Popular blogger at the Washington Post, Dan Froomkin, was given his walking papers today. He was told that his widely viewed blog White House Watch “wasn’t working any more.”
I personally find this action by the WAPO deeply disturbing. Every time I would post to Froomkin’s blog, he’d include my remarks, and comment on them. He was the epitome of what blogging is supposed to be about. I think he loathed G.W. Bush even more than I did, which is truthfully hard to conceive.
I think I will boycott the Washington Post website from now on… Please join me in this protest.
Iggy Donnelly
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
I will never forget the time I asked Dan about his personal “review” of the movie “W”. He said that the movie fell short of portraying the damages W. did, but he was impressed by the overall “take” of the D.C. audience as they were leaving the theater; “How did we ever elect a person like this as our president?” A very good question, I’d ask also…
You can still read Dan Froomkin here:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm
Gee, I wonder if Hannity is free?
Something I have noticed and is a real difference between Cons and Liberal commentators.
Liberals tend to be critical of real and fact based issues while the Cons are pulling offense and criticism out of twisting and distorting reality and facts. Perhaps it is that which caused they to give the walking papers.
They may have felt that it would drive down their readership to have someone being critical of Obama at this time.
Does the comment, “wasn’t working any more,” mean that he served well when stirring the bush White House, but not so well if he intended to stir the Obama White House? I can understand the readership would go down now that the new president is in office.
I’m not one to believe there is a liberal left leaning tilt to the media as a whole, but there are definitely ‘leanings’ of individual publications and WaPo is one that leans to the left, thus I would guess so do their readers.
Dan Froomkin used to be a daily stop for me, but hasn’t been for several months. I don’t know, and am asking — once President Obama took office did his column change, or only the players? I remember his column being one that was very critical of all things bush so I felt a kindred spirit and liked having my position justified. Did he turn his criticism to President Obama? Was his column one of negativity no matter who was in office? Did WaPo want something different than Froomkin was willing to provide? Did WaPo see that ‘controversy’ sells and Froomkin sold well under the bush reign, but now that President Obama was in office there was less controversy among their readers with regard to the White House so his coverage was less interesting, read by fewer (remember I admitted I went there to have my bush contempt fed)?
I understand how partisan what I’m saying is! I understand that I read Froomkin because he and I shared a contempt of bush and I fed at the trough Froomkin kept full. Now I see more clearly where I was by looking at those who show contempt for Obama. I was tense and worried during most of the bush administration — a lot like the gun nuts are under Obama. I feared the possibilities. I justified my fears by finding sources for all my dissatisfaction.
Once the election was held, I felt great relief that the bush reign was ending and I was ready to look to a brighter future. I let out the breath I’d been holding and the part of life concerning politics became less worrisome because I was able to put more trust in the leader of the free world again. I am in the majority of Americans in this opinion. Maybe Froomkin readership went down because of that.
Not to say I don’t want to hold President Obama accountable and remind him he has Americans to represent, but the instant negativity toward the Obama administration isn’t healthy. I, along with most who became critical of bush, didn’t start out critical of him — he earned our disdain. What bush wrought can’t be undone instantly. Tomorrow marks the end of only five months of the Obama presidency. It’s unrealistic to mark him as a failure on any front yet.
5 months and we’ve already had a years worth of opposition to anything Obama.
Bush at least had the 9/11 bump.
I really have to object to some of fnord’s comment. There is no liberal bias in the MSM. This is a one of those lies that the wingers shouted about long enough that people just came to accept it.
The problem is confusing the individual reporters who may/do lean left, with the editorial staff. The latter is hired by the corporate masters, and they have a decidedly RW slant. I mean, Obama is a center/left candidate. He’s a moderate. But the tilt of the debate has swung so far right that he seems like a screaming socialist to a lot of people.
Kiersten, who runs Kmareka, had a couple of run-ins with the local media that pretty much demonstrated this point.
And Dean Baker has a running battle with the WaPo in particular, decrying how far right the paper leans.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press
The other thing to remember is that the clowns that you read in the WaPo, or esp those you see on TV are frickin’ millionaires. So their personal interests are decidedly with the bourgeoisie, and not us proles.
The worst are the NBC mafia, which includes the late Tim Russert. Most of these guys were hired by Jack Welch, for chrissakes! Russert, Dick Gregory, Chris Matthews, and others have houses next to Welch’s on Nantucket. They hang together.
I’ll believe you, klaus. The only name I could tell you from WaPo is Froomkin. His was the only column I read regularly, and I haven’t done that for months. So, if WaPo has a leaning to the right I guess that would be one more reason Dan Froomkin isn’t any longer their employee as he had a definite leaning to the left.
For whatever the ultimate reason, I will miss Dan Froomkin very much. He was great and an important balancing factor for the WaPo.