Thursday, June 18, 2009

The Washington Post shreds its last bit of credibility

And fires the one opinion writer at the paper who dared to criticize the Bush administration and has, since the latest inaugural remained true to the principles of "White House Watch" and turned his sites on Obama's actions -- the successes and the failures.

One of the rarest commodities in the establishment media is someone who was a vehement critic of George Bush and who now, applying their principles consistently, has become a regular critic of Barack Obama -- i.e., someone who criticizes Obama from what is perceived as "the Left" rather than for being a Terrorist-Loving Socialist Muslim. It just got a lot rarer, as The Washington Post -- at least according to Politico's Patrick Gavin -- just fired WashingtonPost.com columnist, long-time Bush critic and Obama watchdog (i.e., a real journalist) Dan Froomkin.

What makes this firing so bizarre and worthy of inquiry is that, as Calderone notes, Froomkin was easily one of the most linked-to and cited Post columnists. At a time when newspapers are relying more and more on online traffic, the Post just fired the person who, in 2007, wrote 3 out of the top 10 most-trafficked columns. In publishing that data, Media Bistro used this headline: "The Post's Most Popular Opinions (Read: Froomkin)." Isn't that an odd person to choose to get rid of?

What exactly is the Post's business model and what, exactly, is the mission of its editorial page?

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com Site Meter