Cred-a-bility
Incredible. With the public's opinion of journalists at what would be an all-time low if said opinion isn't always at an all-time low, the WaPost's national editor as well as its ombudsman decide to eat their on-line young.
Well, gosh. Color me batshit crazy, but I don't think their "credibility" problem has anything to do with readers confusing Froomkin -- who is basically a fact-checker of White House spin -- with a "reporter." The Post's -- and other newspapers' -- credibility problem has to do with readers confusing "reporters" with "reporters." Again and again.
Christ, what a dunderheaded, smug, and entirely clueless act by the Post's ombudsman. Her dunderheadedness, smugness, and cluelessness is best exemplified by the fact that, while her column appears on-line, she does not provide a link to Froomkin's column. Not getting it would be an understatement.
Meanwhile, back at the Post, Richard Cohen, self-described "liberal," is outraged, OUTRAGED" by Syriana's suggestion that the U.S. government, K Street fixers, and big oil may have converging interests. And that sometimes those converging interests recognize -- and profit from -- the convergence. If Cohen is confused by the movie...er...cartoon, according to his cinematic perspective, it is because the movie is not so heavy handed as to suggest a conspiracy, but rather that "U.S. interests" can sometimes cast a very, very wide net. No, Richard Cohen, it's you, not the critics who praised an interesting film who is in the dark. Sure, liberating Iraq from the Baathists is all about bringing democracty to the middle east. If it also throws a bone or two to some old friends, so much the better. What fucking planet does Richard Cohen breathe on, assuming for a moment that his medulla oblangata is still capable of the most primitive somatic reflex arc?
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 that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.
John Harris, national political editor at the print Post, said, "The title invites confusion. It dilutes our only asset -- our credibility" as objective news reporters. Froomkin writes the kind of column "that we would never allow a White House reporter to write. I wish it could be done with a different title and display."
Well, gosh. Color me batshit crazy, but I don't think their "credibility" problem has anything to do with readers confusing Froomkin -- who is basically a fact-checker of White House spin -- with a "reporter." The Post's -- and other newspapers' -- credibility problem has to do with readers confusing "reporters" with "reporters." Again and again.
Christ, what a dunderheaded, smug, and entirely clueless act by the Post's ombudsman. Her dunderheadedness, smugness, and cluelessness is best exemplified by the fact that, while her column appears on-line, she does not provide a link to Froomkin's column. Not getting it would be an understatement.
Meanwhile, back at the Post, Richard Cohen, self-described "liberal," is outraged, OUTRAGED" by Syriana's suggestion that the U.S. government, K Street fixers, and big oil may have converging interests. And that sometimes those converging interests recognize -- and profit from -- the convergence. If Cohen is confused by the movie...er...cartoon, according to his cinematic perspective, it is because the movie is not so heavy handed as to suggest a conspiracy, but rather that "U.S. interests" can sometimes cast a very, very wide net. No, Richard Cohen, it's you, not the critics who praised an interesting film who is in the dark. Sure, liberating Iraq from the Baathists is all about bringing democracty to the middle east. If it also throws a bone or two to some old friends, so much the better. What fucking planet does Richard Cohen breathe on, assuming for a moment that his medulla oblangata is still capable of the most primitive somatic reflex arc?
posted by John at 7:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home