IF newspapers were about open honest capitalist competition, Froomkin would have been snapped up by some major paper yesterday. He wasn't and won't be. He will find himself blackballed by the pompous, useless asses of the established press, for daring to show BY EXAMPLE, that the Washington Post sucks.

Well the right vs/ left, liberal vs. conservative dynamic plays very well into the hands of those that wish to maintain the status quo. Flooding the airwaves with petty squabbling and such distracts a lot of people from seeing the bigger picture, or what we would call reality.

Another very common fallacy is that everything is equally divided between two ideological viewpoints, always. What makes it even more fallacious is that the two are chosen with no particular relation to anything except tradition, as in the case of the Republicans and Democrats right now.

Karl Rove recently went on tour, basically, pitching the idea that Barack Obama was the most "polarizing" President in memory, because Republicans and Democrats were more polarized than ever regarding their opinion of him. Given the fact that Republicans at the very moment were polling at 20% of voters, the only way his claim could be true is if that 20% were made into something much larger. Put another way, if a solid 70% in those same polls approved of Obama, that is in no way a "polarized" country, in fact it's the opposite.

Back to your premise though, and why I think it's a false one. The Washington Post now publishes an enormous roster of extreme conservatives, including two of the top Neoconservatives, Bush's ex chief speech writer, and many more, including a FOX News pundit known for his extremist right wing views. Taken on an individual basis, you can read a column and say "well, that seems conservative but I'm probably just assuming that because it's being critical of Obama". On the other hand, if you stand back and look at the Washington Post right now, the fact is that it's a largely conservative view that's being put forth in its opinion and op ed pages, all things considered. The smattering of liberals like Robinson and Kinsley are not the left wing equivilant to the extremism of just the columnists I named above, not by a long shot. You'd need Noam Chomsky in the paper weekly to even have a start at that sort of balance.

Reading a Froomkin column and wondering whether it's liberal or conservative is one thing. Looking at the Ombudsman's explanation for it, that's in the same vein. Standing back however and seeing that the newspaper has adopted an archaic, extreme conservative voice in an era when the country is largely rejecting that stance is another thing entirely. Then the letting go of Froomkin has another meaning.

The clique needed a big ugly girl to soften the harsh glare of mono toned choruses . The election of a racist antichrist obviates the position of gadfly now that every ones sense of decency s shocked .

Truth has always been non-ideological, hasn't it?

I've noticed that the most loney place is that of the freethinker. (I don't know if that fits Froomkin). In any case as a freethinker, when you happen to support one side of the divide, they think you are one of them. Then when another issue comes up where you don't, they feel betrayed, -and that gets their ire far more than if you had been a bona-fide member of the opposite ideology. Perhaps, he was one of those, and they couldn't rely on the usual partisan/ideological litmus test to predict his position.

As Mr Pilgrim has well noted, WaPo tilts strongly to the right. Their useage of Robinson and Kinsley reminds me of BillO's response whenever someone tells him FAUX it the voice of the Republican Party. BillO replies "Oh, but, we have Juan Williams, Shep, Hume, and, formerly, Colmes".

However, which of these paragraphs shows the true ideological side of the writer. The first states, "On one side, there's Barack the Policy Wonk, whose command of the issues--and ability to explain those issues in plain English--is a joy to behold." Then, the second paragraph "But, on the other side, there's Barack the Post-Partisan, who searches for common ground where none exists and whose negotiations with himself lead to policies that are far too weak."

Those were written by Paul Krugman in a recent column entitled "Obama the negotiator has to hang tough on reform".

The second paragraph will have the HuffPo zealots rave and foam at the mouth and have Krugman labeled a "concern troll". So Krugman is a rightist, eh?

They're lying.

First of all nowhere is free of politics, that's doubly true of Washington, and triply true of the major newspaper in Washington. For them to say something like that is to take their listeners for utter chumps -- which, come to think of it, is not surprising for the Post.

But secondly, and more importantly, they've had a vendetta against Froomkin for years, as evidence of which you need look no further than how increasingly hard it was to find his column.

Originally, a link appeared pretty much every day on the front page. Then it disappeared, except for very occasionally, and you had to go into the "blogs" pull-down list. And then it disappeared from the pull-down list, and you had to go to the "Index" link on the list -- which was at the very bottom. And then you had to search the list.

They didn't like him because he was an effective critic of the Bush administration. And fair enough; editorial decisions come with ideological bias, and that's how the world works.

But to claim he wasn't ditched because of his politics is just flat lying.

Par for the course for the Post.

The problem with the WaPo's repeated claim that Froomkin's firing wasn't about ideology was that they've failed to come up with any other believable explanation of what the reason was.

I don't know if Froomkin's a liberal or not, but two things are worth pointing out. One is that the questions he raised about both Bush and Obama were largely questions that the left, rather than the right, wanted to get into the discussion. So, at first glance, one might have to conclude that Froomkin is a liberal.

But the other thing is that questions from the right - whether of Obama, or of the rare instances where the right found fault with Bush - were having no trouble finding talking heads willing to give voice to them in the media. The same could not generally be said of questions coming from the left. This was where the unasked questions were, and Froomkin was asking them, rather than providing one more voice to repeat the questions of the rest of the media herd.

That's a pretty strong argument that Froomkin was neither conservative nor liberaL, but simply a journalist doing his job, while the rest of the herd wasn't. Whether or not Froomkin was fired for being too liberal in the orientation of the questions he asked, his showing up of the journalistic establishment's unwillingness to ask 'liberal' questions themselves showed them up both professionally and ideologically, and from the POV of Broder-Hiatt World, either would have been sufficient reason for giving him the heave-ho.

oh, come on, sigmund...
the WaPo doth protest too much...

It's simple. It's got nothing to do with ideology. He was dropped because he was critical of Wolfowitz

Ideology had nothing to do with it. The journalistic market is highly competitive and Froomkin lacked the essential journalistic skills of asskissing, bootlicking and forelock-tugging.

And Robin Wright left Sam "Cat up Tree on Frontpage" Zell's LAT for this? So, the difference between WaT and WaPo is what again?

DougJ's piece was a bit circumspect, but implies that Froomkin was fired over a turf-war. Moreover, a very specific turf-war, wherein he was making other Post reporters look like idiots, or close to it.

If Froomkin had been a prominent neocon, he would not have been fired, over that, or much else, apparently which is Benen's point, and one cannot help but agree with that.

Donald Graham loves him some neocon, that seems clear. Graham's columnists can punch hippies all day and he'll applaud, but the moment the punching starts going the other way...no, can't have that.

I continue to think that our rulers sniff bad times--worse times--coming, and they're going to do everything they can to make damned sure they stay on top, no matter what. Neocon ideology supports our rulers in every case..or, at least, a certain kind of ruler.. Donald Graham is part of the ruling class. So...what we see in his newspaper is perfectly predictable.

To say that critics of Bush and Cheney were mostly "on the Left" is to miss the whole lesson of this ghastly period in our history. The lesson we should take from the Bush/Cheney administration (really the Cheney/Bush administration) is that the opposite of Conservatism isn't Liberalism. It is Radicalism. A conservative conserves, and in a country with a liberal democratic tradition like America that means conserving liberalism itself, defined as democracy, individual rights, dispursed power and a regulated free market that works for the benefit of all in a classless society, not just those at the top who own or control most of the resources.

Conservatives also are pledged promote social peace and harmony. With Edmund Burke, who supported the American Revolution as natural but opposed the French Revolution as a radical departure from history, conservatives warn about the potential violence that can come from pursuing starkly rationalistic, ideological and utopian agendas with a spirit of ends justifying the means. Burke would have turned in his grave over the polarization and social chaos created by Karl Rove's divide and conquer, cultural wedge issue brand of politics that focused on amassing one-party political power by energizing a very right wing base rather than building a durable center/right coalition -- the historic aim of the less ideological Republican Party of the past.

Bush and Cheney were radicals, not conservatives, so criticism of their administration came from both the right and left. That is why the bookshelves are filled with a record number of very critical kiss-and-tell books by high-placed administration insiders who felt the need to go public with their fears and warn America about an administration taking the country in a radically Right Wing and anti-democratic tradition.

Former atni-terrorism-czar Richard Clarke, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Services who fought the legalization of torture, and former press secretary Scott McClellen who witnessed the culture of lies and disception created to advance a radical agenda that could not justify itself on the merits in the bright light of days -- these are just a sampling of the insiders who joined journalists, historians, economists and political scientists and others on the outside in documenting the fundamental and radical transformation in America's 200 year old Republic by a Bush/Cheney admistration that sought to centralize power in what for all intents and purposes was an Imperial Presidency.

@berttheclock,

I think you have a point but your example is bad. Most liberals I know would agree wholeheartedly with Krugman's second paragraph.

Bill E Pilgrim

Terrific post. Today's Op-Ed page is good example of what you are talking about. Two columns by Marcus and Will defending the status quo on health care, though Marcus does a better job of getting into the merits of the debate unlike Will who is just playing his usual dismissive word games and slight of hand. Under Hiatt the Post has also become an auxillary of Commentary Magazine and welcoming home to the diaspora of neo-cons who have been exiled and shunned elsewhere. I think the Joshua Murch-something who appears on its page today talking about Radical Islam is the same guy who tendentiously argued in a recent Commentary piece that Obama's caution in responding to the protests in Iran shows he does not care much about democracy and human rights -- or else he would do what neo-conservatives are doing and urge protesters to get themselves killed in the streets in order to weaken a regime that neo-cons consider to be a mortal threat to Isreal and the Middle East generally.

But you are exactly right. The Post has taken a sharp turn to the Right in its editorial position and choice of contributors at just the time the rest of the country is moving in a different direction to clean up the mess caused by more than a decade of Radical Right rule.

What, a vulnerable source with an ax to grind (yep, that's what your editor is when you're reporting on doings at the paper) has told you something? It must be true. It's this kind of ass-kissing stenography that turned the post into such a mess in the first place.

berttheclock, perhaps your experience with Huffpo is dated or too selective. Obamamania is basically over.

There is another angle we may not have thought of. Hiatt knows that right wing publications can usually count on generous subsidies from well-heeled conservatives to remain in business, whereas liberal and mainstream publications more frequently must make it on their own. Taking the Post in a conservatie direction may be a business decision on Hiatt's part of making the publication attractive to conservative financial patrons who want to change the culture by creating an over-powering conservative echo-chamber in which conservative ideas become common wisdom and drown out all others.

Froomkin was guilty of having a brain. In HiattWorld, that's a definite negative. Freddie wishes he could have been Editor back in 1973 to save his hero Richard Nixon, and Woodward is happy with his role as war criminals' stenographer. It's now the Washington Pest and like most of the rest of corporate media, it doesn't even make good litterbox liner.

Why is it wingnut morons all have such puerile nicknames: "Challenger Grey"? "The Perilous Pea"?? How cute, little boys. Perfect for permanent 12-year old twits. Do you also tattle to teacher??

Shoe, I hope you are correct.

Michael, you have a point - I have stopped dropping by HuffPo due to those types - Plus, it seemed as though, problems with our computer would often commence during a HuffPo tour.

But, my wish is that our President review his excellent well thought out speeches. We need your rhetoric placed into law.

"Why is it wingnut morons all have such puerile nicknames: "Challenger Grey"? "The Perilous Pea"?? How cute, little boys. Perfect for permanent 12-year old twits. Do you also tattle to teacher??"

Posted by: TCinLA"

In the early days of dKos it seems that just about everyone had three letter acronyms. Which led me to wonder 'Hell was that SFC that made that stupid point yesterday? Or SGC? or Maybe SLC? You couldn't tell the maroons apart. Whereupon some bright boy thought "Gee if I use my first two initials plus a two letter code for my city or state I will establish a bold new identity!!!"

TC I have no idea in you hail from Los Angeles or Louisiana, nor really do I care much. Because that would mean trying to distinguish you from TCinVA from MCinSF or any of the hundreds of totally unimaginative nics out there. I use my own name for my own reasons, but I for one appreciate people who pick names that are identifiable across the blogosphere. That is if I run into The Perilous Pea at Dean Baker's place I am more likely to remember his previous contribution than some hapless XYinZA.

The affectation for Greek names in the early days of the blogosphere was a little cloying, particularly for those who didn't recognize the difference between the original Eratosthenes or Aristophanes or Diogenes but it served its purpose for preserving anonymity while maintaining some level of responsibility for your opinions. But really your minor rant reminds me of nothing less than an early commenter on Rising Hegemon that complained bitterly in response to some one using the same nic "I am the REAL Anonymous!". He seems to have been lacking an irony gene. As I might say do you.

(BTW 'My Real Name' is not in fact my real name. I generally post under the wildly outlandish nom-de-plume of 'Bruce Webb')

It continues to make me laugh at all of the hand-wringing over a bush-bashing writer...whereas the illegal firing of Walprin doesn't so much as make a ripple for liberals.

It was bound to happen:

Froomkin = New Media

WaPo = Dead Media

Truth has a liberal bias.

This isn't snark. It's unfortunately true. Which side is the one actually concerned with the truth, and which is concerned with plugging its ears, believing lies, and constantly testing ideological purity?

Being "liberal" is now defined by giving a shit about the reality we live in. Can you name ONE major issue where the right has even ACKNOWLEDGED the bare rudiments of the problem? To see reality is to be liberal.

Criticising Bush and Cheney, per se, does not make Froomkin a liberal; some neocons did that too. The difference is in the direction if attack. Neocons thought Bush didn't torture and bomb enough; Fromkin thought he shouldn't bomb and torture at all. *That* is what makes him a liberal.

As for his criticism of Obama... There's no way Repubs would have ever learnt to love it because, again, he was attacking from a different direction. Repubs think Obama is doing too much; Froomkin though Obama wasn't doing enough. *That* is what makes Froomkin "too liberal" for the WashPo to stomach.

I hope that Froomkin gets a good and prominent post in some respectable paper (McClatchy, maybe?). I stopped reading him a while back because he was getting harder and harder to find on WaPo and, during one of my "clean-ups", I lost the direct bookmark to his column.

I just hope that whatever job he finds, it is not with HuffPo; like Bert the Clock, I never go there (even when Benen recommends it), because my 'puter crashes every time I try. And, even before it had gone too sprawly, unwieldy and unstable for me to handle, I didn't visit often because, by and large, I found it too shrill for my delicately calibrated libra-ish sensibilities.

Bruce Webb, @13:12:
Tom the Hatchet is in Los Angeles, not Louisiana. We all remember him from the Carpetbagger (where I used to be just plain "libra", before being EXiled to the Political Animal in search of Benen). He frequently suffers from bilious attacks. Ignore them.

Quote: "I don't know why Froomkin's column was dropped, but I can tell you that the diabolical conspiracy talk is nuts. Froomkin wasn't dropped because he is too liberal; things just don't work that way at the Post."

Maybe so; but the way that things do work at the Post is full-scale wingnut welfare editorial and op ed pages!

" ... Froomkin has been plenty critical of the president since January"

No he hasn't. He's put much effort into covering for Obama and continuing to bash republicans.

he has thus shown bias to the left. That makes him a leftist by any reasonable definition.

But Froomkin wasn't really writing. He was linking, and quoting and once in a great while, throwing in some sentences. He's an editor, not a reporter. Isn't this just another example of white guys never failing? So he got fired. Happens everyday of the week. He'll get over it.