The nonsense that continues to stream out of the Washington Post, specifically out of the mouth of the national politics editor, John Harris, is astounding. Harris’ critique of Dan Froomkin’s column is that it is through a “liberal prism”, yet when pressed he can’t actually point to it.
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.
Now, the perspective that Dan Froomkin presents in his column is that the media is much too deferential to the White House. Now, apparently in the world of the national politics editor of what is arguably the most important political paper in the country – this is evidence of liberal bias, I mean it’s obvious because Patrick Ruffini (currently in the employ of the RNC by the way) says so.
What.
The.
Hell.
The big difference between mainstream conservative and liberal critique of the press is that the right wants a tough press when its a Democrat and kneepadders when its a Republican. On the other side, liberals want the press to hold the President accountable regardless what his party is — but that means something a little more substantial than accusing the president of rape on prime time.
The job of the press is not to simply listen to the stuff that comes out of the press secretary’s mouth – whether that’s Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart – and write it down dutifully along with whoever the press flack for the opposition party is. It’s to take both claims and get off their duffs and report back to their readers the objective truth, detailing where the administration and its opposition are telling the truth or lying.
But John Harris says its wrong to call his paper out on this. It’s “liberal”. Something here stinks.
Y’know, maybe I’m not getting the point, but I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
Froomkin is not a White House reporter. He’s a columnist, a pundit. The label on his column could make some people think he’s on the White House beat. If the WaPo wants to change the label on his column, what’s the big deal?
If Kerry had won and Froomkin was writing in the same style, I bet we’d be in favor of creating a little distance between “straight reporting” and opinion.
You know, Oliver, I suspect that you truly believe that journalists are supposed to be Democrats.
Newspapers are run to make money. They do this by selling copies of the papers each day. If the readers of the paper say that the guy is editorializing in the guise of writing “White House briefs”, then he has to stop.
Suppose you got a memo tomorrow from MM: We’re losing our shirts reporting on right wing lies in the media. We’re going to merge with MRC
What would you do?
Either go along or get going.
That’s Froomkin’s choice to make.
First of all, isn’t Media Matters a non-profit?
Second, if readers were leading the charge against Froomkin that would be one thing. But it was the WaPo’s own reporting staff that got this ball rolling. The paper’s reporters on the White House beat are concerned that the WHITE HOUSE, not readers, will think Froomkin is a reporter. They’re afraid of losing access to all those juicy “senior administration official” quotes because of Froomkin. This isn’t about readership, it’s about a perceived threat to access. I don’t give a damn if they change the name of Froomkin’s column or not but I find it very troubling that WaPo reporters have turned on what one of their own colleagues writes because they fear lossing their access. And I doubt this anxiety suddenly popped into their heads. It is not implausible to assume that someone at the White House planted this seed to see if they could get Froomkin muzzled, muted or otherwise dressed down in public. And why? Because he repeatedly calls the Washington Press corps out for their shoddy, lazy, sychophantic “reporting.”
It’s the inside the beltway reporters who are carping about Froomkin. I bet if you broke out the numbers on the web site he outdraws the stenography corps’ work. And if Media Matters were to merge with MRC (as ludicrous as that idea is, and yes MM is a non-profit 501c3), I’d hand in my papers.
Yes, frameone, MM may be a not – for – profit, but, like any other enterprise, they require money to operate, right, Oliver?
And, if WaPo values access to the White House, then it is still a management decision that WaPo believes furthers their interests. I am positive that if they were beating up on Clinton in 1998, neither of you would mind if WaPo made a decision to cease and desist.
This is a familiar mentality which I have already seen in operation during the Nixon administration. It was taken for granted by the MSM — then, as now, protesting that there was no liberal bias in the press — that if you were not vigorously opposed to President Nixon, you were automatically in the White House’s pocket.
Yes. Oliver, I would expect you to turn in your papers, just as I expect Mr. Froomkin to act like an employee, or resign
Newspapers are indeed a business that requires money to run, but we as citizens should demand a level of objectivity of newscasters to report truthful stories that separate fact from fiction without political bias or spin.
If any paper panders to _any_ administration for the sake of maintaining access or sales it harms not only citizen accountability of government, but democracy as a whole. If the White House denied access to any reporter who dared to question its policies and the MSM decided that to remain in business they had to pander to the White House then we have lost a free press and instead have a free propagandist press. Which doesn’t help America.
This applies to all administrations whether Democrat or Republican. Clinton’s lies about Monica were harmful regardless of whether there was an legal wrong doing. Similarly [though more dramatically] the Bush administrations pre-war intelligence fiasco has be harmful as well.
The complaint isn’t that the press isn’t anti-bush enough, the problem is that it isn’t pro-facts enough. If Bush were truly improving things in America no reasonable person [Oliver included] would be foaming at the mouth for the MSM to be more anti-Bush. The complaint is that factually grave mistakes have been made and powerful people with the ability to sway opinion aren’t being honest with their readers and their bosses, their readers, and hell even the administration [if they value America long term] should be demanding better standards.
Not not demand it, is to truly harm America. I believe this was Jon Stewart’s point when he went on Crossfire. Punditry is _not_ reporting and it should not be tolerated by editors or readers, even if it is profitable.
The way you control a newspaper is by buying a newspaper or not buying it.
For example, the NY Post. When I was in college they were well known as a liberal paper. I read the more conservative Daily News, and, of course, avoided the New York Times like the plague.
Pretty soon, the NY Post moved to the right, and the Daily News switched to the left. I switched papers accordingly.
The reason newspapers are losing popularity is because of that “imaginary” left -wing bias you lefties insist doesn’t exist.
Which leaves me a little puzzled – over half the country is liberal according to you, but a conservative wins the Presidency handily. At the same time, the dead tree press is fading away, and yet there is no “liberal bias.”
Mysterious, no?
The reason newspapers are losing popularity is because of that imaginary left -wing bias you lefties insist doesn t exist.
Newspapers are losing popularity because people have this thing called the internet and this other thing called teevee. And when we use the internet we don’t have to see yet another newspaper – like the Post – write up a story and have to balance facts with the latest information from Narnia (aka the RNC).
And yes, a conservative won the presidency in 2004. 62 million voted for George Bush. 59 million voted for John Kerry. But based on your math (trickle down?) these 59 million people are a figment of the imagination.
DANIEL IN THE WRITERS DEN
DANIEL UPSET THE RULERS of the kingdom and now Froomkin finds himself among the lions. Or the hyenas. Or the high and mighty political writers at the Washington Post. The writers may be high and might be mighty sorry
I didn’t say the voters were imaginary — I sarcastically referred to the bias as imaginary. And people wouldn’t switch to television or the Internet if newspapers had the same authority. That’s the problem. I would say that all newspapers are becoming ideological, but there are a lot more liberal journalism school graduates, and “Woodward and Bernstein wannabes.”
Frank_D: the subtext here is the role of ‘access’ for the WH press pack. It’s December, there are gifts to buy and parties to plan, and someone in the WH staff (perhaps on a tip from Ruffini) is sufficiently piqued at Froomkin to place the WaPo in the naughty corner for a few days. Faced with the awful possibility of having to commit journalism when they have other things on their schedules, said WaPo reporters start complaining about Froomkin.
Oh, and I doubt that it’s coincidental that the WH press ‘holiday reception’ (i.e. the Christmas party) is this week.
ahem: assuming you are right, and I see no reason not to, that’s way “inside the beltway” for me.
This is the kind of mindless echo-chamber drivel that I see as little more than a lump of shit thrown at the wall of this blog to see if it will stick.
And you still wonder why I think you’re a schmuck, Frank?
“Mindless echo – chamber drivel”? OK, hot shot, tell me why?
What makes it an “echo – chamber”?
What makes it mindless?
Put up or shut up. Like most of the other twits that inhabit these threads, you never respond to anything. You just attack.
Look at it this way: What if I said, “‘This is the kind of mindless echo-chamber drivel that I see as little more than a lump of shit thrown at the wall of this blog to see if it will stick,’ is the kind of mindless echo-chamber drivel that I see as little more than a lump of shit thrown at the wall of this blog to see if it will stick?”
And I don’t wonder, or even care, why you think I’m a schmuck. My question to you, which is awaiting an answer is: “Why did you come on this blog, and immediately start attacking me?”
See, you’re so totally dazed by hatred of me you can’t even keep your comments straight. There must be a reason. Think, man, think!
Frank-
Your inferiority complex is astonishing.
Because there is no thought put into proclaiming that the media suffers from left-wing bias. There have been enough studies, books and evidence that clearly points to the contrary, so you marching around a point of view that only exists amongst one particular segment of political culture is evident that it emanates from the echo-chamber.
Also, insinuating that half the country isn’t liberal because Bush won is completely ludicrous. Citizens that voted in 2004 do not comprise the entire population of the United States. When you peddle such baseless opinions as if they were gospel, they can only be categorized as talking points.
Projection is a terrible thing.
I already answered you in the other thread, but the short version is because you are full of shit and so long as I read your comments, I will take them to task.
Take your own advice: Think, man, think!
so long as I read your comments, I will take them to task.
My point is, that you don’t. Until you get it, I will call you on it. And, get it straight, John S. you’re not disagreeeing with me or disputing me — you’re attacking me. I’m not whining about it; I’m just letting you know that I know the difference.
You still don’t.
Let’s take a closer look at your “pearls of wisdom”, eh, hot shot?
There have been enough studies, books and evidence that clearly points to the contrary
Yet you provide none. There is plenty of evidence of left wing bias in the media going back to the early 70’s. But don’t feel bad, Oliver has never shown that there is no left wing bias, either, and he’s in the business.
Also, insinuating that half the country isn t liberal because Bush won is completely ludicrous. Citizens that voted in 2004 do not comprise the entire population of the United States.
Yet when 3000 people are polled on Bush’s job performance and 1600 say he’s not performing well, you’ll say he’s slipping in the polls.
Projection is a terrible thing.
“I know you are, but what am I.”
Not to mention the fact that projection is not a terrible thing. You should have stayed awake in psychology class, junior.
because you are full of shit and so long as I read your comments, I will take them to task.
You are not “taking me to task.” Jeebus, are you that stupid? You’re just saying bad things about someone you don’t even know.
Why don’t you get yourself a blog or a web page, and just type terrible things in it about people you know, and some that you don’t.
That’s what you’re doing here.
Maybe you can get Quaker and Wilbur to co – author.
Frank – a legend in his own mind.
It’s called Google, Frank. Here I’ll spoon feed you. Do your own research next time – I’m not here to make your life easier.
Frank the mind reader – not very good at it, though. Polls are rubbish, and only provide a glimmer of insight into people’s views. They are not gospel, and should not be relied upon as such. Sadly, your knee-jerk reaction here indicates that you are unable to separate individual liberals viewpoints from your manufactured worldview of ALL liberals. Sad, really.
Stay arrogant. It makes hoisting you on your own petard all the sweeter. Projection in the sense of transferring feelings onto a therapist may not neccessarily be a bad thing, but projecting your flaws onto others as a way to attack their ‘flaws’ rather than dealing with your own is NOT healthy.
Sad that this is how you view things. I am not only saying bad things about YOU, and that isn’t the thrust of my comments. I am destroying your asinine arguments one at a time. The fact that you cannot tell the difference between the two says a lot about you.
Now run along and play.
Polls are rubbish, and only provide a glimmer of insight into people s views. They are not gospel, and should not be relied upon as such
Well, asking millions of people on one day who they want for President is a huge poll with a huge sample and is representative of popular opinion. Excuse me if you couldn’t decipher the analogy.
Pot turns to kettle
Stay arrogant.
Now run along and play.
projecting your flaws onto others as a way to attack their flaws rather than dealing with your own is NOT healthy.
I guess it isn’t, but that’s not what projection is:
Please stop this. I hate “fisking”. It’s tedious and annoying.
You say, “Do your own research next time – I m not here to make your life easier.”
I wasn’t asking you to do my research. In fact, I wasn’t even asking you to do research. I said, “Yet you provide none,” in reference to the fact that you made an unsupported statement.
BTW, your “spoon” turned up 476000 hits.
My “spoon” turns up 2190000 hits.
There is an obvious flaw — can you guess what it is?
Frank-
You are a waste of my time.
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king.
And you are the king, baby. All (who are blind) hail the King!
OOh, no John, don’t give up on me, please!
And, oh yes, the joke about the blind was hysterical!
Wadda sensa huma!
You ever toss any dwarves?
Zzzzzzzz