Howard Kurtz: “I Don’t Get It”

1:03 am EST March 23rd, 2006 | News | 7 Comments

At least Kurtz is honest when talking about the Republican activist that his newspaper has hired.

I don’t get it. One conservative blogger? It’s not like The Post doesn’t have a left-leaning blogger, or liberal columnists. Is the New York Times a GOP mouthpiece because it employs David Brooks and John Tierney?

Who is the Post’s liberal blogger? They don’t have one. They hired Domenech because they wet their pants over the right’s bitching about Dan Froomkin’s column, a press roundup column that dares to say tough questions should be asked of the President (somehow around Novemeber of 2000, this suddenly became a “liberal” thing to do and the regular interrogations of Mike McCurry, Joe Lockhart, etc. were simply forgotten). The Washington Post does not have a liberal blogger, but they have a Republican one. Mr. Kurtz should actually read his employer’s site some time. Furthermore his comparison to the NY Times editorial sort of unravels the minute you scrutinize it. David Brooks? Paul Krugman. John Tierney? Frank Rich. Now, whether Brooks and Tierney have a habit of playing fast and loose with the facts and rhetoric is another topic altogether, but they don’t have the sandbox all to themselves as Domenech does.

But Howard Kurtz clearly admits that he doesn’t get it.

And neither does the once-great Post.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

7 Responses to “Howard Kurtz: “I Don’t Get It””

  1. Dugger says:
    March 23, 2006 at 7:03 am

    I understood the controversy also centered around Dana Milbank. The Post is notoriously liberal with people like Dana Milbank masquerading as fair, unbiased reporters. At least Domech is labeled as a conservative blogger. Lets take Milbank, cut him completely out of the mainstream and give him a counterpoint ‘liberal’ blog. Fine with me.

    BTW, obvioulsy the Post understands that their liberal bias has gone too far – confirming what I have always said: mainstream media are overwhelmingly liberal. Kind of hurts when your own sides acknowledges they’ve got a liberal bias problem.

    Dugger “largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command.” Unbiased WaPo on Christian right

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    March 23, 2006 at 11:03 am

    Yes, the pro-war Post is “notoriously liberal”. You don’t have any actual evidence, but you feel it.

  3. SaveFarris says:
    March 23, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    Remind me again who the Post endorsed…

  4. mjb says:
    March 23, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    For the slow people, I was being jokical.

  5. mjb says:
    March 23, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    Farris, you’re silly, you know who they endorsed, it’s right there in your link. It was Kerry. I figured you knew that, but we all make mistakes. No harm no foul, but maybe you should give some relevant evidence that the Post is liberal, or do you think that all of those who endorsed bush are conservative papers.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004

  6. Quaker in a Basement says:
    March 23, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    Good lord, that’s the most blatant example of galloping up-is-down-ism I’ve seen in a while, Dugger.

    A newspaper hires a conservative blogger as a counterpoint to its nonexistent liberal blogger and that’s evidence of the paper’s liberal bias?

    I guess that makes sense from the perspective of a party that touts its record-setting budget deficits as evidence of its fiscal responsibility.

  7. The Agonist says:
    March 24, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    Washington Post Steps In It ~ Domenech Resigns

    A few days ago I wrote, “This is probably the dumbest thing the Washington Post Online could have done from a long-term business perspective. First the whole Red State/Blue State meme is on the way out. Second, giving voice to one of the founders of r…