit: ============ -John Harris: "...I have heard from Republicans in informal ways making clear they think his work is tendentious and unfair." -Woodward, Washington Post managing editor, who apparently no longer feels that he has any obligation to his readers, as the "official court stenographer of the Bush Administration" The staff at the Washington Post, along with Viveca Novak (and Judith Miller, goes without saying), make crystal clear that their loyalty lies first and foremost with themselves, second, with the Bush Administration and third, with their sources. Where are the readers in this equation? Posted by: Phredd at December 14, 2005 7:52 AM | Permalink How much of this dust-up is really about professional resentment at Froomkin for showing up the Post "political staff" each day? Lets face it, one of the things Froomkin is doing is telling readers "if you read just one newspaper, you aren't getting all the information you need. Here are links to other relevant information on today's top stories that the Post's White House reporters and editors didn't find out, or decided to keep from you." No wonder Harris has his knickers in a twist -- every day he is confronted on the Washington Post's own web site with the fact that reporters working for other editors are kicking his ass. (its really unfair in some ways, because Froomkin's links are generally to the best White House reporting each day, so Harris and his staff don't get compared to a representative sample of the work of their peers. But life ain't fair, Harris, so grow up.) I'm really concerned about the message the Washington Post is sending to its readers. That is, any critical look into the White House should automatically be considered liberal, and the only way to counteract that critique is with conservative "balance." I hate the notion that the only way to counteract critical reporting is to knowingly insert bias. This is not something a truth-seeking institution should do. Indeed, sometimes the truth isn't very flattering and perhaps with viewing the administration's claims with a more skeptical "prism" would benefit the Post and other mainstream media outlets. Posted by: DG at December 14, 2005 9:49 AM | Permalink Hi. Larious. This is Bizarro-world, where the Post is a tool of the Bush Administration. This does, however, explain where you guys think the center is. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 14, 2005 10:08 AM | Permalink
The quality and content of the responses to his "bullishit" rejoinder should give him pause. So should his resorting to vulgarity, which is a sure sign that POST nerves are still frayed The NY TIMES apologized for its flawed coverage. The POST, which ran the simple word "Irrefutable" after Powell's UN speech, has yet to retract that false judgment. Till we see that apology. Mr. Harris is wasting his and our time. Posted by: chefrad at December 14, 2005 11:01 AM | Permalink Christopher, I clicked through to your lame little wannabe David Horowitz blog. I want those five minutes of my life I wasted reading it back. Posted by: Hank Scorpio at December 14, 2005 11:24 AM | Permalink Thanks, Hank. Another poster said I might be capable of one-tenth of Dan Froomkin's insight, so that's my goal right now. Enjoy! Here are some of my quick thoughts about this issue. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 14, 2005 12:19 PM | Permalink So, is anyone going to ask how a 757 airliner fits into such a tiny hole in the Pentagon Good lord you're nuts. No wonder you think the press corps shills for Bush. Popular Mechanics did an article debunking all of the nutjob 911 conspiracies. Read it here. They have a hell of a lot more credibility than the Wapo fishwrap. Posted by: Jordan at December 14, 2005 12:32 PM | Permalink "Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal" - Deborah Howell, Washington Post Ombudsman, 12/11/05. So Jay, do you believe these comments by Howell, Harris and Brady make them dumber? The awful truth is, of course, that the ideological bias offered in Froomkin's briefings is all too similar in kind to that found in the Washington Post's (and in other dominant media outlets') hard-news coverage. It's just that bias in the news coverage is cleverly presented with more subtlety. One can imagine his White House news colleagues' distress: Here comes Froomkin onto the political playing field, tagging along with the news referees, but Froomkin's blue team jersey is sticking out beneath his black-and-white striped ref's shirt, making the players and spectators look more closely at the other referees' attire. Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 14, 2005 1:13 PM | Permalink "How much of this dust-up is really about professional resentment at Froomkin for showing up the Post "political staff" each day?" I'm quite sure some of it is the normal contempt the news side feels for those who make their living offering opinions on the news rather than gathering it. Editorial writers have been described variously as thumb-sucking wine-sippers and "the people who come down out of the hills after the battle is over and shoot the wounded." To the extent that a blogger is simply taking the hard work of others and offering personal opinions on it, that blogger is in the same class as an opinion writer. When the blogger is also offering opinions on the hard work done collecting information, without, perhaps, ever having done that kind of work, jeez, how hard to you need to look to see that some of the resentment is simply personal rather than philosophic or institutional? Posted by: Bill Watson at December 14, 2005 1:19 PM | Permalink "The awful truth is, of course, that the ideological bias offered in Froomkin's briefings is all too similar in kind to that found in the Washington Post's (and in other dominant media outlets') hard-news coverage. " The awful truth is, of course, that good journalism (Froomkin's unforgivable sin) is seen as "ideological bias," whereas repeating RNC talking points is regarded by the likes of you as being "fair and balanced." Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2005 3:14 PM | Permalink Harris is just complaining because of the sudden and well-deserved demise of all of the Posts Cheney-fellators. Froomkin is the only reason I even open up washpost.com's terribly-designed site. Posted by: Charles Few at December 14, 2005 3:19 PM | Permalink To show how bad it is for the Post, I didn't even know Froomkin EXISTED. And, the only time I read a Post story in when it is linked through another website, like antiwar.com, cursor.org or some other portal with themed content. In other words, I figured out that the Post was a joke a long time ago, and got my international news from a variety of sources contained within these portals, as well as visiting the sites of the Guardian and the Independent, papers with an aggressiveness, vibrance and exuberance sorely lacking in the gray, subdued stenographers for Bush over at the Post and the NYT. Discovering the people like Harris and Downie believe that the Post should be more attentive to the concerns of the White House and the Republican Party than it is to its readers is no great surprise to me, but, I must concede, I am amazed that they would openly display such arrogance to its readers and publicly admit it. For those with long memories, I recommend Carl Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article in which he described the CIA's role in shaping the message of the American mainstream media. Or, here's a similar summary, as provided by Alexander Cockburn last weekend: [Press manipulation was always a paramount concern of the CIA, as with the Pentagon. In his Secret History of the CIA, published in 2001, Joe Trento described how in 1948 CIA man Frank Wisner was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects, soon renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). This became the espionage and counter-intelligence branch of the Central Intelligence Agency, the very first in its list of designated functions was "propaganda". Later that year Wisner set an operation codenamed "Mockingbird", to influence the domestic American press. He recruited Philip Graham of the Washington Post to run the project within the industry. Trento writes that "One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers." Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA, included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times). By 1953 Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies, including the New York Times, Time, CBS, Time. Wisner's operations were funded by siphoning of funds intended for the Marshall Plan. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers." In his book Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA, Alex Constantine writes that in the 1950s, "some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts".] Harris and Downie are probably just descendents in a proud Post tradition of facilitating the propaganda of US intelligence. Except that they seem playing for the Pentagon and/or the Office of the Vice President. They certainly did a very good job of it, along with the NYT, by promoting the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Now, the goal seems to be undermining the Fitzgerald investigation, as Bob Woodward and other "journalists" like Miller and Novak are doing. Posted by: Richard Estes at December 14, 2005 3:56 PM | Permalink When the blogger is also offering opinions on the hard work done collecting information, without, perhaps, ever having done that kind of work, jeez, how hard to you need to look to see that some of the resentment is simply personal rather than philosophic or institutional? perhaps its unintentional, but this suggests that you believe that Froomkin doesn't understand what he's writing about from an "inside" perspective. As Froomkin himself noted above, he did spend 10 years as a daily newspaper reporting before getting involved with wpost.com in 1997. Of course, you could be referring to people like me... does a three month stint on my high school yearbook staff count toward "relevant experience"? :) If anyone's genuinely confused about Froomkin's column - is it or isn't it a WHPB?? - they can just scan for the presence of man-whores, yes? The answer should settle all doubts. Posted by: TonyRz at December 14, 2005 4:08 PM | Permalink Q: What else do you think it’s important for PressThink readers to understand about this episode? Jim Brady: What worries me is when I see headlines that suggest there’s a huge battle between the newspaper and the Web site. It’s just not the case. Even with the national political staff—despite the obvious tension surrounding Dan’s column—we’ve made huge progress in the past six months. We recently hired Chris Cillizza to write a political blog for us, and to make sure he was able to be as effective as possible, we put him in The Post newsroom to interact with the national political staff. And “The Fix” is a huge hit. We recently started a Post political live discussion that runs every weekday at 11am ET. Last week, we launched a congressional voting database going back to 1991, the first in a series of political databases we’re looking to create. So I do worry that one issue like this is being used to suggest there’s a war going on between the two newsrooms. There isn’t. Er...Mr. Brady, if you're concerned about the perception that there's an internal battle, you really should speak to your new ombudsman. It was Deborah Howell who first raised the issue. Publicly. And you expect your readers to just ignore it? Careful what you wish for. If/when the day comes when readers do ignore your ombudsman when she waves a red flag like this, the Post, and washingtonpost.com, might as well shut down. Posted by: Julie at December 14, 2005 4:30 PM | Permalink Long-form blogger, academic economist and pissed-off press critic Brad DeLong phoned John Harris today and interviewed him about one moment in my Q and A, where Harris mentioned Pat Ruffini, formerly of the committee to re-elect Bush, as support for the "Froomkin too liberal" charge... Read the results. Not pretty. DeLong thinks Harris fell for an RNC ploy. His post about it at TPM Cafe is actually clearer. Here's a lot more about Ruffini from Tapped. I'm not sure what Harris was thinking. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 14, 2005 6:34 PM | Permalink I think he was thinking they were revealing quotes. President Bush is barnstorming through five states to try to drum up support for remaking Social Security, but instead of fleshing things out and confronting his critics, he is surrounding himself with hand-picked flatterers and adoring crowds... That's Froomkin. It's an honest question: Are you under the impression this is how unbiased reporters write? I'm not sure what DeLong meant when he said he didn't know how Harris found Ruffini: I do wonder how Harris found Mr. Ruffini's website. It's not that easy to do. Ruffini is a well-known political blogger, especially in DC. It's child's play to find the site. Ruffini has also toggled back and forth from independent conservative blogging to working for the RNC. Maybe DeLong really doesn't know that--but that's his fault, Not Harris's. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 14, 2005 7:14 PM | Permalink [President Bush is barnstorming through five states to try to drum up support for remaking Social Security, but instead of fleshing things out and confronting his critics, he is surrounding himself with hand-picked flatterers and adoring crowds...] actually, the statement, despite using more colorful language that the snooze inducing reporters on the print side of the paper, is factually accurate Bush does, with few exceptions: (1) appear before invitation only, pre-selected crowds; (2) refuses to make any appearances in which the general public is free to attend and raise any challenging questions; and (3) if TV is a true indication, receives uncritical praise from those who appear on the platform with him, and enthusiastic praise from those who attend. Meanwhile, anyone who tries to attend such an event, even events held in outdoor, otherwise public forums, and display any negative signs or protest in any way, even along the route of the motorcade, find themselves driven away by the Secret Secret and local law enforcement, and periodically arrested. So, I ask, where is the inaccuracy in Froomkin's comment? And, along the same lines, do Post reporters who cover these events always note that the events are invitation only, even those in forums designed to create an impression to the contrary? Or, do they sometimes, or even often, neglect to do so, as they do when covering Iraq, and conveniently fail to mention that their reports have been subjected to military censorship, so as to create a misleading impression? Posted by: Richard Estes at December 14, 2005 7:54 PM | Permalink So you wish for reporters to describe supporters as flatterers. And who decides when the insult is used? You understand that's an insult, yes? Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 14, 2005 8:46 PM | Permalink Christopher, I visited your blog and did not see any "weblog ethics", "full disclosure", "contract with readers" page or anything of the like. Is it there and I just missed it? What standards of transparency and accuracy do you adhere to? Posted by: Anna Haynes at December 14, 2005 9:10 PM | Permalink p.s. nice post on "fun links and citations", but your readers would probably find a "disclosure and practices" post more valuable. Posted by: Anna Haynes at December 14, 2005 9:12 PM | Permalink Hi Anna. My "contract with readers" is "you can read my blog if you want to." At no extra cost. If you have a direct question, ask one. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 14, 2005 9:15 PM | Permalink [So you wish for reporters to describe supporters as flatterers. And who decides when the insult is used? You understand that's an insult, yes?] Well, I'll take this as a non-denial denial, a reflection that, in fact, everything that Froomkin said was truthful, despite your insinuation to the contrary. I'll also take it as a non-denial denial that you aren't especially concerned about the fact that Post reporters periodically, if not frequently, deceive readers about the nature of these events by making them appear as public ones, when they are pre-selected, pro-Bush, invitation only crowds. As for the use of the term "flatterers", it doesn't really affect me one way or the other. I'm an adult, with pretty good reading comprehension skills, able to separate fact from subjective opinion. And, aren't they actually "flatterers" as the term is described in the dictionairy? Clinton had plenty of them as well, as do most promiment politicians, like Governors, Senators and Vice Presidents. And, more to the point, Froomkin has always had his column described as opinion, something that both you and Harris understand, yet persist in taking cheap shots at Froomkin by suggesting that he would write this way as a journalist based upon what he writes as columnist, without any factual basis that he would do so. Or, do you have the same concern about Krauthammer, Will, Kurtz, et al.? Well, of course not. Because the name of the game is to smear the columnist for the benefit of the White House.
Posted by: Richard Estes at December 14, 2005 9:42 PM | Permalink This should be interesting: John Harris will be doing a live chat with Post.com readers tomorrow. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 14, 2005 9:55 PM | Permalink Or, do you have the same concern about Krauthammer, Will, Kurtz, et al.? Well, of course not. Because the name of the game is to smear the columnist for the benefit of the White House. Smear the columnist? Am I smearing Froomkin to call him a liberal columnist? I do not have the same concern about Krauthammer and Will because they are conservatives and do not shy away from the description. And I see the hilarious meme on the left is to call Kurtz a conservative, but that's because apoplectic liberals cannot believe their eyes when a Postie respectfully quotes right-wing, as well as left-wing, opinion. Now, for the facts: Froomkin's column was moved into the Opinion category sometime earlier this year (I haven't been able to determine when). That's good. It's actually one of the more amazing things about this discussion--Harris (and Howell) started out by saying Froomkin is writing an opinion column and post.com needs to make that more clear. Then we got all the liberal rage about smearing Froomkin. Then we get defenses saying he's writing an opinion column. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 14, 2005 11:13 PM | Permalink OK, Christopher, I'll ask a direct question or so: Are you saying Froomkin denies being a liberal? Seems that's his main viewpoint. Are you saying here are denying Froomkin is a liberal? Are you truly not aware that Froomkin and most online commentary is opinion? You appear to be attempting to make some point or another - other than an argumentative and laughable notion that the Washington Post's news reporting is skewed leftist. But damned if I can figure out what you're trying to say. Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 14, 2005 11:53 PM | Permalink Dave, Froomkin is the fellow objecting to being described as a liberal columnist, a description self-evidently true to me and many others. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 15, 2005 12:19 AM | Permalink Precisely: self-evident. So why make an argument? Why try to persuade? If the people you are supposed to persuade don't see what is already self-evident, what are the chances they will even grasp what you are saying? Zippo. Your posts reflect this. The way you use it, self-evident means: why would I try to demonstrate it to those already in manifest denial of the obvious? Meanwhile, there is a worthy discussion of the Froomkin episode going on at Joel Achenbach's Achenblog (first true blog at the Post site.) I am porting over from there a longish comment I left: There is a lot of thought in these comments. It's impressive. I hope you do post about it tomorrow, Joel, because your people done good. Comment at Achenblog, washingtonpost.com Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 12:38 AM | Permalink Well, not exactly, Christopher. He wrote that he didn't want his columns dismissed solely as liberal cant. Froomkin also wrote was that he does not advocate policy, liberal or otherwise, in his columns. And, more precisely, that the president of the United States should be subjected to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable, irrespective of political party. You don't agree with that? Is any criticism of President Bush a mark of liberal ideology? Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 15, 2005 12:43 AM | Permalink Gee, Jay, I thought there was a worthy discussion going on here. I stated that Froomkin is self-evidently liberal because that's what I believe. Not everything that's thrown into a comment section is fully developed, agreed? I discuss the idea in more detail here. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 15, 2005 2:36 AM | Permalink Hey thanks for putting that post together, Chris. It allows me to see what you mean by self-evident. Very good. Now here's a retort. You write: On Oct. 14 after Harold Pinter won a Nobel, Froomkin informed us that Pinter's own Web site offers a window into the author's feelings about American militarism... Hmmm. So Pinter wins the Prize, Froomkin writes: The Nobel Committee may just have a grudge against President Bush. Then he links to Pinter's site. And that--his argument that the Nobel committee may have a grudge against Bush, his "see for yourself" link to Pinter--is regarded by Christopher Fotos as evidence of how soaked in left liberalism Dan Froomkin really is? I would say it's not quite self-evident. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 9:16 AM | Permalink The most telling part of the deLong/Harris exchange is this part... Q: I read you telling Jay Rosen that Dan Froomkin critic Patrick Ruffini was a grassroots conservative weblogger. And my jaw dropped because he is eCampaign Director for the Republican National Committee. A matter not of conservative grassroots complaints about liberal bias but rather Bush-can-do-no-wrong paid Republican operatives working the ref. So why did you characterize Ruffini in this way? In other words, Harris felt free to tell Delong that back in March, Ruffino was working for neither the Bush/Cheney campaign nor the RNC... but wouldn't comment on whether he knew when he cited Ruffino that he was, in fact, a professional political partisan. *************** I really wish Froomkin would stop being so gracious about this, and provide a link to a moonbat post about Harris entitled something like "John Harris -- Partisan Douchebag" with the disclaimer "Without agreeing with the views of this liberal blogger who took on Harris, I would say his argument does not seem far-fetched to me." I can guarantee you that Harris would hit the roof, and that Howell would be screaming bloody murder... Jay, it is a rare partisan of any stripe who never ever points in different directions. Obviously (self-evidently? sorry!) I believe that most of Froomkin's work is of the type I've described and excerpted. I can find a couple Richard Cohen columns a year that say something positive about Bush, but that doesn't mean he isn't a liberal. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 15, 2005 10:17 AM | Permalink Wait a minute, Chris. Your post tries to provide evidence from his recent writings that Froomkin is not an "accountability journalist" writing a fair-minded but tough column that holds that White House accountable, as he contends, but a liberal pundit who engages in the same reflexive Bush-bashing seen elsewhere in the blogosphere, which is what you say. "I feel like I'm trying to prove the existence of gravity," you write. In other words, it's completely obvious that Froomkin is a liberal pundit who engages in the same reflexive Bush-bashing seen elsewhere in the blogosphere, as obvious as the law of gravity, but just in case some thicked-headed press critics don't get it, you'll provide some illustrative examples, right? Right. And one of the obvious-as-gravity examples you offer us turns out to be an exception-that-proves the rule kind of thing, where Froomkin actually points out the grudge against Bush that a European prize committee appears to hold, rather like Captain Ed or Michelle Malkin would. This self-evident thing is tricky. See what I mean? "But according to skeptics at Jay Rosen's PressThink, and maybe Jay himself, I'm supposed to believe Froomkin isn't a liberal columnist," you write. No, you're supposed to ask yourself whether perhaps you don't understand Froomkin and what he's doing as well as you thought. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 11:07 AM | Permalink Chris.... with only 24% of American's "strongly approving" of Bush's performance (according to today's Rasmussen", criticism of Bush is a reflection of "mainstream", not liberal, values. So rather than complain about Froomkin's alleged "liberal bias", you really should be concentrating on why you are so far out of the mainstream on this issue... Jay, can you help me better understand the Foofaraw? What are the meaningful differences between the Look & Feel of Froomkin's webpage in Feb 2005 and yesterday as it relates to the alleged confusion between reporting, news analysis, op/ed, blog, carnival, ...? You asked about Froomkin's URL at Achenblog. Why? Did you get a satisfactory response? Froomkin's column yesterday linked to, and quoted from, other reporters/columnists discussing the White House Conference on Aging. But when I tried to verify the accuracy of some of those quotes, I found them questionable. For example: From NPR: "But he skipped the White House conference -- making him the first president not to speak to delegates in the event's half-century history." Is that true? Eisenhower/Kennedy, Nixon, Carter/Reagan and Clinton spoke to the delegates at the conference? Clinton certainly did. From the St. Petersburg Times: "Unlike his three predecessors, including his father, Bush will not attend the four-day conference." When did his father attend? In 1981 as Vice President, since there wasn't a conference held between 1988 and 1992? If these quotes are incorrect, and Froomkin links/quotes them uncritically as part of "discourse accountability" or "accountability reporting/journalism", what does that tell us about Froomkin? About accountabilism? Posted by: Sisyphus at December 15, 2005 12:03 PM | Permalink I don't think Harris is doing such a great deal at his webchat with these matters. He's basically saying he won't comment on it because he wants the affair to die down. Is that really a position A MEDIA OUTLET gets to determine about a story? I posted a couple of questions that I knew he would ignore, but one reference to transperancy and trust...by ignoring the story isn't he breaking that trust with the readers by saying essentially "I'm not going to comment on Frookin because I want that story to die down." Its very imperial of the Post and makes them basically like the NY Times with the Miller-in-jail poses. Posted by: catrina at December 15, 2005 12:07 PM | Permalink I was quite sure he would do that-- minimize it. Use Jack Shafer-style humor to suggest that he and his colleagues don't take the blog world very seriously. Here's the entirety of what Harris said in the live chat. He got tons, he took one question. Des Moines, Iowa: Is there a reason that your concerns about Dan Froomkin's column surfaced now after it has been running for (I believe) over two years? Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 12:14 PM | Permalink Hmmm...he took two. His final question deals with Patrick Ruffini and Brad Delong (sure took his sweet time composing it!) Again your right, the blogsphere doesn't matter "But I had jointly decided with colleagues that I had responded enough to the blogosphere, so I took a pass." Translation: Everytime I talked to someone I was further exposing the real situation (transperancy) this tactic not only wasn't working but made the situation worse. So far Harris has never really explained why he think Frookim is a liberal WRITER (as opposed to just personally being a liberal). Moreover I think what disturbed me about the whole situation was the comment that, you know, maybe they had to bring on a conservative colunmist JUST TO BALANCE EVERYTHING OUT. Ugh. Posted by: catrina at December 15, 2005 12:21 PM | Permalink Tim: I did get an answer on my url questions from Hal Straus of WPNI. The Post site treats Froomkin's corner as "column," not "blog." It's a column because there are no comments and it isn't updated during the day. That's why the urls are so different and why it's not listed under Post blogs. They use Typedpad software for the blogs, a propietary system for columns. I don't know that Froomkin fact checks everything he links to, but if he makes an error he will correct it next column. If you think he did make a mistake, I would e-mail him about it. My reading of it is that he meant all the presidents who were in office when the conference met, not all the presidents since 1956. I liked this from the National Journal's Blogometer yesterday: Driving the commentary on Froomkin-gate today is NYU prof. Jay Rosen's interview with "two key players" in the Post's internal dispute: Washington Post politics ed. John Harris, WPNI exec. ed. Jim Brady. I would estimate this post had about 15,000 readers coming directly to this url. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 12:29 PM | Permalink Harris' approach in his chat was completely nonresponsive. He elides the entire issue of where the pressure he says he and others felt came from by focusing on the completely trivial issue of the title of Froomkin's output. I will say this flat out--I was withholding judgment until I saw how he would deal with these legit questions. By watching him duck them, I feel justified in dismissing him from my list of objective journalists. I feel justified in further assuming that this taints the entire DC political reportage by WaPo. This entire foofaraw has turned into the anti-fooraraw. Its revelations are astounding, disturbing, and have a much greater significance than these people ever could have feared. I was willing to assume that Harris et al. were simply misguided in assessing the "objective v. balanced as applies to coverage of our governance" question. To my horror, I have been given proof that they are not misguided, but have willfully chosen sides and will continue to back our government against as many comers as they can withstand. The credibility meter just zeroed out... Posted by: Nash at December 15, 2005 12:35 PM | Permalink I stand corrected. He took two. (They didn't let me go past the hour... grrr.) Here's the second Froomkin Q and A. Sterling, Va.: When will you fess up to what exactly you know/knew about Patrick Ruffini and when exactly you knew it? Weird calculus: you get a ton of questions on X, and take only two. instead of a ton. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 12:37 PM | Permalink See how instructive this bias discourse is? When even three of Froomkin's own colleagues admit against interest that Froomkin's work slants left or liberal, it becomes a measure of other observers' credibility or perceptiveness if they persist in denying it. You see, even an argument brought to stalemate by one side being willfully obtuse or arguing in bad faith is illuminating to observers. Die hard righties and lefties may be reluctant to concede, but they're not the only ones observing. One's refusal to concede truth about Froomkin's ideological slant tells us something about any similar claims one makes about other journalists' objectivity. Neat. Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 15, 2005 12:43 PM | Permalink "Admit against interest?" Not for Harris. It is entirely in the interest of Post political reporters to call his column "liberal spin" as against "accountability journalism" because one of the groups he tries to hold accountable is White House reporters, including the Post's. They don't like to be second guessed by him. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 12:54 PM | Permalink Now, I'm going to analyze why Mr. Achenbach stepped into this and why I think it was both an honest, even admirable, thing to do and a serious mistake. In order to do it, I take the liberty of assuming his state of mind. Flash back a couple of weeks ago to David Corn's defense of Viveca Novak from her many detractors. His was a completely and understandably human response to seeing a friend under attack. It did not matter that with each new revelation, her role as an actual participant in, rather than witness to, the Plame affair became increasingly manifest. Even while adding a bit more to his "okay, she made some mistakes" disclaimers, he continued to spring to her defense, much as you would do at a party if a friend, not present, came in for what you felt was unfair criticism. I think Mr. Achenbach's motivations were similar--I can't say whether it is an issue of personal friendship--in fact, I think the "friend" that Mr. Achenbach is most keen to defend, again admirably if wrongheaded in this particular instance, is the WaPo. Nevertheless, he inserted himself voluntarily into the equation, seeking to smooth the waters and minimize discussion/damage by treating the issue as entirely trivial. It is significant that he not only cannot respond to the question that Mr. Harris ducked (Can you explain why we shouldn't conclude that officials in the Bush Administration are able to direct the type of coverage they receive from the WaPo?), but he resorted to attacking ("intellectual dishonesty") the "attackers." And in walking that back in an apology, he doesn't acknowledge that there are many documented reasons, not just one, to conclude that we were being told that the Bush Administration was able to direct the coverage they receive from the WaPo. Where Mr. Achenbach in this case (and Mr. Corn, in his own) made a serious error was in not being able to see that because they had become witnesses to alleged "journalistic crimes," anything they said would be forever on the record, quotable and open to cross-examination by the opposing side and final decision by the jury. What seemed a low-importance personal issue to them was anything but to most everyone else. I think he stepped in it. I can understand why. Here endeth the outrageous projection. Posted by: Nash at December 15, 2005 1:04 PM | Permalink I note, as is evident to the commenters here and at Mr. Achenbach's site, that it is obvious that Mr. Rosen "gets" it. He sees what the larger implications of this issue are and he has been trying, ever so gently, to get the principle players to grab a tree root, a branch, anything, on their march over the precipice. Which objective approach, by Mr. Harris' calculus, is proof of Mr. Rosen's bona fides as a flaming liberal. What say you, Mr. Rosen, are you at long last going to come clean about what you have just let slip out? Or will it be the other approach--the "Nash has made himself a candidate for extraordinary rendition" one? Posted by: Nash at December 15, 2005 1:27 PM | Permalink Good lord people, get a grip. It doesn't matter is Froomkin is writing "liberal spin" or "accountability journalism". The sad truth for Froomkin is that anyone who doesn't buy into Froomkins world view that Bush Bad, Bush Wrong, Bush Stupid, Bush Evil, Bush Puppet of Neo-Cons, etc. Zzzzzzzz, will not be reading Froomkin. All this hysteria about whether Froomkin is "liberal" (whatever that means) or not is frankly boring. Really, who cares? Certainly not people who want a realistic view of events. In Froomkinworld, nothing matters except Bush Bad. His view is simplistic and cartoonish. But in our current polarized world, where everything is black vs. white, good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat zzzzzzz. Sorry, where was I? Oh, yes. As to Patrick Ruffini: that the supposed liberal congnoscente, Brad DeLong, didn't know who the hell he was, reinforces my opinion that the left liberal (and also some on the right) need to get out more. Stop being so insular and circle-jerkish. Instead of refreshing TMP for the bazillionth time, branch out a little to other POVs. I knew Ruffini was the webmaster for the Bush campaign at least a year ago. Bust out of your comfort zones people! Diversity awaits you! Or not. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 1:53 PM | Permalink All this hysteria about whether Froomkin is "liberal" (whatever that means) or not is frankly boring. Really, who cares? Well, off the top of my head, and mind you, just for starters, give me some more time and I'll come up with more, kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 01:53 PM. I see this faux disinterest, yawn included, followed by its own contradiction so frequently that I think we should come up with a name for it. It's some sort of bored dipsy doo from the pike position. Degree of difficulty quite low, so it's not advisable to use it in real competition. Unless that's the hardest thing one has mastered so far, then by all means, goferit. I think there already is a term for the technique used to flesh out the second paragraph, the one where we are told that we have been arguing about whether DeLong and his assigns knew who Ruffini was or not rather than the actual discussion which is "did it strengthen or diminish Mr. Harris' argument to cite Mr. Ruffini for support"? Hmmm, what could it be? Oh yeah, I remember! That's called a strawman. Posted by: Nash at December 15, 2005 2:15 PM | Permalink Trout, What is important about the Froomkin episode is the view it provides into the minds of certain self-proclaimed "accountability journalism" practitioners: Where criticizing your reporter colleagues for not explaining, explicitly and often, how "Bush is Bad" is thought to be holding your colleagues accountable. Because, after all, "Bush is Bad"; Froomkin points this out to us as best he can. Any reporter who doesn't thoroughly suffuse his work with that clear sentiment has obviously imbibed the White House kool aid. And, by God, Froomkin will therefore hold them accountable... Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 15, 2005 2:58 PM | Permalink TA- you are not speaking into a void, but our genial host informed me that he deleted my comment because "it was nothing but an empty insult" and of course Jay won't allow his world view to be challenged. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 3:23 PM | Permalink Franklin Foer of the New Republic has just published a column about all this. He criticizes liberal bloggers for their increasingly hostile attitude toward the mainstream press. When conservatives and Bushies "take these shots, they don't just intend to rally their rank and file" in angry populist fashion. "They want to weaken the press so it will stop obstructing their agenda, a motive that liberal bloggers seem to have forgotten. By repeating conservative criticisms about the allegedly elitist, sycophantic, biased MSM, liberal bloggers have played straight into conservative hands. These bloggers have begun unwittingly doing conservatives' dirty work." And: Instead of playing by the old rules that governed the relationship between reporters and the White House, it has exploited them. For starters, there was the 2000 campaign, in which the press presented Bush as essentially the heir to Clintonian centrism, even though most of his policy prescriptions should have led reporters to a very different conclusion. The Bushies pulled off this legerdemain--and repeated the trick many times--by taking advantage of the news media's disinterested style, which obliges it to give a hearing to both sides of a debate, even if one side has uttered a total falsehood. My colleague Jonathan Chait has argued, "[The press is] evenhanded to a fault, presenting every side of an argument as equally valid, even if one side uses demonstrably false information and the other doesn't. Bush has exploited this tendency ruthlessly, most memorably in 2000, when he described his tax cut as consuming a mere quarter of the projected budget surplus." Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 3:29 PM | Permalink "We'll put you down for the circle jerk" is not a challenge to my worldview or anyone's worldview, Trout. You have some nerve suggesting it is. It's just an inane and empty insult, and it will get deleted every time I see it, no matter who types it. So quit clowning. Sheesh. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 3:34 PM | Permalink Sterling, Va.: When will you fess up to what exactly you know/knew about Patrick Ruffini and when exactly you knew it? at which point he procedes to ignore the Ruffini question, to cite an (imaginary?) liberal friend named "Dwight" who it the first known person to have actually been confused as to whether Dan Froomkin sat around the White House waiting press handouts from McClellan and company. ****************** The really weird thing about this whole controversy is that for all of Froomkin's supposedly "liberal bias", he was not a controversial figure. I really don't know if Froomkin in a liberal or not -- I do know he's a smart and savvy observer of the White House and its press corps, but the fact is I might not be so fond of him were there a liberal president. (And I'd probably be a lot more favorably disposed toward Steno Sue Schmidt if she treated a liberal President the same way she treats this one.) And that, of course, is a reflection of my biases, not Froomkin's. The perception of Froomkin's bias is just that -- a perception that is based on incomplete data. The same, however, cannot be said for the perception of Harris' biases. Here's a guy who thought that "adversarial" reporting aimed at a President's sex life was appropriate when the President was a Democrat, but finds reporting designed to hold a Republican President accountable for his policies and pronouncements to be an example of "liberal bias." Its clear from Harris' record (plus the enormous amount of crap reporting that emanates from his subordinates) where the "bias" is --- and its not with Froomkin. OK Jay, I'll mark you down for circle-jerkish and paranoid. I can't believe that a tenured professor at NYU has never studied rhetoric, and it's power. But rock on with your bad self, Jay---or better yet, delete this comment, if that's all you've got. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 3:45 PM | Permalink Foer has it dead wrong when he writes: What they're [liberal bloggers] attacking is the MSM's Progressive-era ethos of public-minded disinterestedness. what they are attack is the failure of the MSS to provide that "public minded disinterest". What [liberal bloggers] are critical of is a media that sees "balance" (regardless of the facts) as "disinterest", that sees arguments and insults more "newsworthy" than rational discourse, and that has replaced "disinterest" with "personal/corporate interest", especially when it comes to achieving and maintaining access to powerful people. And the MSM resents that criticism even more than the criticism from the right, because the "liberal media" is a myth, but the liberal critique of the media hits the bullseye. Delete me now Jay because I don't toe the party line. I double dog dare you. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 3:49 PM | Permalink (an ad hominem attack on Kilgore for being a ******* has been self-censored) ami, you are finally getting what it's like to be a minority. Not that I think it will change your POV. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 3:56 PM | Permalink So if Mr Bush is bad (just an if question) should that be pointed out and discussed or should it just be balanced out by saying well he ain't all bad and so we take the good with the bad and never challenge anything he says. I just do not understand those who are fearful of Mr Bush, Mr Clinton, Mr Whomever being asked to defend their record, their statements, their positions. This seeming idea that "he's my guy and I will defend him at all costs" is scary (as is the inverse). I did not vote for Mr Bush but he is my guy in the sense that he is the leader of the country that I served for 23 years in the military. I want him to make this a better country and I do not want him to be a failed President. I do want him to know he must lead all of us, not just those who agree with him. Those who are his supporters (politically that is) must be as eager to call him to tasks as those who are his distractors. Posted by: Jon at December 15, 2005 4:19 PM | Permalink Jay, Posted by: bush's jaw at December 15, 2005 4:25 PM | Permalink Interesting. Harris has been caught in several lies. He decides to pour oil on the waters by deriding people who disagree with him as "the crankosphere." He dismisses a former Treasury official and present Stanford Professor as a "blogger" with a "hostile" attitude. How deep a professional grave does John Harris need to dig himself? This self-evident thing is tricky. See what I mean? "But according to skeptics at Jay Rosen's PressThink, and maybe Jay himself, I'm supposed to believe Froomkin isn't a liberal columnist," you write. No, you're supposed to ask yourself whether perhaps you don't understand Froomkin and what he's doing as well as you thought. Jay, I do not believe this is a very persuasive rebuttal. My proposition is that Froomkin has a liberal bias. I provided links to all his columns of the last few months. I provided excerpts of what I maintain are typical Froomkin postings. You provide one possible semi counterpoint--and that is supposed to collapse my entire argument? No. You should be asking from which side of the aisle Froomkin appears to speak, most of the time. Another useful question is how often Froomkin provides lengthy quotes from Bush's defenders--that would help support the idea that Froomkin is some kind of independent truth teller, examining the question of what Bush is up to from every possible angle. That is certainly not the angle that most of Froomkin's fans are interested in. As I said, Froomkin must be the most misunderstood guy around, attracting liberal supporters and conservative critics. And I also think it's very telling that Froomkin's clip jobs rarely if ever attack Bush from the right. Despite Ami's portrayal, common from the left, as conservatives as right-wing Rovian Robots, there are certainly critiques within conservatism that are not complimentary! These you do not ordinarily see. Thanks for taking the time to read that post and respond, seriously. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 15, 2005 5:01 PM | Permalink Mr Fotos, I truly wished you would define "liberal bias"? I could conclude from your comments that you take it any attempt to question a conservative as liberal bias, or using the words of others who question/challenge a conservative as liberal bias. Can you point out some conservatives that challenge this President on anything other than the Harriet Miers nomination? If the purpose of a given column is to challenge the statements and positions of those in power, how can that be perceived as a liberal (or conservative for that matter ) bias. It might be a bias against those in power but I am not sure that makes it liberal. You seem to be a very thoughtful individual and I would love for you to take a moment or point me to something you have previously written that will give a clear understanding of what you call liberal bias. Posted by: Curious at December 15, 2005 5:11 PM | Permalink "As I said, Froomkin must be the most misunderstood guy around, attracting liberal supporters and conservative critics. "
Posted by: Curious at December 15, 2005 5:13 PM | Permalink "...the news media's disinterested style, which obliges it to give a hearing to both sides of a debate, even if one side has uttered a total falsehood. My colleague Jonathan Chait has argued, "[The press is] evenhanded to a fault, presenting every side of an argument as equally valid, even if one side uses demonstrably false information and the other doesn't..." Clearly this is the basis for a desire by some for an antidote to "he-said, she-said" journalism. Might work when the issue in dispute is whether the the bank was robbed at 8:00 am or 8:00 pm. But the most important issues are not likely to be so cut and dried. We can't even agree here that Froomkin is liberal. What is the reporter supposed to report about the claim that President Bush lied the U.S. into war with Iraq? (Wait, I think it might be illuminating after all to know what certain reporters and editors think about that...) If "point-of-view" journalism is adopted as a basis for reporting news, let no one call it objective or unbiased. Indeed, let it be clearly labeled as only one point of view. And God forbid if the liberals who fill our dominant media newsrooms get to judge which claims are true and which are false; they're the ones who often participate in the distorting. I can just see it: "Our first story on CBS Evening News tonight - Democrats say Republicans are wrong*; Republicans say Democrats are wrong*. But as a reporter, I can state the true fact is that Republicans are wrong and Democrats are right. That's the way it is." * You pick the political topic: Gun ownership, abortion, tax increases, homosexual marriage. The reporter is going to start calling which side's disputed and arguable claim is right? You can bet the reporter (and his editors) will call fewer fouls on the team with which their ideological sympathies lie. Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 15, 2005 5:15 PM | Permalink As to Patrick Ruffini: that the supposed liberal congnoscente, Brad DeLong, didn't know who the hell he was, reinforces my opinion that the left liberal (and also some on the right) need to get out more. Stop being so insular and circle-jerkish. Instead of refreshing TMP for the bazillionth time, branch out a little to other POVs. I knew Ruffini was the webmaster for the Bush campaign at least a year ago. Bust out of your comfort zones people! Diversity awaits you! Or not. Since I had a whole post up about DeLong & Ruffini, I think I should note that DeLong visited my blog and commented. I don't buy the argument, but for the sake of one-stop-shopping at Jay's blog, this is what he said: You miss my point. If you are looking for an eloquent and capable Republican activist of a Bush-can-do-no-wrong variety, Pat Ruffini is very easy to find. If you are looking--as John Harris represented himself to be--for a weblogger to serve as an indicator of general conservative opinion, you have to work hard to find Pat. My claim is not that Pat is persona non grata. My claim is that nobody playing it straight would view Pat as anything other than what he is--a capable and eloquent Republican operative. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 15, 2005 5:17 PM | Permalink Greetings Curious. Three intra-conservative kerfluffles include as you say Harriet Miers but also illegal immigration and, more below the radar but visceral, abortion--many anti-abortion Christians believe Bush provides primarily lip-service for the prolife cause. Massive federal spending increases is another one--it's hard to remember, children, but once upon a time the GOP was the small-government party. Seriously, you can look it up. For examples of bias, read PostWatch every single day! If you're too well-adjusted for that, i.e., if you have a life, here's my Froomkin is a liberal post, which did not persaude Jay. Here is a recent post summarizing just a handful of liberal-bias cases at the Post. Here's one not included in that post, the notorious whitewashing of the Stalinist background of one of the chief organizers of antiwar protest in DC this summer, International ANSWER. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 15, 2005 5:32 PM | Permalink Curious, as you'll see in my Accidental Liberal post about Froomkin, all you have to do is read the comments from Froomkin's defenders to get a hint about where most of them are coming from. Another indicator would be links from blogs. Most bloggers who like Froomkin are from the left. Most who criticize him are on the right. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 15, 2005 5:35 PM | Permalink Thanks Mr Fotos for your response but maybe I did not make my question clear...I was not looking for you to cite examples...I was hoping you would define 'liberal bias' that would help me then evaluate whether the examples you cite fit your definition. Can you help me out there? Posted by: Curious at December 15, 2005 5:38 PM | Permalink Okay, Chris. Let's take another piece of proof. You write: "Back on March 31, in a link helpfully saved by the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Froomkin concludes his column on Terri Schiavo." And then there's a long quotation from White House Briefing, which is nothing but an excerpt from a Digby post. Thus: Later, blogger Digby wrote: "By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. . . . You conclude the item by writing: "This is what liberals talk about when they talk about Bush." Well, Digby is a liberal blogger, and talks like one, yeah. Froomkin is quoting Digby because Digby is criticizing Bush over the Schiavo case, which the column was discussing. What does your example prove--or excuse me, show--about Froomkin? That he quotes liberal bloggers? If it is true (I don't know that it is, but if we had the data showing) that Froomkin never or almost never features Bush being criticized from the Right, that would seem to me to be fair criticism and a serious weakness in his approach. If it was pointed out to him and he didn't fix the blind spot, it would make me wonder about him as a columnist. Also, as a reader I would feel ill-served. I am not ill-served because Froomkin ended his column with a quote from Digby. Neither are you. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 5:39 PM | Permalink TA....Report on CBS news....Democrats declare that A=b, however the facts are A=A......I don't look for reporters to take one side or the other, but if they are only going to report what one sides says about the other side or report only facts according to one side or the other then we are not served as a public. Posted by: Curious at December 15, 2005 5:47 PM | Permalink Ok, Froomkin is fair and balanced---can we please move on? Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 5:47 PM | Permalink Mr Trout, If this is so trivial to you why do you come here and take the time to read? For me this is not about Mr Froomkin ( I have read his blog from time to time but no avid reader in any sense). For me this about the role of the press and how labels have become this weapon that allows those in power not to be held accountable for their actions. That might seems over dramatized and life as we know it will not end because of this but I am curious how others thing through issues like this and I find this discussion to be worthwhile. To what would you like to move on to? Posted by: Curious at December 15, 2005 5:54 PM | Permalink Forgive the typos...."this is about" and I want to know how others "think through"....I guess I should be curious enough to proofread before hitting send....sorry Posted by: Curious at December 15, 2005 5:56 PM | Permalink No: Froomkin's aim is to be fair and imbalanced when things are out of whack. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 15, 2005 6:10 PM | Permalink That's really deep Curious, but those who view The Froomkins as brave truthtellers and those who view The Froomkins as partisan hacks,never the twain shall meet. Haven't you heard----we're a polarized nation. Why do I come here? Well, because I'm looking for press criticism, not political hackery. Howzaboutyou, Curious? Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 6:25 PM | Permalink Jay, the point is that Froomkin typically showcases attacks from the left. That was one example. There are many others. As I said before, I am contending this is Froomkin's standard operating procedure. If you can show me many examples where Froomkin gives lots of room to bloggers or anyone giving the best possible conservative defense of Bush, then I'm wrong. A column devoted to milbloggers would be an example (obviously I'm pretty sure he hasn't done that, but let's just say). Bush contends the media only focuses on bad news in Iraq. A wide network of bloggers agree with him, as A, B, and C lay out... This would require Froomkin to depart from his collection of the standard left critique, so I don't expect you'll be able to find it in any significant quantity. And Curious, the examples, the definitions, the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth are on the blog. You've got to read it if you want to know what I'm talking about. It's okay if you don't! But it's all there, I'm not going to retype it here. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 15, 2005 6:26 PM | Permalink Thanks Jay, for linking to Foer's column. I found this noteworthy: Atrios, one of the most popular of the liberal bloggers, recently threw up his arms: "If idiots destroy institutions there's no reason to continue to respect them." (Their derisive attitude resembles nothing more than the New Left, which charged journalism with dullingI think it's worth a few more links from PressThink: Your comment from In the Press Room of the White House that is Post Press Denying and destroying the legitmacy of a social institution is a series of acts over a period of time undertaken by many people who understand the overall task. There are all kinds of ways that theAnd I would like to recommend for those who have not read it, Political Jihad and the American Blog: Chris Satullo Raises the Stakes Finally, Jay, any thoughts on Allbritton's move to TypeKey for comments? Posted by: Sisyphus at December 15, 2005 7:04 PM | Permalink Mr Fotos....can you give me a link to your site where you give the definition of liberal bias? I have read several items on your site and I have not seen it. Seems to me that this really is not a definition that you or those who seem to be quick to throw out. It is a simple request and one that I would think you could handle very quickly. Mr Trout....I am not all that deep, just a guy trying to participate in the discussion. Posted by: Curious at December 15, 2005 7:04 PM | Permalink Chris I take it that you definition of liberal bias then is to cite attacks from the left on a conservative without citing attack from the right? Or it is to cite attacks from the left (even if they are factual) without citing support from the right? Is it possible that Mr Froomkin is seeking to hold those in power accountable for their words and one way to do that is to cite information from sources that do just that? Posted by: jon at December 15, 2005 7:08 PM | Permalink OK Jay, you can be a cheerleader for Froomkin, but you'll never convince me or anyone else that he isn't playing to his base instead of trying to persuade others to his POV. The sad truth is that The Froomkins want you to like them, really, really like them, as long as you have their ideology----and screw everyone else. Buh-by Froomkins. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 7:15 PM | Permalink That Foer article raises some excellent points. I understand that many fellow liberals are upset about the MSM but there's quite a bit of difference between someone like John Harris being non-liberal or conservative and being in Rove's pocket (as I've seen alluded to in many different ways the last week). Plus there's all the talk about how he should be fired (for what exactly?) and the offensive nickname attached to him elsewhere. Also - whatever her journalistic sins or mistakes (probably fireable offenses, yes) Viveca Novak - if you look at her past work - is not a GOP shill (and certainly doesn't deserve to go to jail). I really wish there could be more press thinking from the left and less press ranting. If other blogs and forums discussed this in a "responsible" and non-hysterical manner....then folks like John Harris wouldn't be able to just shrug us all off. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at December 15, 2005 7:35 PM | Permalink "I really wish there could be more press thinking from the left and less press ranting." Well said, Brother Brynaert, and I would also add we need less press ranting from the right as well. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 7:44 PM | Permalink Sisyphus, Funny you should bring Foer's out-of-context quote from Atrios with his completely off-the-wall interpretation of those words. Here's what Atrios actually wrote (in response to something Foer wrote): Look, I'm highly critical of individual elements of the mainstream media and of certain cultural aspects of the beltway media but I've never had any idea to tear down the basic institutions of newspapers. Generalizations are always going to fail us, which is why I can't defend liberal bloggers against such a generalized smear (so, name some names), but I've never seen most liberal bloggers making a "reckless, sweeping assault" on the Times and the Post. They aren't just institutions, they're outlets run (cough keller cough) and staffed (cough miller bumiller nagourney bruni cough) and published (cough pinch cough) by individuals.
As you can see, an entirely reasonable opinion on much the same topics that are discussed here. Foer wrongly characterizes that one out-of-context statement as some wild-eyed commie-tinged tirade. http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_04_atrios_archive.html#113384672264089637 Posted by: Phredd at December 15, 2005 7:49 PM | Permalink I totally agree with Atrios---- I'll no longer get my news from WaPo, Times-Democrat and WSJ, I'll get my news from Kos and DU. (slaps forehead) Why didn't I think of that sooner? I'm such a maroon! Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 8:01 PM | Permalink "ami, you are finally getting what it's like to be a minority. Not that I think it will change your POV." Awww, poor Trout. Poor, poor Trout. His POV controls both houses of Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the majority of statehouses in the country, the predominant part of the blogosphere ... and yet ... and yet ... he still imagines himself to be among the aggrieved "minority." We're all accustomed to the grievances of the disenfranchised ... but what's this with the gnashing of teeth, the wails and the lamentations of the enfranchised ? Sorry, pal, but that's going to take some getting used to. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 15, 2005 8:05 PM | Permalink Good lord, Lovelady, you are so clueless, I don't even know how to address your comment. You just rock on with your bad self. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 8:22 PM | Permalink don't feed the troll Posted by: Anna Haynes at December 15, 2005 8:45 PM | Permalink "Good lord, Lovelady, you are so clueless, I don't even know how to address your comment." Sorry, Ace, but where I come from (rural Wyoming) that's not considered an answer.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 15, 2005 9:27 PM | Permalink Phredd, Thanks for the link to the full Atrios post. It lead me to further discussion on the topic by Kevin Drum: A similar thing is true of the blogosphere, both liberal and conservative, when it comes to the MSM. It's not that pointing out the shortcomings of the MSM is out of bounds. Far from it. But when blog coverage of the MSM focuses solely on its shortcomings — as it generally does — surely it's safe to conclude that the blogosphere is not just practicing its own version of toughlove on a beloved but wayward institution. Rather, the blogosphere hates the MSM with a white hot passion.In the same post I found this interesting tidbit: "Dan Froomkin gives us the straight dope from the White House briefing room on a daily basis.". Not that Drum's confused about Froomkin. Posted by: Sisyphus at December 15, 2005 10:04 PM | Permalink Well, I rarely see any criticism of the White House from the right. One exception is John Cole of Balloon Juice on the torture issue. What you see on the right instead are blind attacks on anyone who dares criticize the Dear Leader, presumably because he does not have the wherewithal to defend his positions himself. Thus he runs away from any debate and keeps himself in some kind of comfortable bubble where everyone soothes his frazzled nerves, leaving his acolytes to blindly rage and wield their bludgeons against anyone who would point that out. For example, none of his defenders here have provided a shred of evidence that anything Froomkin or anyone else has written was not based on fact. They attack the person instead of the argument. It's not liberal per se to observe that cutting the Medicare programs that pay for the medical care of brain-damaged persons like Terry Schiavo while flying to Washington at midnight to sign a bill forcing medical providers to keep a brain-damaged woman alive in perpetuity is, um, hypocritical. Posted by: Phredd at December 15, 2005 10:18 PM | Permalink There's a real Kilgore Trout? Who knew? Since this is my second persona at PressThink and since Jay knows my identity because I pitched a bitch about a deleted comment, I do believe it is time to go to Phase III and say buh-bye Trout. Posted by: kilgore trout at December 15, 2005 10:18 PM | Permalink Phredd, How is that Atrios link reasonable? First, he denies the existence of any "reckless, sweeping assault" when it can be seen on his blog posts or in his comments sections many times a day. Then he concludes by justifying such assaults. I know that Atrios and Markos (among others) have often said that they won't to be considered journalists...but - like it or not - they are pundits and media critics which - like it or not - falls under journalism. Explain to me how posts with titles like They're All Whiny-Ass Titty-Babies fall under the category of "reasonable." Posted by: Ron Brynaert at December 15, 2005 10:33 PM | Permalink Interesting comments over at Public Eye: I only read the Post online. I thought they were one in the same and thought Froomkin was a liberal columnist. I thought he appeared in the paper. Posted by: Sisyphus at December 15, 2005 11:11 PM | Permalink People--not you people, but others I know--keep asking me if I am "sticking with" my statement that the Washington Post is the flagship paper, and the New York Times second. My answer is yes, and it's precisely because it will argue things in the open sometimes. I would hate it if the Post were penalized for that, because I think it is critical for newspapers and news organizations to find all kinds of ways to be more open, and argue openly. The problem is that being open, in the good way, also means you are more open to attack, which feels bad, and is bad. Bloggers sense this: the power of their fabled "MSM" (a term I do not use) but also its weakness, where it is lame, weakly defended. There's a lot of truth in what Franklin Foer wrote. Here's a thought for you. I don't think conservatives know what they are doing in their attack on the press; but I don't think the left knows what it wants, either. Both sides are tempted to make their writers rise by pulling down crumbling portions of Fortress Newsroom and charging through the holes. How do you win legitimacy when you start with none? Bring down an elite that previously had it, and you "rise" relative to where you were. Glenn Reynolds calls blogging "mostly media criticism" (not an exact quote) for this reason. Of course, there is no endless supply of Dan Rathers to discredit. After a while destruction of the city begins to seem stupid. I tried to give John Harris, Jim Brady, and Dan Froomkin the chance to gather their thoughts, and make statements that were more expressive, and well thought out. It was supposed to be a "cooling" action that didn't stop the action. If there was any hesitance in their decision to cooperate--and there was, on all sides--it was for precisely the reasons Foer sketches. The ignornant armies that clashed by night now go at it 24 hours a day on the blogs. Who wants to get caught in that? You know what Jim Brady excutive editor of the post.com said to me when he saw the post come to life? "I love full text. You can say what you mean." One thing I said to them: look at the action on your post.blog and Achenbach. Amazing stuff from passionated readers. I would be linking, and adding value to washingtonpost.com right now if you guys had unique urls for each comment-- as PressThink does. This was sent by e-mail Dec. 14, they had permalinks up at Achenblog Dec. 15, with a short,"thanks for the suggestion." So, yeah: still think they're the flagship. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 12:23 AM | Permalink For example, none of his defenders here have provided a shred of evidence that anything Froomkin or anyone else has written was not based on fact. They attack the person instead of the argument. silly boy. Don't you know by now that facts are liberal, which is why the Bush administration is so contemptuous of the "reality based community." Harris has deleted his blog entry. Fascinating way to deal with criticism. Posted by: Kevin Lyda at December 16, 2005 4:06 AM | Permalink Ron, Could we separate the content of a blogger's posts from the content of the comments in response to the post? As at Press Think, there is a wide range of opinions expressed in the comment section in response to a given post. This is particularly true at Atrios' place. You wouldn't attribute Trout's or Foto's opinions to Jay because of the comments they make in response to Jay's pieces. Two, the post I linked to was titled "Relentless Sweeping Assault", a term that Foer used. You are saying that the post "Relentless Sweeping Assault" wasn't reasonable because some weeks later Atrios wrote another post titled Whiny Ass Titty Babies. Three, how is it a "sweeping, reckless assault" to criticize particular journalists (in colorful terms) when they act like arrogant jerks to their readers? Or for that matter, how is it a "sweeping, reckless assault" to observe that the Telegraph became a rag after Conrad Black bought it (in colorful terms)? Please tell me how "Relentless Sweeping Assault" isn't reasonable to a reasonable reader. Posted by: Phredd at December 16, 2005 7:03 AM | Permalink I stand corrected. He took two. (They didn't let me go past the hour... grrr.) Here's the second Froomkin Q and A. Jay, you really weren't "wrong" here. Harris stopped answering questions at noon --- I kept checking back to see if he was going to continue for at least 10 minutes after the "final" response was posted, and then realized he was done. Harris came back to "answer" that last question. My guess is that he thought he was being slick -- he knew his non-answer to the Ruffini question would probably generate hundreds of "BULLSHIT!" responses, so he waited until everyone had stopped "refreshing" and gone onto other things, THEN responded. That's speculative, but its an absolute fact that the final, final question was answered well after noon, and well after the previous question had been responded to -- and your original statement was quite reasonable. I don't think conservatives know what they are doing in their attack on the press; but I don't think the left knows what it wants, either. Both sides are tempted to make their writers rise by pulling down crumbling portions of Fortress Newsroom and charging through the holes. Jay, "conservatives" have know what they've wanted from their press criticism since the days of Spiro Agnew and the "nattering nabobs of negatism" -- to work the refs, and discredit factual reporting that is critical of conservative causes and leaders. "The left" also knows what it wants -- the truth. The general "left" critique of the "MSM" is not that it is ideologically biased, but that the race for "profits" and the need for "access" have resulted in the press no longer fulfilling its function properly. The left craves the truth because we are the reality-based community, and are confident that when all the facts are on the table, the left wins every argument based on the truths that can be derived from those facts. What I think the left would like to see is for the Washington Post and the rest of the MSM to admit the obvious -- that the constant need for "access" results in reporting that distorts stories in favor of the sources that are used, and when the vast majority of the power is held by one party with a consistent, ideologically based message, the result in a significant "bias" in favor of the party in power. The problem isn't that the Post and others don't include facts that make Bush look bad -- the problem is that in order to maintain access while publishing these "bad facts" the Post must also publish "White House spin" as facts. In other words, we get it. We understand the challenges faced by the press, and we accept them -- but that doesn't mean we think its "okay", just that its practically inevitable. The Harris dust-up, however, is on a different level entirely. Its not just about making sure that there is a Steno Sue Schmidt on the Post, and that her "reporting" gets prominent display at the Post. Its not just about employing Jim "Pool Boy" VandeHei to channel Karl Rove's spin. Its about Harris taking someone who is describing the nature of the White House press and how it is manipulated, and insisting that he be assigned to the "ghetto" of "liberal opinion" rather than "clear-headed analyst." In other words, its about Harris interfering with the truth, and turning truth into "opinion." ....and its now about Harris not just being a whore for access as part of his job, but with the Ruffini revelations and the examination of his record as a reporter and editor, its becoming apparent that Harris is, in fact, an ideologue, and is skewing the paper's coverage not just to maintain access, but to promote the GOP agenda. (According to Harris, "adversarial" reporting is appropriate when you are digging into Clinton's sex life because he "lies" about it, but not when thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis are being slaughtered because Bush "lies" about the need for such slaughter). That doesn't mean, of course, that "the left" understands the full implications and potential consequences of its actions --- nobody does, because nobody can accurately predict the future. But I'm all in favor of "the left" continuing to criticism the "MSM", because one of "the left's" biggest problems has been its tendency to delay taking necessary action until "all the facts are in, and all possibilities and potential consequences have been examined." Harris has deleted his blog entry. Fascinating way to deal with criticism. in fact, EVERYTHING has been deleted related to the exchange. Howell's original column and comments, Dan's response and comments, and Harris's reply and comments, have all been removed from "washingtonpostblog". (Howell's column can still be found in its usually "ombudsman" place, but it had also been posted to "washingtonpostblog" and is now gone. Welcome to the "Ministry of Truth".... Very strange: Froomkin's post and Harris reply at the post.blog are both gone, but the blog is up. Could be that they both went over 1,000 comments and it crashed them. Could be something else. I e-mailed Jim Brady about it. Last thing the Post needs is a take down controversy. Let you know what I find out. UPDATE: That was fast. TypePad crashed overnight, Brady says. That's why the blog entries don't show. They went to back up copy but recent entries are a no-go. Here's the status">http://status.sixapart.com/">status page. Foer "... liberals shouldn't be so quick to help conservatives crush old media." Public Eye has a short post up about the Franklie Foer article. Here's what I said in comments: In return for this differential--a more enlightened don't-destroy-the-institution attitude among liberals and their bloggers--what should liberals expect from the press? A lecture on balance? I'm quite sure the answer from journalists would be: no differential treatment! Ever! Are you kidding? That would kill our credibility! Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 8:48 AM | Permalink Jay... the achenblog post (and comments) you cited are ALSO gone. In fact, someone appears to have screwed up, because everything after 12/10/05 from Achenbach is gone... And while Dan and Harris's bits did attract a lot of comments, Howell's had fewer than 100..and that is gone too. this isn't a systems crash. ami... Their blogs run on TypePad. TypePad crashed, Brady says. That's why the blog entries don't show. Here's the status">http://status.sixapart.com/">status page. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 8:56 AM | Permalink Jay... all sorts of weird stuff is going on, it isn't just typepad. Up until about 10 minutes ago, you could access the full list of blogs from the Drop Down menu on the homepage. Now, Dan's is the only one that shows up. You can still access all the "back-ups" of thes blogs from a drop down menu from the "opinion" home page. (and it seems that the last back up was done right before Deborah Howell's piece was posted on washingtonpostblog on the 11th) so, call me paranoid -- but there may be a reason typepad crashed, i.e. someone tried to delete the "Froomkin to-do" entries, and screwed things up. Regardless, the Post has more 'spainin' to do, IMHO. okay... you're paranoid. Froomkin and Kurtz are "columns" in site speak and don't run on TypePad. By the way, Brad Delong is also down. Why? TypePad! Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 9:08 AM | Permalink Going back a post to Bob Woodward, the new Woodward--okay, the investigative journalist with his spirit--is Murray Waas. He has major revelations in the Plame case to report, explaining why Rove and Novak were talking in the first place. With all his sources, why isn't Woodward breaking these stories? Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 9:36 AM | Permalink I'm down too. At the moment I can't log into Typepad, and PostWatch is displaying old posts. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 16, 2005 9:58 AM | Permalink By the way, Brad Delong is also down. Why? TypePad! Jay, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but Brad Delong is up -- and blogs using "moveable type", not type pad. That being said, I did find a typepad blog that is apparently experiencing problems ("Next Hurrah" by emptywheel). Its not down, but nothing posted fairly late on December 10 is on the site) so it may actually be a "typepad-wide" problem whose timing is sheer coincidence. And my point about Dan's blog being the only one listed is irrelevant to Kurtz-- who WASN'T listed under blogs in the drop down menu at that time. (I don't know where Kurtz is usually found on the Post website.... is he a "clear headed analyst" according to Harris and thus afforded (like every one of his reporter's opinion pieces that are labelled "analysis") the privilege of being considered "news", or is he relegated to the "opinion" ghetto that Harris has forced Froomkin's genuinely clear-headed analysis into?) You're being argumentative too. Delong's blog is up, but nothing after Dec. 10, and so all his posts on Froomkin are down. Just like Christopher: old posts only. Movable Type and Type Pad are different products from the same company, Six Apart. DeLong's url is http://delong.typepad.com Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 10:24 AM | Permalink grrr.... Jay, I wasn't being argumentative then, but I am now. you said the problem was "typepad", that Brad deLong was "down", and that he was "typepad". In other words, you made three misakes. I made one -- not checking the date when I saw that deLong was up, and just looking at the URL to see if he was "typepad". (Not possessing the highly specialized knowledge of the ownership of two different blog programs is not a "mistake", IMHO.) But I also went the extra step -- found an actual "typepad" blog that was experiencing problems, and affirming your essential position. Thanks to our mutual errors, we now know that the problem isn't "typepad", its "Six Apart". But I get accused of being "argumentative"?!?! PS... brad delong's homepage url is also http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/Index.html which is how I have him bookmarked... Yep. I can't check every single Typepad blog, there must be gazillions, but all my regulars are displaying old posts--some Dec. 9, some Dec. 10. Anyone wondering about it can check, for example, a "Powered by Typepad" caption or link that displays on many (not all) Typepad blogs; DeLong's is one of them, look in the lower right-hand column. Typepad is one-stop shopping: The software and the hosting. Moveable Type blogging software, IIRC, you host on outside servers. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 16, 2005 10:36 AM | Permalink You gotta be kidding, ami. No more on this, when TypedPad is up I will post it. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 10:40 AM | Permalink My guess is that you can also host Moveable Type blogs on Typepad, just like you can host blogger blogs on Blogpost or elsehwere. back to my actual life... Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 16, 2005 10:44 AM | Permalink "The left craves the truth because we are the reality-based community, and are confident that when all the facts are on the table, the left wins every argument based on the truths that can be derived from those facts." - ami, above. Geez, that sure sounds familiar, almost a mirror image of what some conservatives want. Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 16, 2005 11:22 AM | Permalink TA: Geez, that sure sounds familiar, almost a mirror image of what some conservatives want. I scanned the post you linked to, and what I saw was distinctly different --- conservatives who want to get a message out, not all the facts, and not the truth, but a specific set of facts that, taken in isolation, would suggest that a Bush policy was the correct one. This is separate and distinct from what "the left" wants, and why it wants it, i.e. the left wants the news to present all the relevant facts (and avoid irrelevant ones) on a particular issue, because the left is confident that they can win any rational policy argument based on the relevant truths. Perhaps you can point me to somewhere in your linked post where conservatives are demanding that all the relevant facts, and only the relevant facts, be revealed. ami, read it closer. I think you'll find that we agree, in principle, that if given all unvarnished, relevant facts each of us believes that our side will win the argument. If it's not clear, I will tell you candidly: I would most certainly be happy if the news provided us with all the relevant facts (and avoided irrelevant ones) on a particular issue. In that environment I think conservative ideas compete favorably with liberal ones. This is how conservatives feel; you don't have to read our minds to determine something more nefarious. It's interesting that it seems to you think conservatives want only slanted information, or to supress certain facts. Because that's precisely what many conservatives believe liberals want - - to maintain their cocoon spun by an ideolgically sympathetic dominant media. Some common ground here on our intentions (if not perspective), perhaps. Now, can we agree on particular unslanted "facts"? Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 16, 2005 12:34 PM | Permalink Re. ami's post and my response, the following is my idea of one test for determining "factual" presentation of information. In this case, it's a test of labeling and loaded language, two elements of bias. You're a reporter writing a story about guns. Which of the following language do you use? A. Assault weapon, Saturday night special, bullet hose B. Sport-utility rifle, plinker, Patriot's tool C. Semi-automatic firearm, inexpensive revolver, fully-automatic firearm I believe the most purely factual (and least provocative) language is C. Our dominant media, however, often uses A. Can you design similar tests to determine if the right or left agree on "facts" or how information can best be presented most "factually"? Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 16, 2005 12:43 PM | Permalink *In other words, its about Harris interfering with the truth, and turning truth into "opinion."* you can't handle the truth! ami, i'm a liberal but this is what annoys me about the blogosphere -- the armchair quarterbacking. bloggers have no idea what it takes to be a reporter. it's like watching the PGA on TV. looks easy until you head out on the course. everyone is trying to get at the truth. i love Froomkin, but linking to stories and inserting a few original comments is not the same as reporting. when you need sources, you have to negotiate the truth. there is no absolute truth, we are human, and we all see truth through some prism. blogs would have more credibility if it points out good things that the MSM does every now and then. if it weren't for the MSM, most bloggers have nothing to write about at all. plus, many bloggers see a conspiracy behind everything even typepad Posted by: bush's jaw at December 16, 2005 1:38 PM | Permalink
Wow. I describe myself as personally liberal these days, and I sure don't believe this to be literally true, at least not in such a sweeping sense. Besides, one thing you learn from dealing with facts for a living is that there are more facts than anyone has time to consider, and that selecting which facts are relevant to the subject isn't as simple as it sounds. Take global warming: I'm convinced by the weight of the evidence that civilization is affecting global climate. But so what? I can collect those facts and put them on the table, but let's face it -- you really don't have the time to review them all. Unless you're a specialized climate scientist, you won't speak the language that will allow you to understand what's being said, and even once you get that part down, there's still the daunting task of thinking critically about such technical material. You could study and become conversant, but by the time you've caught up on your reading, the science has moved on. Expertise waits for no man. Critics of global warming typically dismiss the overall case in favor of the proposition as "junk science," then call for (the politically derived term) "sound science." They throw up a number of critiques, caveats and objections to published papers, cite some credentialled climate skeptics and reach one of several conclusions. Each side is speaking in facts -- dry, mind-boggling facts. I'm not a climate scientist, and I'm not an expert capable of reaching meaningful, independent conclusions about the competing claims on my own. I spent months studying the subject earlier this year, but for all my immersion in it, the best that I can say for myself is that I read quite a bit and struggled to separate the meaningful from the misleading. My personal conclusion: The right generally is wrong on global warming, and its position is based on oil industry lobbying, not a fair-minded reading of existing evidence. But this is the problem: It took me months to be able to say that with any degree of confidence, and even then the majority of my reasoning is based on mediated information -- not source material, but source material that was interpreted to me by people I came to trust. We have a variety of breakdowns in our understanding of media, not the least of which is that better journalism is as simple as "presenting all the facts" in neutral language. In general terms, media critics give themselves too much credit for being able to decipher specialized knowledge -- the truth is, almost all of us need other people to mediate for us on topics for which we have little expertise. Very few people are capable of dealing with raw facts in a broad range of subjects. This is also true of reporters. And reporters who develop expertise in a subject tend to be hired by industries that value specialized knowledge. Anyway, the point is that even if people on the left happen to be better aligned with reality at the moment, they're not necessarily getting there by examining all the facts independently. For all our talk about intellectual independence, practicality demands that we decide who and what we're going to trust and then proceed from there. I think this original choice has much more to do with our opinions that whatever facts we encounter The elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about is this: People want to be comforted by the news. I find this to be generally true for all political and cultural points of view, and it's certainly true of me, personally. The question each of us have to answer is: What am I prepared to do about it? Posted by: Daniel Conover at December 16, 2005 2:29 PM | Permalink I would put it differently, Daniel. People do resist news that conflicts with their world view. It's not that they won't ever take it in (although some won't) or won't ever trust it (some won't.) But there's always resistance, which can be greater or lesser, absolute or variable. I have no found differences, ami, between left and right on this. We should expect it. Meanwhile I found myself agreeing with Bush today that the elections in Iraq (good news) are a bigger story and ought to be the top story today, not whether the President authorized secret wiretaps by the National Security Agency of thousands of Americans (bad news), which is also a big story. In fact, I was surprised that the vote in Iraq wasn't the first item when I listened to NPR this morning, but third or fourth. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 3:50 PM | Permalink SixApart is having serious troubles with its TypePad service and has disabled most blogs and posted cached versions from a few days ago. More (few) details: Everything TypePad. TypePad is a hosted version of Movable Type, both of which are from the company Six Apart. Coincidentally, the Washingon Post's weblogs are also provided by TypePad; they have an editor's note regarding "technical difficulties" on their site as well. Okay, you may continue arguing... Hey, Todd (that's our webmaster at NYU Journalism.) We covered that here and here. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 3:55 PM | Permalink Ah, didn't see all of those, only the TypePad conspiracy posts. Sorry for the redundancy. They have assured people that no content was lost, it was just most expedient to post backup data while fixing the immediate problems. They've been having severe growing pains the last few months, but claim to be nearing the end of that period. *People do resist news that conflicts with their world view* my 2 cents is that people bring their bias to the news. Readers label Howard Kurtz as conservative and a liberal and everything in between. i suspect that some people on the left wants the MSM to be the polar opposite of Fox News. Posted by: bush's jaw at December 16, 2005 4:06 PM | Permalink But there's always resistance, which can be greater or lesser, absolute or variable. I have no found differences, ami, between left and right on this. when i go to the marine biology lab, the parking lot is full of anti-Bush bumperstickers... but when I go to a local quasi-government engineering outfit the lot is full of "Bush Country" and "W: Still the President" stickers. Both groups are highly educated. Is it something in their training that divides their thinking, or something in their personalities that pre-selects for their career choices? Or is it just some sense of which party is more likely to fund their activities? the one thing they have in common is disdain for the media -- but for different reasons. Posted by: Daniel Conover at December 16, 2005 6:46 PM | Permalink Right, and it's impossible for me to believe that the answer to that is more objectivity. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 7:14 PM | Permalink Oh, and TypedPad, it looks like, is back up. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 16, 2005 7:16 PM | Permalink Actually, I think there's an interesting question in there -- maybe. I might say that the statement is true of all political groups, but then examine it more closely to look for differences in how the resistance is experienced and expressed. Because I think there must be differences at this level, and that understanding those patterns could be helpful. Bottom line.... you will never see a conservative group that adopts the decision-making process of groups like ACT-UP (which was basically that everyone got to say whatever they wanted to and no decisions were made until everyone was satisfied --- and no, of course it didn't work once the group expanded beyond its core constiuency.) Or visit just about any college campus, and look at the "official" decision-making process --- everyone is consulted, everyone is included, and things take forever to change. This is the result of "liberal" thinking --- "inclusion" and "diversity" aren't just "feel good" values, they are prized because they "inform the debate". Yes, I know that liberals are human, and resist facts contrary to their biases. And yes, I know that its virtually impossible for the press to "present" all relevant facts on all important issues (let alone expect that people will actually be willing or able to incorporate "all the facts" into the decision-making process. That wasn't my point. My point was the difference between liberals and conservatives, and what they want from the media. What the liberals want is an ideal that will never be close to being realized -- but their critique of the media is based on that goal. Conservative media critics think the problem is entirely "liberal media bias" -- that the failure of Bush's plan to privatize Social Security wasn't because privatizing actually exacerbates the "Social Security crisis" that Bush promoted to get his privatization scheme passed, its because the media told people that privatization didn't solve the "crisis" that Bush was promoting, and only made things worse. Liberals were upset with the media because for the first couple of weeks, the reporting on Social Security didn't include the relevant facts on the impact of privatization -- conservatives got upset when the media finally figured out what the facts were, and started telling its audience things like "But the Presidents's plan for private accounts won't help solve the Social Security crisis." Telling the truth was "liberal bias".
I just don't equate all conservative critiques of media -- or of politics, culture, etc. -- with the Frank Luntzes of the world. I have conservative friends who hate that dishonest crap, but for whatever reason they're wired to put-up with right-wing excesses instead of left-wing excesses. Right, and it's impossible for me to believe that the answer to that is more objectivity. I don't really argue the objectivity case anymore, although I still believe that the process of objectivity, when applied with care (and humility), adds value to our work. These days I'm more interested in figuring out what the honest brokers on both sides of the partisan divide have in common. Not trying to be Pollyanna, just trying to imagine a practical way of doing political/accountability journalism that would allow basic agreement on terms and conditions. The problem I see -- and I see it in the terms of the Froomkin debate, although I really don't know much about its particulars -- is that there's a vacuum now where the concept of credible objective mainstream media used to be. Y'all have convinced me that it needed to be replaced, but there's no guarantee that what winds up replacing it will be better or worse. Posted by: Daniel Conover at December 16, 2005 8:37 PM | Permalink "marine biology lab, the parking lot is full of anti-Bush bumperstickers... but when I go to a local quasi-government engineering outfit" Yup, the difference is real. That's why it's science and technology. Science is about figuring things out, that you don't already know ahead of time, and changing your mind if you're wrong. Technology is, for the most part, about applying things that have already been figured out. People gravitate toward each career accordingly. Which is not to say that there aren't "biased" closed-minded scientists just like there are biased journalists; but the ideal of both professions is to have an open mind, which is a liberal value. So to reduce liberal bias in journalism you'd actually need to hire journalists who are *more* liberal (in having a greater ability to approach stories without preconceptions) Posted by: Anna Haynes at December 16, 2005 10:33 PM | Permalink New Froomkin Fallout post, Dec. 17: Two Washington Posts May Be Better Than One. "They're not equals, but Washington and Arlington have their own spheres. Over the newspaper and reporting beats Len Downie is king. Over the website Jim Brady is sovereign. Over the user’s experience no one has total control. There's tension because there's supposed to be tension." Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 17, 2005 2:38 AM | Permalink Anna, re: your comment about the difference between S&T. Would you consider Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell technologists or scientists? Posted by: Sisyphus at December 17, 2005 9:45 AM | Permalink There is a very good debate developing in this comment thread about liberalism between Dan Conover/Jay Rosen and Anna Haynes/ami. I think it is an important debate that could benefit the political Left (and those that want to understand the media's political role). I hope that offering these links by, and discussing, Sam Huntington might help in that debate: Looking the World in the Eye (December 1, 2001) Posted by: Sisyphus at December 17, 2005 11:55 AM | Permalink This might also contribute to the debate about ideology v. dogma and memory. My apologies for the successive comments. Posted by: Sisyphus at December 17, 2005 12:03 PM | Permalink Tim, a blogetiquette request (and I know I have sinned as well) - when you provide links, a sentence or two saying what we'll find there and how it fits into context (and ideally, what sort of contract with readers the writer has made, "you can read my stuff" not being too promising) would be helpful/attractive to the reader. Providing a collection of links and saying "go here and be sure to read carefully" (caricature, sorry) doesn't respect the reader's time and judgment. And for those who might be going there - I followed the "Who are we" link and found a book review in The American Conservative ("Samuel Huntington’s new book forces a debate on immigration and American destiny") - which does then go on to criticize academic critiques of the book, of which [critiques] it says "It is tempting to dismiss these denunciations as a cry for help..." Presumably there's value in the piece, but it wasn't obvious to this cursory reader. Posted by: Anna Haynes at December 17, 2005 1:15 PM | Permalink Anna, I will keep your "blogetiquette request" in mind, although I'm not sure I understand it exactly. To be honest, in this case, with the current context, I preferred to leave such links as untainted as possible with my own interpretation of what you might find in either the content or provider. IOW, what you say you found without the benefit of my context or prompting is as interesting, or moreso, to me. For example, I would point out that you both found value in the link you describe ("which does then go on to criticize academic critiques of the book") and dismiss it ("it wasn't obvious to this cursory reader"). To me, that's you saying something independent of what I might have described about the link and gives you the benefit of saying it without a priori knowledge of whether you're agreeing with me or not. Posted by: Sisyphus at December 17, 2005 1:42 PM | Permalink Trained Auditor: I took your litmus test, but it didn't tell me (or anyone else, I suspect) much of anything. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 18, 2005 1:23 PM | Permalink Accountability Journalism: "I first saw the term, Accountability Journalism, during the Froomkin Foofaraw. I was curious. Curious about what Froomkin means by Accountability Journalism and how it differed from Watchdog Journalism." Posted by: Sisyphus at December 18, 2005 5:43 PM | Permalink Thanks for responding, Steve. I suspect your response is representative of many journalists today. I guess it's just rough luck for conservatives that the vivid language to which much of our dominant media is partial often casts an unfavorable light on the conservative side of certain issues. Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 20, 2005 4:20 PM | Permalink safest best sports betting online local sports betting line http://mastadont.74mail.ru/sport_betting/international_sports_betting.html online gambling sports betting gift certificate online sports betting http://mastadont.74mail.ru/sport_betting/sports_betting_rss_feed.html and .... sports betting las vegas gift certificate sports betting http://mastadont.74mail.ru/sport_betting/betting_promotion_sports.html online gambling sports betting safe secure online sports betting http://mastadont.74mail.ru/sport_betting/bet_best_online_sports_betting.html sports betting odds english sports betting http://mastadont.74mail.ru/sport_betting/american_sports_betting_lines.html .Thanks. Posted by: betting contest odds sports at December 21, 2005 6:02 AM | Permalink |
|
Print
