Why is whining a conservative value?

We live in a world of twenty-four hour news networks that thirst for anything that appears to be news. I have seen news networks reduced to reading blogs (Of all things!) right off the computer monitor. Obviously, I can do this at home. Maybe the argument needs to be made over the necessity of a twenty-four hour news network. Why do I want to watch an apartment fire in New Jersey or weather men stand in the rain?

Political reporters at The Post don't like [web] columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal. They're afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.

Actually, the WaPo's political reports are jealous that Froomkin gets to say the things they wish they could say. It's more like: "hey, if the editors are going to squash us and make us pretend reality has liberal bias, they have to do it to Froomkin, too."

If I'm not around the computer, and want to see what's happening, I turn on one of the cable news stations, mute whatever boob happens to be talking, and watch the crawl at the bottom for a few minutes. If anything important is happening, it'll show up there.

tbrosz's right, that's the way to keep up onMSM headlines, but I really don't need several twenty-four hour networks working around the clock for a headline crawl.

Must have conflict, come little mortals, argue about your silly politics

How could they confuse him with a reporter. All they need to do is check if he has his pom poms and Go Bush T-shirt

Yes! Yes! Silly little Bush supporter dancing like a cheerleader. Quite clever. How dare he?

Thanks for nailing Kurtz. I agree, and doesn't that make him "highly opinionated and conservative"?

Political reporters at The Post don't like [web] columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal. They're afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.

Gee, "highly opinionated and liberal", how ever could they mistake him for a Post White House reporter? [/sarcasm]

The sad connection of this whining with the Woodward and Miller stories is how little some of the journalists really seem to care about digging up what's really going on. Instead they are completely focused on maintaining access.

Because the punchline after reading the Post White House reporters, or Woodward or Miller is that after reading it, you think "Well that's nice, that's what the White House wants the story to be, but what's the real story?"

It's almost as if the reporters shouldn't talk to high level sources at all and instead look for the low level flunkies who will tell them what's happening on the ground level.

The second thing that's noticeable is how often the political spin gets injected into the White House journalists anyway. For them to claim that others are at fault for this is silly.

Good post.

Beloved mortals, seek the truth, silly little liberals argue pointlessly

At least you knew the identity of the entities from whom the editors of Pravda got their paychecks.

This White House has a record of stiflig dissent by freezing out reporters that are in any way critical of the administration. I think it is very likely that the real reason the White Hose correspondents are unhappy with Fromkin is that they are afraid that his column will limit their access to officials, by them being not recognized during press conferenses, etc, etc.

Zeus, is that you?

Then there's this type of insanity. How would Froomkin handle Lynne Cheney and her particular brand of historical revisionism?

Lynne Cheney shares history lesson with kids
Cheney likens Iraq voting to America's democratic struggles

Tuesday, December 13, 2005; Posted: 10:22 a.m. EST (15:22 GMT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- Lynne Cheney had a history lesson for elementary school children Tuesday, likening this week's parliamentary elections in Iraq to America's own early struggle for democracy.

"Two hundred and seventeen years ago, we held our first vote under our Constitution," Vice President Dick Cheney's wife said. "We started then on the path the Iraqis are walking now."

A primrose path? Or a path strewn with lies and bullshit? As we interfere in the Iraqi political process, one wonders if we're ever going to learn from our mistakes.

Mrs. Cheney was the latest Bush administration figure sent to marshal support for the United States' Iraq policy. She was speaking to elementary school children at two Washington-area military installations -- the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia, and at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

What? Couldn't find an elementary school in the civilian world to shill, I mean, speak at?

Cheney said it was important to talk to school children about Thursday's elections, in which Iraqis are electing a 275-member National Assembly, which will legislate in the coming four years and choose the first fully constitutional government in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in the U.S.-led war which started in early 2003.

Yes--quite a few of them will have to continue doing the fighting in Iraq a decade from now.

The elections also pave the way for amendments to Iraq's new constitution. To win Sunni Arab support for the constitution, the Sunnis were promised they could propose amendments to it during the first four months of the new parliament's tenure. Cheney said that was "a very important historical parallel" with America's early democratic struggle.

Yes, after all, those who squared off against the Federalists got their demands met by indiscriminately killing hundreds with horse-drawn wagon bombs.

"We did much the same thing in terms of our Constitution," Cheney said in an interview on CNN. "Many were reluctant to ratify (it) until they were told there would be amendments. ... So there are indeed many parallels and I look forward to talking with kids about it."

Really? The US Constitution allowed for Sharia law? I did not know that. Equal distribution of oil revenues? Now, where do those death squads and torture chambers fit into all of this? I'm really confused because they say that they're trying to create democracy in Iraq but it looks like a pale copy of a Central American military junta being propped up by the gringos, sorry, Americans.

Was it me, or did anyone else feel white-knuckled fear coming through Howell’s & Harris’s whiny tag team tantrum? Sure, they put up a brave façade of contempt and derision. But the unmistakable undercurrent was “here’s something that’s gotten way out of hand and we can’t control it anymore.” Check it out:

Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal. They're afraid…”

They should be afraid. Froomkin – just like Kevin & Atrios and, occasionally the nuts of the right – shines a bright light on their activities. And it very often ain’t pretty, because he’s one of the best bloggers out there. Worse for Harris, Froomkin does so under the WaPo brand. And I’ll bet his traffic is WAY above Howie’s. That’s gotta sting.

Harris and Howell exhibit the standard babyboomer reaction toward online media: we don’t understand it, therefore, it must be evil. Froomkin is everything they’re not – tuned into the culture, smart and relevant. So what do they do? Bully the guy. By doing so they demonstrate their... maybe not irrelevance, but certainly a self awareness they don't quite enjoy the stature that they believe they deserve. They might have title the whole thing: Ben Bradlee never had to put up with this crap!

If the press wants to regain their credibility they need to expose all of those reporters who have been taking monies for favorable press by this administration. Its not a new trick but it really makes those who read or pay attention, look to outside sources for some sliver of the truth.

Speaking of Punditry, here is the latest fom Richard Cohen of Izvestia, aka WaPo.

....."The Assassin's Gate" is to be reminded that the Iraq war is not the product of oil avarice, or CIA evil, but of a surfeit of altruism, a naive compulsion to do good. That entire collection of neo- and retro-conservatives -- George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and particularly Paul Wolfowitz -- made war not for oil or for empire but to end the horror of Saddam Hussein and, yes, reorder the Middle East.

Love how they say they are looking for a "conservative" to pair with Froomkin.

Ah, yes. Affirmative Action: Bad when it boosts the historically oppressed and disenfranchised, good when it comes to promoting that rare species -- right wingers who can write with charm, wit and insight.

Bling, cut out the baby boomer thing, will you? I'm 53 years old -- heart of the boom -- and I spend massive amounts of time on the web cutting through the bullshit I hear from network sources. It's establishmentarian vs. non-, and there are plenty of examples of each in any age group.

Atrios has a link to a column by Harris defending himself after Monday's column by Froomkin in which Froomkin discussed the contretemps. Froomkin's column had over 600 responses when I read it, all but two or three supportive of him. Harris' column had over 200 responses, all negative towards his position, when I read it.

Of particular note is that that a huge percentage of respondents to both columns express disgust with that the WaPo's official WH correspondents are little more than stenographers, as opposed to Bob Woodward, the apparent Official Court Stenographer.

Many respondents express the opinion that Harris and his crew of official WH reporters are worried that Froomkin makes them look bad because he does their job better than they do.

I am afraid Dana Milbank's Washington Sketch will make some readers think he is a Post cartoonist. Tom Toles should complain.

To: cohenr@washpost.com
Subject: Way to buy it hook, line, and sinker, Richard

Your Zeta's ghost is laughing.

"the Iraq war is not the product of oil avarice, or CIA evil, but of a
surfeit of altruism, a naive compulsion to do good. That entire collection
of neo- and retro-conservatives -- George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld and particularly Paul Wolfowitz -- made war not for oil or for
empire but to end the horror of Saddam Hussein and, yes, reorder the
Middle East."

Did you really never question why such a hard-boiled character as Cheney
would CARE about re-ordering the Middle East? No one clamored to re-order
central Africa, which is a zillion times worse of a humanitarian calamity.

If you can't see the significance of the oil, it's because you don't understand the technical facts. Global trade cant run without
cheap energy-intensive transportation. Its about maintaing the entire
edifice of modern capitalism. There are multiple motivations for the
different bedfellows in this administration (its a grab-bag of
opportunity, since the ostensible leader is so weak) but to dismiss the
importance of physically securing the 2nd largest pool of oil in the
world is ridiculous. The national security implications of preventing an
energy crisis worse than '73 are obvious.

It is amusing to listen to the political commentators so easily dismiss
oil as a motivation. It is because you don't actually understand how the
world works, what it takes to produce the goods and services which you
and I and everybody else enjoys having available. EVERYTHING requires
oil, in one phase or another of harvesting, manufacture, or
transportation. And, in the face of an ever-growing population, the
supply of oil has reached its high-water mark of availability for cheap.
Permanantly higher energy costs will require a lower standard of living for the US, or a re-ordering of society away from consumerism, or both.Ask someone quantatative about it. I assure you, the scientists, engineers,and technical experts understand very well how important that oil is, and why it makes sense to fight to keep control over the most valuablecommodity in the world.

Sorry Demtom. Can't help the self-loathing sometimes. I'm one too - by birth if not in spirit.

Atrios has a link to a column by Harris defending himself after Monday's column by Froomkin in which Froomkin discussed the contretemps. Froomkin's column had over 600 responses when I read it, all but two or three supportive of him. Harris' column had over 200 responses, all negative towards his position, when I read it.

Besides being profoundly silly, Harris' column was also thoroughly dishonest, misrepresenting Froomkin's description of his agenda (as I point out here) in order to make it look more like a reporter vs. opinioneer kind of issue.

When you read what Froomkin actually said, it's clear that his mission is exactly what any newspaper should be doing as a matter of course:

My agenda, such as it is, is accountability and transparency. I believe that the president of the United States, no matter what his party, should be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable....This column’s advocacy is in defense of the public’s right to know what its leader is doing and why. To that end, it calls attention to times when reasonable, important questions are ducked; when disingenuous talking points are substituted for honest explanations; and when the president won’t confront his critics -- or their criticisms -- head on.

This White House has a record of stiflig dissent by freezing out reporters that are in any way critical of the administration. I think it is very likely that the real reason the White Hose correspondents are unhappy with Fromkin is that they are afraid that his column will limit their access to officials, by them being not recognized during press conferenses, etc, etc.

Exactly right...check out Downie's reaction:

"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."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659333

Incredibly revealing comment.

Optimistic Hack, i picked up on that point too, to the extent that i wrote to the ombudswoman, telling her that i thought it was a capital idea.

In fact, why stop with a conservative blogger to balance Froomkin? Why not a liberal media critic to balance Howard Kurtz? Why not more liberals on the op-ed page to balance krauthammer and will and hoagland and the other swine?

BTW, Josh Marshall had a post the other day about the WaPo writer who was covering gop corruption and had an editor insert, gratuitously, a democrat whose actual "crime" occured before he came to Congress. I wonder if the unnamed editor was Harris?

RP, excellent pickup! of course, we know that the Post editorial page lives to please the White House, but still, to say so so overtly....

right wingers who can write with charm, wit and insight.

Any nominations? I mean, seriously. The closest I can get is Sullivan, but surely there is someone better? Or even as good?

Help me out here. My mind is open, but my browser has noplace to go...

If the Washington Post is concerned about the blurry lines between reporting and punditry, two words: Jeff Gannon

Nuff said.

right wingers who can write with charm, wit and insight.

Any nominations? I mean, seriously. The closest I can get is Sullivan, but surely there is someone better? Or even as good?

Although he is not a regular columnist or blogger, former National Lampoon writer P.J. O'Rourke is as witty as they come. Now, for charm or insightfulness, well....

craigie, i'd say that fareed zakaria and bruce bartlett are two honest conservatives in pundit-land, which, admittedly, isn't the same as saying they are rightwingers with charm, wit, and insight, but at least it approaches that utopian combination.

if you want a really fun read

and

you like to see what hundreds of concerned and intellectually capable people can write when someone lights their fire

go to blogs.washingtonpost.com and read what people are saying to national political editor john harris, the guy who attacked froomkin.

there are seperate post by froomkin, harris, and what one commenter elsewhere called omnbudscretin debroah howell.

all comments sections are good but those under harris' "reply" to froomkin are special.

the anger, humor, criticism, and sarcasm are priceless.

this stuff should be bottled and sold.

Given the rest of the Post's Op-Ed stable, they oughta be giving Froomkin a sweet corner office and a nice raise. Broder and Cohen and the like might be able to make themselves useful running for snacks and coffee....

I have read this guy Harris' response and interview on another site. He is certainly a Republican water carrier.

But that should not surprise anyone. Given that the most coveted job in Izvestia aka WaPo is that of the GOP water carrier per excellence Woodward, no wonder that a guy like Harris aspires to the same position and therefore emulates the 'Managing Editor' of the paper.

The whole thing is very odd.

A scrape between old & new, print & blog sure, but I wonder if much of it is just a good old fashioned dustup between company departments negotiating their budgets.

Josh Marshall has an excellent quote today
TPM Article
from E&P where Len Downie stated
"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."
Editor and Publisher article

Notice how the emphasis in the paragraph is on the Bush administration, and what it thinks. Apparently they care more about the Bush administration then they do about their readers.

I read the comments to John Harris' piece. They are outstanding.

The essence of Harris' complaint is that people might confuse Froomkin and the three WaPo reporters assigned to the White House.

The consensus is that most everybody can tell the difference.

Hey John Harris--Know how to tell the difference between Froomkin and the three Washington Post stenographers assigned to the White House beat? Froomkin is the guy who is doing his job.

I don't think it's WaPo reporters complaining about Froomkin. I think it's the corporate HQ cowards.

Lynne Cheney had a history lesson for elementary school children Tuesday, likening this week's parliamentary elections in Iraq to America's own early struggle for democracy.

Yes, democracy can only begin after you kick out the occupiers. I'm sure that's what she had in mind.

I'm okay with them having their own opinions as long as they just do their damn job and tell me what's going on in the world, instead of just letting hacks go on TV and answer their softball questions.

Why should we believe/read/listen to the likes of the Post's "objective reporters" ever again? I mean, what else did Woodward invent? Have they read his dictated books and propaganda pieces? The Post needs an enema, in truth; instead it caters to enemies of truth. An easy mistake for them to make. Like Flame and Plame. . . .

I actually just emailed John Harris. Shockingly, he sent me back a thoughtful half page reply almost instantaneously. I'm all for harrassing the press, but let's remember they're human.

Let's see.

What's affecting the credibility of "Washington Post" WH reporting?

1) A pair of headlines deliberately designed to misrepresent the actual results of two GOP appropriations measures?

2) A reporter who writes a story which features a partisan "balance" based not on balanced standards, but on a predetermined outcome? And an editor who destroys what little real balance was there by making additions to the story unbeknownst to the reporter?

3) An aging superstar investigative reporter caught hiding crucial information from his editors and going on TV to denounce the work of real investigators from whom he has been hiding crucial information?

4) The name of a column on washingtonpost.com which could conceivably be misinterpreted by some wacko moron wingnut who wants to see liberal bias in everything the Post prints?

If you're John Harris, the answer is obviously 4). The Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, evidently agrees. She's willing to destroy what little is left of her credibility publishing the whining from those responsible for the 1) through 3).

So, here's my proposal: Fire Harris and Howell. Offer both their jobs to Froomkin. No matter which he takes, the Post's credibility gets a net gain.

Now, that I think about it: Even if he turns down both jobs and insists on continuing his blog, it's still a net gain for the Post.

If read Harris's response carefully, it becomes clear that "some readers" means "his contacts at the White House," because this belief is an "obtacle to (his) work." There's no way that Phil from Des Moines being confused about this is an obstacle to his work.

These guys had better understand, quick, that their credibility is spiraling down the toilet in this. With the web paying attention, this kind of disgenuous nonsense simply won't fly. People are gonna stop reading them. And, as Kevin has pointed out, their work is still the fodder for everything that gets reported or opined upon.