WaPo- get this straight: this is not about left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat, or Conservative vs. Liberal.
This is about truth vs lies, and a paper's duty to print the truth. Not spin. Not "anon. sources", not "DC insiders say". Not whatever is fed to you, that you print without verifying source & content as factual. Reporting.
Your attempt to frame Froomkin as "liberal" is a joke. He reports verifiable facts, and, because the facts don't fit your dogma, you make feeble attemts to mimimize him. You know and we know it, so why do you continue making yourselves irrelevant & untrustworthy? All you are doing is making the Enquirer look good.
What happened to the WaPo? Why does this paper shirk its duty to report truth & facts, and stand independent of influence?
Perhaps you shuld be answering this question first, and stop shooting the messenger.

John - It's you who are confused. I hear the cocktails and weenies at those Republican parties can be bad for the mind. You might try laying off them... Maybe your sanity will come back.

"It might be the case that he would be writing similarly about John Kerry if he were president. But I guarantee that many people who posted here would not be Froomkin enthusiasts--or be so indifferent to the concerns I raise--in that case."

Wouldn't this be a good thing? God help us, this is from the WP National Politics Editor.

No wonder we've been getting the "Some republicans say A, while democrats complain B."

Whatever did happen to the Washington Post.? It's certainly no longer the newspaper I grew up reading.

Regards,
Ian Coleman

What is striking to me is that Ms. Howell and Mr. Harris seem to have declared war on Mr. Froomkin without giving him the opportunity to assauge their concerns. If the real complaint is perceived confusion as to whether Mr. Froomkin is a "White House reporter", my question is whether anyone ever broached this subject with Mr. Froomkin or his editors before personally and publicly attacking him, his beliefs and his credibility in the Ombudsmen column of the Post? Mr. Froomkin stated that he was "happy to consider" ways to telegraph that he was not a Post White House reporter. So why was that option not explored before publicly smearing him as someone who "dilutes" the Post's credibility? It would appear that conclusions about Mr. Froomkin and his column were published without much thought or research and were based upon relatively uninformed opinion - perhaps the "highly opinionated" label is more appropriate to those wielding it.

Seems to me that Mr. Froomkin is the only one with clean hands in this. He has remained dignified, professional, and has tried to stay above the fray. He was forced to defend his column, but he has said nothing nothing negative about Ms. Howell, Mr. Harris, or anyone else at the Post. I commend his restraint.

Reading thru the _hundreds_ of supportive and positive posts for Froomkin... I saw one that you should seriously consider.

Rename your paper: The White House Post

Based on this pathetic attempt at a retort, John Harris should be reprimanded by the Washington Post for an obvious smear campaign against one of the few honest voices at the paper.

Deborah Howell, a recent hire by the WaPo, should fare no better. As a Minnesota native, I'm completely aware of the very conservative positions of her former employer - the Saint Paul Pioneer Press (a.k.a the Washington Times of the Midwest). It appears that this conservative disease within the WaPo, and journalism as a whole, remains unabated. I'll be reading....

If you, a boss at the Post, does not realize what has been happening to your once great paper, then we truly are in big trouble. You are being used, plain and simple, by the "master" himself, and you don't see this - not good for those of us seeking the truth. For years, Rove and his minions have been setting you, and other big time news sources, up. When a so-called "reporter" like Woodward sits on important news, so he can later use it in a book, something is wrong, sir. And he is not the only one, as we are learning almost daily now.
Froomkin doesn't play the White House game. Because of this he is considered, by a helluva lot of us out here, your most trusted reporter right now.
We have too many Krauthammers, Bob Novaks, Fred Barnes's, etc. spewing administration propaganda, coming at us from so many media sources. What we need are more Froomkins, more truth without the White House slant on it.
Get back to doing what you used to do - give us the facts, and remember that facts are not "fair and balanced", or always have two sides. The truth can stand alone.
Sincerely, Gary Van Ess, Green Bay, Wi.

If I worked outside the paper, I might presume myself that a feature titled "White House Briefing" was written by one of the newspaper's White House reporters.

That is the difference -- you presume, Dan reports.

Wow.

Deborah Howell's Ombudsman column annoyed me - this response by Harris just p*sses me off!

I agree with everyone's email I've read - Froomkin is the very best part of the online Post - I get the print version, and between the addled OpEd, 'Krauthammer', George 'bombast' Will, etc. I occasionally see some truth.. and then I find out that the 'Editors' are angry at Froomkin

And why?

A lie! 'White House Briefing' sounds like 'Blah di blah, WaPo White House Reporter'

This makes no sense

I'm ashamed to say I am a subscriber - I won't be for long

John Harris is a disgrace to journalism and should be fired!

"The confusion Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work.

John Harris
National Politics Editor"

Not if you and your reporters really did their work.

And don't be so presumptuous as to state that if Kerry were in office, Froomkin's readership would dry up. That's a weak assertion and insulting to your readers.

Rather than attack Mr. Froomkin, see how you can create a better paper with him.

"The first issue is whether many readers believe Dan's column is written by one of the Washington Post's three White House reporters. It seems to me--based on many, many examples--beyond any doubt that a large share of readers do believe that."

??????????

What is your fact basis for that? I look at the commments and there is absolutely a) not a "large share" that seem unaware of the op nature; and b) NO ONE who thought his log was written by "one of the Washington Post's three White House reporters" (everyone refers to is as Froomkin or Froomkin's column).

Personally, I don't care if you change the name. I look for "Froomkin" and not "White House Briefing". But this "response" seems filled with the very kinds of things that make people search out a Froomkin column OVER the reported/edited pieces. What are your numbers? What is the audience for his pieces; what do you define as a "large share"; what are the numbers of responses you have received and where are they compiled to give you the objective basis for stating a "large share" think his column is put together by one of the 3 White House reporters; what investigation was done to determine whether or not those sending those responses are indeed regular readers who were suddenly shocked to discover it was an op piece vs. people who didn't like what his op piece was saying and knowing it to be op, nonetheless were seeking a way to stifle his input?

See - that's what, once upon a time, you would expect a Reporter, much less Editor, to go through before writing. Did you? Or did you instead rely upon your:

"If I worked outside the paper, I might presume myself that a feature titled 'White House Briefing' was written by one of the newspaper's White House reporters"

own personal opinion and decide to report it as a fact that a large share of Froomkins readers can't distinguish his piece as being opinion bc, if you were not working for the paper YOU might be confused?

"For me it is a problem. 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"

Again, this sounds as if the problem is YOURS and not so much the readerships. And that your concern is not so much that there is an inability to distinguish his column from "reporting" but rather that his viewpoint is not your own - it is that "liberal prism".

"Dan does not address the main question in his comments. He should. If he were a White House reporter for a major news organization, would it be okay for him to write in the fashion he does?"

Well, let me rephrase you question for you. The main question is, after all, the credibility of reporting done by and for the WP. You are not addressing that main question and you should. If a White House reporter for a major news organization had reported more in the manner of Dan's commentary, would the Administrations lies and incorrect statements been laid bare a few thousand lives earlier? A few hundred billion sooner?

I am not a reporter and do not play one and have been, until the Iraq war, accused at least as often of being conservative (esp. fiscally and religiously) as liberal. But the tissue of lies were so easy to see - so easy to punch through if any effort were made. Cunningham and the Washington Press corps - where were you guys during his years of high flying that were absolutely unsupported by his income levels. How often did major news organizations blythely announce, print, reprint and re-announce that the LA Gov had not contacted the White House for help before the Hurricane? All the info was online forgoshsakes - it is a sad day when The Daily Show does more indepth fact checking than major new networks.

If I hear one more incorrect analysis, that has obviously been regurgitated from a "high ranking source" about why Bush could not have sent troops in to LA due to Posse Comitatus (18 USC 1385) I will bang my head against the wall. Nowhere does anyone ever even begin to say things like, "ummm, wait a minute - then why was posse commitatus suddenly not an issue when he did send out the order to go in?" or "wait a minute, don't we have a national response plan (wowser - there it is, online and everything) that spells some of this out?

Seriously, the response you have posted makes me feel as if you are filtering the whole of the WP's political reporting through a "Harris Prism" and that is one that thinks the way you deal with differing breakdowns of light into its components is to just keep everyone in the dark.

Prove me wrong.

Heaven forbid "that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter."

I subscribed to the WaPo in 1973 while working on an Indian reservation in North Dakota. It took 4 or 5 days to get there, but it was well worth the wait to be able to follow in depth the emerging Watergate scandal. The WaPo was then the premier national newspaper for national politics.

Perhaps the problem for John Harris and his fellow politics "reporters" is that more people find Froomkin "credible" than their he-said-she-said "reporting" and "analysis."

Mr. Harris, sir, no one is confusing an online-only COLUMN that provides links to news and opinion concerning the White House with the work of your team. No one. People may wonder why your work is so less compelling, so less vaulable, but no one is confusing the two products.

I am stunned that you see skepticism, an insistence on truthfulness and a little perspective as a "liberal prism." Sir, a newspaper's work cannot be about the messenger, it must be about the message. You embarass yourself and your great newspaper when you see issues as "us vs. them" rather than assessing truth, merit and benefit. If you see Mr. Froomkin's work as threatening or biased, I submit that you have lost your journalistic compass. Hopefully this exercise will help you get it back.

"People in the newsroom want to end this confusion. We do not want to spike his column ...."

Gee, how very nice of you. Fascist.

Clearly there are two issues here. One is the apparently common confusion of Dan Froomkin with a Washington Post White House reporter. Obviously this should be corrected immediately. The other issue, and this is clearly the one that has the stronger emotional resonance with readers, is the possibility of Mr. Froomkin being "balanced" by a conservative blogger. I suggest that this would be a terrible mistake.

The first obligation of journalism is to the truth, but very close second is to serve the public as a balance against those in power. Whatever his motivations, Mr. Froomkin clearly understands this second responsibility. Lately it has not been so evident that the Washington Post, as an organization, does.

In light of the recent revelations about Bob Woodward, the Post has allowed itself to appear willing to print stories more or less dictated by the very people in power whom they mean to cover. Not, as some media critics suggest, through collusion with sources, but rather through a series of small decisions not to question certain claims and not to connect certain dots. As Joan Didion pointed out in "Political Pornography," this rhetorical incuriousity about leaked information doesn't quite amount to a bias towards those in power, but neither does it make for completely responsible journalism.

What Mr. Froomkin does in his column is to work against the tendencies of "access journalism," by connecting some of the dots, by questioning some of the leaked information. What he does, in other words, is to fill in percieved gaps in the Post's journalism.

Adding a conservative blogger would not "balance" Mr. Froomkin's work; it would negate it. Mr. Froomkin's column is concerned almost exclusively with the executive branch, which is currently Republican controlled. Inevitably, someone taking an adverserial role against that branch is going to seem disposed against whatever party occupies it at the time. It is possible that Mr. Froomkin is liberally disposed, but at the moment that concern is irrelevant -- he is doing what he should be doing, regardless of his political persuasion.

If a Democratic candidate wins the presidency, then Mr. Froomkin's claim will truly be put to the test. If he fails, then by all means "balance" him right off of your website. Until then, I beg you, please let his column stand alone and remain a voice that attempts to speak truth to power.

Am I missing something, or isn't Mr. Froomkin's column located in the "Opinion" section? Is this a recent occurence, or has this always been the case?

I'd also ask that Mr. Harris more fully explain how the misperception that Mr. Froomkin's column is a product of the Post's White House reporters "has itself become an obstacle." I can only assume that this refers to sources in the White House who, disapproving of Mr. Froomkin's column and its title, have created these "obstacles" for the White House reporters to overcome. Am I wrong? Have I misperceived this notion?

Is there any other way to read this comment? If my perception is correct, what lengths exactly will the Post and it's National politics desk go to to ensure "obstacle"-free work?

If sources in the White House ask that the National politics desk jump, is Mr. Harris acting in the best interest of his paper or of journalism to be asking "How high?"

Mr Harris, it was much easier covering Clinton's sex life, wasn't it?

--

Obviously, Harris' masters in the White House don't like Froomkin and want him ... (what is the word Harris used?) ... "spiked".

Good job, Harris. Good boy. I'm sure the WH will give you a treat and nice pat when they see you next.

Mr. Harris -- Was it your intention to insult the WaPo readers? I certainly understood that Mr. Froomkin is not a White House Reporter. I also believe that truth is not to be viewed through a liberal or conservative prism. Truth stands outside those contrived boundaries. If there was a Kerry White House and Mr. Froomkin chose to expose any irreularities or lies, I would most assuredly be reading those columns. (Look, I still read Krauthammer.)

You don't so much seem to have exposed a problem with Mr. Froomkin or his readers. You have exposed a problem of your own.

Please read the posts following Mr. Froomkin's remarks. I have rarely seen so many thoughtful, intelligent comments about the value that we all place on newspapers. Maybe, then, you and Ms. Howell can put away the long knives and go to work on areas of the newspaper that may actually need fixing.

Why are all the comments here libburla biased? Where's the balance and fairness and freedom?

You might consider that one reason your country is in a steep decline, and has burned up a half-century and more of global goodwill, is that people like you are unwilling to put hard questions to power, or even, when you know the answers, to break with inside-the-Beltway solidarity and tell the public what they are.

If you were serious about labelling issues and "prisms" you'd be going after Woodward.
Make him put "uncritical friend of power" on everything he puts in your paper.

This response disgusts me. I am gobsmacked that this is the political editor of Washington Post.

"If he were a White House reporter for a major news organization, would it be okay for him to write in the fashion he does?"

With skepticism and humor -- NO WAY! Ony fawning stenography will do.

"If the answer is no, there is not really a debate: washingtonpost.com should change the name of his column to more accurately present the fact that this is Dan Froomkin's take on the news, not the observations of someone who is assigned by the paper to cover the news."

Dan Froomkin is not assigned to cover the news?? Or is the phrase "by the paper" the key here? Getting complaints from Karl?

Perhaps the question that should be addressed is whether the WP should consider adding a second National Politics Editor to balance Mr. Harris?

;)

Mr. Harris's comment here is very revealing. As many readers have remarked, apparently the Bush enthusiasts at the WaPo consider truth, honesty, and accountability to be liberal values. And maybe they are these days. The truth about Bush is so bad that even hinting at it makes you a liberal biased kook.

Because he is not a reporter, Dan Froomkin is free to connect the dots and tell the truth about Bush's disasterous administration. He doesn't need to curry favor with White House sources who want to use him as a mouthpiece for their deceptive messages.

From Dr. Cb
"If my perception is correct, what lengths exactly will the Post and it's National politics desk go to to ensure "obstacle"-free work? "

I have an estimate for you.

2100, at least.

Mr. Harris,
you are a sad, sorry excuse for a...I'm not sure what to call what you purport to be, because you certainly are no journalist.

If you spent half the energy asking substantive questions of the White House as you have bashing Froomkin, your paper would not be in the condition it finds itself in now. You people need a top-down house-cleaning.

Hoo boy... now you've done it!

It sounds like there are a couple of things going on here.

Conflicts between Post print edition & washingtonpost.com. Between old journalism traditions and blogs. Perhaps even some intrapersonal miscommunication.

It's obvious that WHB is not done by a staff reporter. It says "Special to the ..." right at the top (but then, as a news junkie and lover of newspapers, I always glance at the byline and consider that part of the story).

Why not call the blog "White House Briefing -- Dan Froomkin Special to ..."? A bit cumbersome, but effective for the dunderheads among us.

Journalists ultimately benefit from blog links because it directs us to read their pieces. They complement each other. I imagine the instant criticism is a bit hard to stomach. Get used to it! -- It's the wave of the future.

One advantage that blogs have, of course, is that they don't have to repeat basic info on a recurring story because they assume readers are familiar with the story up to that point. I admit I get a bit bored with the old recaps and quickly skip through them saying to myself: yeah, yeah get on with it...

One of the many advantages reporters have over bloggers is tradition, status, skill, experience, and a known place to call home.

Journalism is not a dead fish. It's evolving and blogs are an exciting part of the whole deal. Will we end up more like the British style press? Perhaps not a bad thing.

Understanding (admitting even) that journalists, like bloggers, have a voice and that voice is part of the story.

As a reader, this is what I think.

PS -- To the online team. Have you thought of adding a Preview feature to the Comments section?

Good grief- Froomkin writes though a liberal prism? Are you kidding me?

Froomkin may be snarky, but facts are facts. Just because they frequently make the current president look like a boob doesn't mean that Froomkin is writing with a liberal bias.

And for the record, I never miss his column, and I would expect him to be every bit as hard on a democratic president. As for the name of his column, only a moron could read more than 3 or 4 sentences and think he was an actual "white house reporter."

Give us a break. The post's readers are smarter than you think.

Wow - good grief, Mr. Harris - do try not to patronize us too much. It doesn't take a genius to immediately see that Fromkin puts together a number of reports on a given story, beautifully too. You need to tell us why you and your so-called reporters feel so threatened by this.

I personnally don't care what you call Mr. Fromkin's column - go ahead and rename the thing. I'll still be heading there first. Hell, Fromkin's column is the only reason I come to this site at all.

So, what will you find next to try and shut him up?

Dan Froomkin is taintde, darksided! His entire column is darksided too! Everything's un-Godly! Gargoyles!... Psychics! Get the hell out of my newspaper! In Jesus' name I pray! GET OUT!
I give it up to Bush I'm a Bush WARRIOR!
He is not a CHRISTIAN!
He is tampering in darksided stuff!
His column is tainted- I don't want it! Whatever it is, it's tainted!
I want nothing. I want my God and I want my Bush! I want MONEY!

Sounds to me like Mr. Harris' initial comments and later response to Mr. Froomkin is an example of bureaucratic territoriality supported by a flimsy argument. No doubt, the solution offered by Harris is for Froomkin to report to Harris so the "problems" can be fixed.

In making his argument, Harris characterizes Froomkin enthusiasts as pro-Kerry (or is it anti-Bush?). Really flimsy. How would Harris characterize the "many, many" who don't understand what "Dan Froomkin, Columnist" means?

Froomkin's irreverence is refreshing, and entirely in keeping with internet nature of his column. His categorization by issue is helpful, and his "scene-setting" of links leads one to articles that would otherwise be unread because of often poorly written headlines.

Froomkin is a real asset for the Post. And the fact that Bill O"Reilly got confused and doesn't like him has nothing to do with it.

What would Woodward do?

I agree with what "John" from Oklahoma wrote at 7:26:05. The concern I have is not that a well-defined opinion columnist has a column title that only the most cursory of readers would find confusing.

Rather, it is that the reporters with decades of experience and trust - most overtly, Bob Woodward - appear to be leveraging that trust with the readers to tacitly interject the "talking points" of the administration as facts that have been investigated and verified by two independent sources.

This is a far greater injustice to your readership - in print and on-line.

Respectfully,
Dave L.
Madison, WI

I have been growing increasingly skeptical of the Post's commitment to quality reporting and to its readers. I have gathered more news from the BBC and media outlets overseas than I have from the Post! Dan Froomkin is not only my favorite columnist, he is the only reason I read this paper at all. I am shocked that the ombudsman can criticize a true professional who gets his information from many sources and who holds this administration accountable. At the same time, this paper gives a wink and a nod to one of its managing editors who is more committed to book revenue and protecting sources for future book revenue than providing information to its readers.
I support Dan Froomkin and the great work that he does.

Gee, why did the Washington Post get it so wrong about the pre-war situation in Iraq?

Because of the credulity and faux "balance" exhibited in the above comments by John Harris.

I'm sure the White House apologized to you for leading you around by your noses. Mr. Harris want sot return to those glory days, evidently, when the front page got nearly every story about Iraq wrong.

Yeah, that's a great idea.

What happened to people at the Post? Do you really think that your "He Said, She Said" stenography is reporting? None of you seem capable of drawing obvious conclusions if there is the smallest chance that it might look like you are biased politically. Do you have a clue how frustrating that is to readers? I don't trust anything that comes out of your paper until it has been vetted by the blogs.

Mr. Harris, please consider that in a few years your job will be about as relevant as that of a foreman in a buggy whip factory, watching all those newfangled automobiles roll by.

Using that as a reference point, please also attempt to analyze why you are further alienating your customer base by dismissing the investment of time we make when consuming your product.

I no longer consume media that treats me with contempt.

Please read the above sentence as many times as neccessary.

This means I have to look to blogs, or the BBC.

I hope at some point I can claim to read your newspaper again, but it will only be when Walter Pincus is on the front page as a matter of course, not accident.

Froomkin is one of the most readable sections of the Post, because he reports facts as facts. This is done---wonderfully---without the kneejerk attempt to apologize for the politician (calling something 'possibly misleading' when its an outright lie) or "balance" the story because the facts refuse to distribute blame evenly to both political parties.

Pleaes keep the best part of the paper free from interference.

WAPO has become an administration mouthpiece. Try quoting fewer 'anonynmous sources' (i.e. government contacts spinning you) and do more real journalism.

oh believe me, there's no way dan froomkin will ever be confused with a white house reporter. he has more integrity than the combined lot of them who sit passively day after day while scott mcclellan lies/spins/evades their questions. please.

You wrote: "Dan, as I understand his position, says that his commentary is not ideologically based, but he acknowledges it is written with a certain irreverence and *adversarial purpose.*" [emphasis added]

For the life of me I can't find the part where Dan admits to an "adversarial purpose." Perhaps you are referring to Mr. Froomkin's admission that he seeks "accountability and transparency" or to his belief that "the president of the United States, no matter what his party, should be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable" or to his view that b) "journalists who cover Washington and the White House should be holding the president accountable"? If so, then I have some advice for you: Consider another profession!

In the America where I come from, a journalist holding the president accountable is not being adversarial; it's their ... uhm ... er ... JOB! If you can't see that, then you've definitely lost your way, and the Washington Post is most definitely wasting its money. You need a long vacation, dude. Go home, have a drink and get in touch with your inner journalist. Maybe its still in there somewhere. Then again, maybe not.

"Heckuva job, Harris!"

"Dan, as I understand his position, says that his commentary is not ideologically based, but he acknowledges it is written with a certain irreverence and adversarial purpose."

God forbid someone covering the administration approach the subject with irreverance and adversarial purpose! Only in the current world of inside-the-beltway, mainstream media access whoring would that be a bad thing. The job of a white house reporter is not just to parrot speeches and news releases, it is to take the administration to task and to hold it accountable for its actions and statements! Especially in today's age where spin is King in Washington.

If you want a reference to what real reporting looks like, take a gander at the recent series of articles in the LA Times about pre-war intelligence.

Grow a pair, and if you are that concerned with staying on the White House A-list, go get a job on K Street where you belong.

Perhaps the confusion that Mr.Harris imagines in his readers says something about what he thinks of their perceptiveness. Most of those commenting above seem to like Mr. Froomkin, recognize that he writes an online blog, and value his perceptions regardless of the forum he writes in.

Rename it. I like "Cooking with Walnuts," as someone else suggested.

Mr. Harris:

Your paper's credibility is in tatters, and you want to assert that this has something to do with Dan Froomkin's column (and no, sir, your readers are not nearly as foolish as you think they are; we know perfectly well what Mr. Froomkin's writing is, and what it isn't).

Mr. Froomkin is not the problem. You, sir, and Ms. Howell, and all those who mistake access for investigation, stenography for journalism, and deference to power for "balance," are the problem. Mr. Froomkin is part of the solution, and he is perhaps the only person at the Post about whom that can so clearly be said.

With editors like you, I'm sorry to say, the Post doesn't need enemies.

After reading John Harris's latest screed, I am spinning in my grave.

--

The Post is jealous that this week's talk of media idiocy is about Time.

Had to do something to grab the spotlight back.

Wow. Someone is "adverserial" to the White House spin, and you guys get all uptight? Unbelievable.

Thanks for underlining the fact that you consider yourself a propaganda outfit.

Paul McLeary: You covered the Clinton presidency for the Washington Post from 1995 to 2001, and during that contentious second term, what was your general take on the mood of the press corps in response to Clinton and his policies?

John F. Harris: The mood of the press corps was oftentimes kind of sour -- sour in both directions. People tend to forget, for understandable reasons because the Lewinsky scandal was such a sensational affair, that 1997 was in its own way a very sullen, snippy, disagreeable year in the relationship between the White House and the press. Most news organizations -- the Washington Post included -- were devoting lots of resources, lots of coverage, to the campaign fund-raising scandal which grew out of the '96 campaign, and there were a lot of very tantalizing leads in those initial controversies. In the end they didn't seem to lead anyplace all that great. But there were tons of questions raised that certainly, to my mind, merited aggressive coverage.

Shame on you, for not seeing how your regular reporters have surrendered their judgment and critical thinking to become, at best, gossip columnists and, at worst, tools for manipulation of public opinion. The entire press corps (with some exceptions - the Mpls Star-Trib and Toledo Blade for example) has been infected with a moral and factual neutrality that is as incomprehensible as it is damaging to our democracy. The Post is hardly the worst offender -- but the Post should hold itself to a higher standsard.

I,for one, have never thought that Froomkin was part of the WaPo's White House team because he always includes a representative passage of a WaPo story by the paper's reporters on that beat, and sometimes comments on that passage. He would not do so if he were a member of that team -- a positive reference would be seen as self-congratulatory, while a negative reference would make him persona non grata with the team's other members.
It is, however, unfortunate that Mr. Harris does not actually have someone on his team who, like Mr. Froomkin, is not so accepting of White House spin. If he did, perhaps the reputation of the Washington Post's political coverage would not have sunk so low.

It utterly amazes me that the Washington Post reporters cannot find more compelling things to concern themselves with than their perception of a liberal voice in Dan Froomkin's column. And Mr. Harris seems to think he knows how his readers would respond if a Democratic administration were dealt with critically. This is a pretty demeaning and superior position to take by an editor whose paper is under the microscope for allowing a reporter to obstruct justice because he was writing a book on the subject and didn't feel like testifying about what he knew. I find it insulting that the Post thinks I have no capacity for critical thinking and can't see the difference between a reporter's work on a White House story and a column compiled of links to various websites addressing the same subject matter. I agree with my fellow commentors that there is clearly pressure from administration sources on the paper to "deal" with Dan and his honest appraisal of the facts he finds in his research which, with this administration, inevitably shine a light on the various crimes and disasters they have created and perpetuated. As an American Citizen who believes in a free press, I am grateful that someone in the press is not under the thumb of the Rove/Cheney machine and gives me the links I need to make informed decisions about issues. The bulk of the Post is fully dedicated to the Party Line. There is nothing to see here that a little self-examination by the critics won't cure. If Dan is creating a problem for your other reporters, I have to think it is because your administration buddies are getting nervous and angry that the truth is coming out in the pages of the Washington Post, AKA the White House Post.

Mr. Harris, I expect you will be very disappointed if you "spike" Froomkin based on these flimsy excuses, as we in the blogosphere are a dedicated and loyal bunch who are doing some of your reporting for you. I suggest you find a mediator to work with your childish staff and leave Froomkin alone.

Why is it that reporting the facts is perceived as "liberal"? Conservatives have openly disdained the "reality-based community." Is it because they can't handle the truth?

Did you get soem reporters at the Washington Post recently? Because we know there were none in the lead-up to the war. "Weapons of mass destruction..." Get a life, Washington Post.

> The reporters on the Post's White House
> and political teams every day push through
> many obstacles and frustrations to do
> precisely this kind of accountability
> reporting

In the last 3 weeks (say), how many times has Karl Rove been quoted anonymously in the WaPo? 5? 10? 20?

I would submit that "anomymous administration officials" are what is destroying your credibility, not online opinion columnists.

Cranky

Mr. Harris concludes his column here by claiming that Froomkin's column "has itself become an obstacle to our work". However he did not explain how the column is an obstacle, even if it is true that readers were confused about whether Dan Froomkin was a WaPo White House reporter. Does the column prevent the political reporters from covering events, calling contacts, writing sentences, editing stories? Do people in the news say "I won't answer your questions because I'm confused about whether Mr. Froomkin's column is part of the political desk?" Please explain this obstruction.

I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the readers are confused in any meaningful way. Mr. Froomkin does not "report" from the White House Briefing room, nor pretent to author things that are authored by others. I think it's a distinction that makes more of a difference to Mr. Harris' insider world than it does to the readers.

Thanks.

"People in the newsroom want to end this confusion."

I think you should spend five minutes in the cold shower of priorities, Mr Harris. We all know that you're worried about losing your invitations to all the best holiday parties in DC, but there is a better way to go about this. And I'm sure they'll offer you some cheese to go with that whine.
On a related matter, are you going to stop Dana Millbank being snarky and irreverent on MSNBC?

Mr. Harris,

With all due respect, are you kidding? You think that the problem is that readers are confused about whether a column appearing on the Opinion page of the WAPO website is written by a White House reporter because it's called "White House Briefing"? Do you think we are too stupid to notice that we are on the Opinion page? As one poster suggested, if you think that's the problem, rename it "Cooking with Walnuts." We'll read it all the same, and continue to rely on Mr. Froomkin to bring attention to things that your "real" White House reporters can't be bothered with.

I applaud those reporters, at the Washington Post and elsewhere, who have tried to hold this government accountable. We need more of them, and fewer White House stenographers posing as reporters. That's the problem you should be focused on.

And be assured that if a Kerry administration had proved to be as mendacious, secretive, incompetent, and bull-headed as the current administration, a large share of us Froomkin readers would expect and want the same treatment of it.

Mr Froomkins column serves up a refreshing and very readable perspective on Washington and the more you (Mr Harris) and Ms Howell try to clarify what doesn't need to be clarified the deeper the hole you dig.
It seems that perhaps you and others are setting up an alibi and plan to dismiss Mr Froomkin or place his writing near the classifieds in the blogsphere? Whatever your reasons for taking a position about a headline, name or title that confuses only the two of you strikes me as "much ado about nothing". And you know it.
I think the irritant to your thinking is that so many read,discuss and refer to Mr Froomkin's work and that interest and buzz is lacking elsewhere in your paper.
After all they don't call your paper the Gray Lady for nothing - now do they?
(Oh that's not you - is it?)

John,

Considering what tools you and the rest of the folks at the WaPo have been for Bush and his cronies and after all the misleading stories you've printed about Clinton, Gore and Kerry, maybe you ought to try being a little more slanted even if doing so doesn't meet the current professional standards which have stood you in such good stead.

I'm a casual reader of Froomkin's blog. I've never looked at the issue but never got the impression that he was a WH reporter. It's the job of politicians to get their point of view out by whatever means available, and that it's up to the press to use the "facts" as far as they can be determined to fill out the picture for readers. It seems that tht's what DF is doing. I find it refreshing to see Rep and Dem politicians held to a standard of accountability. Keep DF around to see how he does with the Dems when they're in powwer. I think that his column will be just as informative and fun forr the same reasons..

I wonder if the WaPo has any additional investigative reporters who might want to loook into the story about who is pressuring Mr Harris into trying to undermine Froomkin?

Why does there have to be balance anyway? Don't we really want truth regardless of the slant?

What obstacles are these reporters pushing through? The fax machine running out of toner in the middle of printing out a White House or Pentagon press release?

I'm a casual reader of Froomkin's blog. I've never looked at the issue but never got the impression that he was a WH reporter. It's the job of politicians to get their point of view out by whatever means available, and that it's up to the press to use the "facts" as far as they can be determined to fill out the picture for readers. It seems that tht's what DF is doing. I find it refreshing to see Rep and Dem politicians held to a standard of accountability. Keep DF around to see how he does with the Dems when they're in powwer. I think that his column will be just as informative and fun forr the same reasons that it is now.

I assume you're going to end Dana Milbank's Washington Sketch opinion columns. As confusing activities go, having an opinion column by a reporter is pretty high up there.

You may want to consider putting Froomkin behind our Times Select Wall. That's how we shut up Krugman and Rich.

Can someone remind me why I continue to read this piece of trash paper?

RG

"The reporters on the Post's White House and political teams every day push through many obstacles and frustrations to do precisely this kind of accountability reporting"

Lord knows what hard work it is drinking wine with Bob Luskin and vacationing in Aspen with Scooter Libby.

Nice to have in print that political journalists take a dim view of irreverance towards the President. The Washington Post, like the NY Times, is not a liberal paper, it is an Establishment paper, and god forbid some peon, i.e. regular American citizen, question the Establishment. Where would that bring this country, to democracy, freedom?

Mr Harris,

You are an editor for one of the foremost publications in the world. As such, I find it mind boggling that you can take the statment, "There is undeniably a certain irreverence to the column," and change it to, "Dan, as I understand his position, says that his commentary is not ideologically based, but he acknowledges it is written with a certain irreverence and adversarial purpose"

"Adversarial?" The only way you could make your argument sound is to add that word where it never belonged. "Irreverence" is a trait EVERY white house reporter should have. What benefit is their to reporters holding the white house in reverence? I can't imagine you got this job without knowing what "reverence" means, but just in case: A feeling of profound awe and respect and often love; veneration. (from dictionary.com).

I think you did know what that word means, though, which is why you felt you had to add the word "adversarial." Of course WH reporters shouldn't be adversarial. But they can certainly be irreverent and demand answers and hold them to accountability without being adversarial.

Your use of this word is terrible reporting.

But you had to use it, or else your entire argument would fall apart.

Thus your allegiance was more to your argument than to good reporting. Thus you chose advocacy over reporting.

To say nothing of your attempts to marginalize the opinions of those of us who enjoy Froomkin's column, claiming that we wouldn't like it as much if he questioned a fictious president Kerry. While you are certainly right about some of the readers, the column would collect just as many weak-kneed conservatives.

However, since most of the readers enjoy, above all else, being informed, your shot at us is cheap, undeserved and insulting. I enjoy having a government that is rigorously questioned and held accountable. No matter what party is controlling the government, it works better when they are honest.

I used to tell people to read the Post because I thought it was better than the NYT, and I thought Kurtz and Froomkins columns were great resources. Now you've made me lose respect for your entire paper.

Thanks for everything.

It's true Froomkin gains a certain cachet from being associated with the august Washington Post.

But, you don't seem to understand how much cachet Froomkin lends to the Post. It is very, very cool (and, everyone wants to be near "cool", right?) that washingtonpost.com is savvy enough to give the guy a shot.

Gosh,

All I can say is, I'm so glad that the Post's content is now for the most part available for FREE since it is quickly becoming not worth a dime if the columnists must either pass a litmus test for administration loyalty or have their columns wear a scarlet letter so that the wingers don't take offense.

Dan doesn't try to find equivalence where there is none (like Howie for example) but it's a huge stretch to infer that he is misleading anyone (with half a brain) merely by the title of his column.

How low must the Post go?

ugh

Go ahead. Change the name of the column from "White House Briefing" to FROOMKIN.

I'd be delighted to see Dan Froomkin's name all over the Post. I want to see FROOMKIN on the front page, where it belongs. Dan's a star among First Amendment groupies.

Moreover, by eliminating the limiting heading of "White House Briefing", the Post could give Froomkin greater latitude to cover more kinds of issues.

Of course, that would mean giving him his own staff, more publishing space, greater editorial discretion-- all of those indicators of a free press.

More space, more topics, more insight, more FROOMKIN!

How soon do you think we can expect to see these changes?

Let me straighten Mr. Harris out about one thing:

If John Kerry were president and he lied America into a war and then lost the war, killing over 2000 American soldiers and 30,000 civilians (as Bush acknowledged today!) and horribly wounding tens of thousands more, there is no limit to the punishment he would deserve for that.

And I would want the truth, I wouldn't hide behind lies and self-hypnosis like the dwindling number of Bush supporters.

I didn't have time to read through all the comments, so if someone has already posted similar sentiments above, my apologies.

Has it occured to Harris and Howell that a sizable chunk of the Post's online readers visit the site every day only because of Dan Froomkin? Along with Josh Marshall, Atrios, Laura Rozen and a very few others, he runs what amounts to one of the web's must-read political blogs. I'm sure if Dan decided to set up his own shop and keep doing exactly what he does now, his extremely loyal reader base would go right along with him. He might just make a few more dollars doing it, too.

Come to think of it, if the Post doesn't want Dan, I'd encourage him to make the leap. He's a unique resource and a marketable quantity. Let them try to run a site with Howie as their star blogger. Because goodness knows, there are just so few rightwing windbags on the web whose stock in trade is complaining about the MSM and making tired Hillary jokes.

Call it "Froomkin" if you like. I don't care. I'll still read it before I read anything by the Post's Air Force One joyriders.

Fact is, he's far more of a brand name than any other online feature of the Post. He's currently the second subheading in a google search for Washington Post, after comics. If the Post can't figure out how to monetize that, they've got bigger problems than just Bob Woodward.

And I second the comment about Dana Milbank's opinion journalism. Rein in your supposed news reporter first, then we can talk about "balance" in the opinion section (hint: from here, the Post looks a lot like the Washington Times)

It seems pretty obvious that the reason WH reporters are getting upset at Froomkin is because the folks out here read him, and we know that he's good.

Froomkin is eating their lunch. Wapo can go ahead and "spike" his column, I'll read him wherever he goes.

Maybe WaPo should replace him with Jeff Gannon. Now THERE was a WH reporter.

I am aghast at Mr. Harris' reply.

First, there is the suggestion that, had Kerry been elected, those who are writing in support of Mr. Froomkin would not be so happy with his presumably sharp criticism of a Kerry administration. Let's say that is true. Would there not have been an equally fierce response from a different set of people quite happy to see Kerry receive the Froomkin treatment? In short, why is it a problem that anti-Bush people support Froomkin? Don't pro-Bush people support George Will and Charles Krauthammer? There's nothing wrong with a columnist having a particular political point of view. Most do. Yet, the clear message from Mr. Harris is that an anti-Bush position is somehow intolerable.

Next, there is a clear threat. "People in the newsroom don't want to spike his column-or at least, I don't." Is Mr. Froomkin now supposed to follow the party line, or else?

Finally, all this stuff about the name of the column strikes me as camoflage. Who cares what the name of the column is? Why not call it "Bushwatch" or "Froomkin on Politics" or whatever the hell you want? I doubt Mr. Froomkin cares all that much, as long as you let him publish what he wants. Oh, he may be irritated (or more) that there is a plan afoot to rein him in, and feels that he has to fight even a trivial thing like the name of the column, but is that really what this is about?

Coming on the heels of the LA Times firing Robert Scheer, your heavy-handed treatment of Dan Froomkin is curiously timed. Has the Washington Post been leaned on?

Why does every columnist in every paper in the United States have to be conservative? I say this only half in jest: Is this a new secret law we haven't yet heard about, an addendum to the Patriot Act?

Would you tell us if it were?

David Derbes
loki@uchicago.edu

Froomkin adds credibility to the WP, he doesn't detract from it. You did that all by yourself with the run up to war and keeping Woodward on the payroll. And your new omsbudsman, frankly I think her bias is already showing.

Hey John, you are doing great. Don't let those liberals get to you. You've set the stage to 'spike' Froomkin, which is what we want, and I know that you want what we want, right?

By the way your seat on Air Force One is being reserved for your next ski trip.

Keep up the good work for the Bush 'disinformation campaign'. Tomorrow's talking points will be faxed within the hour.

Karl

I think you should get rid of Froomkin, John. That way, when he gets picked up by one of the myriad of superior newspapers in this country, I won't have to visit this decaying rag to read his column (I've already bookmarked robertscheer.com).

Here's another vote for calling Dan's column "Cooking with Walnuts". It'd be nice if all that's at stake here is a simple name change, while the column itself is left alone. As Mr. Froomkin is soon to take a leave of absense of indeterminent length because of an addition to the family (congrats to you both!), and fair and balanced discourse is thus re-gained at the newspaper and the website, I think Mr. Harris and Ms. Howell should use the time to read or re-read some of these messages and recognize the sadness and outrage coming from its readers who see a lot more at stake at the Post than the fate of one columnist/column. Expressed here is an ardent wish for the return of a nation's faith in the objectivity and courage of the American media/press as a communicator of truth, instead of what is perceived as its current pre-occupation with "access" and the possibility that doing so will somehow make their jobs harder by making "anonymous sources" less eager to talk. If Messrs. Woodward and Bernstein could do it under similiar constraints created by a hostile administration, then surely the current version of the Fourth Estate can do it too, provided they have both the will and the gumption to do so.

I really need to know the obstacles faced by your paper because of his column.

Here's are my obstacles to yor papers's credibility:
1.when I read the paper I know Vandehei is married to an ex DeLay staffer and yet your paper kept him on Ambramoff for a long time. Everything he writes reads like an axe to grind.

2.Bob Woodward. Why did he go on TV and debase Fitzgerald and only apologize for that AFTER he was busted? Why was he not shut up before his Bombshell. Pathetic.

3. WMD WMD WMD WMD

I used to love you, but it's all over now.

mr.harris apparently believes his job is to be bush and company's lap dog and to lap all the offal they dish out. for shame.

Wow. The Post's National Politics Editor and its Ombudsman have clearly established their irrelevance (not irreverence). They clearly have lost sight of good journalism.

The true editors and ombudsmen of The Post are people like Kevin Drum, Duncan Black and John Amato. I don't go to the Washington Post anymore as a primary source. It doesn't have professional editors anymore. This post is Exhibit A. The truly talented editors and ombudsmen are now the top-tier blogs. No wonder you Establishment journalists are so scared of blogs!

John Harris,

Are current occupants of the whitehouse so weak in character, that even an attempt in a single online column to hold them accountable drives them to have friendly journalists "spike the column"? Is the potemkin village that is run out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave so paper thin that one column calls for this level of complaining? Doesn't this whitehouse whose spokespersons regularly school their Nixonian forebearers in language parsing deserve a little irreverent coverage? Doesn't this white house: that lied us into war, waged an internal campaign against our defense and intelligence infrastructure, instituted massive torture policies, and then lost a major american city to a preventable disaster deserve some critical commentary?

Take a step back and look at what you are saying, John Harris. You have an editorial board at the Post that is a rabid and ridiculouly overzealous supporter of a President's policies which are now UP to nearly 38% approval. And you are complaining that Froomkin is disengenuous? Please!

Stop complaining, John Harris, and have your staff do some real reporting. Please hold this obviously totally dishonest whitehouse to account. Or if the President is too big a target, try looking at the Senate and the House where the most recent times graphic of only the most popular corruption claims, shows the republican machine was a financial target of Abramoff by a 2:1 margin. Any hope that we'll get some political columnists leading this charge for transparency at the Post rather than following the blog world?

How can you John Harris make any claims to bias when you, yourself, took such a sizable part in the endless scandal mongering of the Clinton Era?

Disgusting is what your belly aching is. What value are you supplying as journalists if all you can do is complain that an online colimnist is making the print ones look bad?

"It might be the case that he would be writing similarly about John Kerry if he were president. But I guarantee that many people who posted here would not be Froomkin enthusiasts--or be so indifferent to the concerns I raise--in that case."

Back that up with a fact and we might call you a journalist. Have you done a poll maybe you could share with us? Or do you have intelligence the rest of us don't know about?

As it is, you're just a lousy mind-reader, with little insight into the minds you're trying to read.

You might not passionately care about the truth, but I guaruntee YOU that I do, and that's why I read Dan Froomkin's columns and chats. I absolutely believe that he'd be holding Kerry accountable if Kerry were President. Check out that whole Neiman Watchdog organization and you'll see that they believe truth and accountability are the job of the press, and they bring that belief to everything they do.

And I gotta say, having read you in chats, I don't believe that about you.

Mr. Harris, you should be ashamed of yourself. I don't understand why this issue could not have been solved internally. Honestly, your paper barely has any integrity left after the Woodward scandal. You guys suck.

Mr. Harris,

If you want the least bit of credibility here you need to stop being so darn vague.

You say, "The first issue is whether many readers believe Dan's column is written by one of the Washington Post's three White House reporters. It seems to me--based on many, many examples--beyond any doubt that a large share of readers do believe that."

Tell us about these "many, many examples" cuz I'm not seeing anyone confused here.

Then you say "People in the newsroom want to end this confusion."

Who are these people? Give us the names. Are they confused? Should we help clarify for them? Or is the problem something else? Lets be specific here.

And finally you say, "The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work."

Give us examples. What are you referring to? Are these folks to scared to speak for themselves? I mean it almost sounds like you are speaking to some "former hill staffer" or something.

Lets get real shall we? Froomkin is a much bigger asset to your paper today than Woodward is. Tell your Ombudsman to go poke around in his backyard. Maybe you should do the same. Froomkin is doing a great job. Keep up the good work Dan!

Now, now everybody. There is an easy way to handle this. Mr. Froomkin just needs to add a subtitle to his column: "I AM NOT A WHITE HOUSE REPORTER--I AM A MEMBER OF THE REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY." Fair compromise?

It is with no pleasure that I find myself posting a comment to you. The reason is that I never thought that I would have to write to the Washington Post on this kind of matter. I have never felt myself qualified to write a letter to the Editor on any subject that could potentially add to the debate in a responsible way. So I am surprised at myself that I would feel worthy of commenting.

However, I think I speak for those of us day to day folks who are working at warp speed in the private sector in small start-up seat of the pants alternatice energy enterprises in a country with no national energy, but who remain more than interested on the debate, I offer the following.

I begin to look for Dan's column every single day starting at noon. He is the only one that actually tells us what he sees and hears regarding this administration. His interpretation of what he sees and hears appeals to those of us who look to the behaviour of others to evaluate the motives of those with whom we come into contact, whether for business or pleasure.

Further, Dan links to the major articles of the day which saves me alot of time. (He is normally right on point). I look at as much as I can on both sides of the debates(s) as part of my own personal integrity check. As an adult progressive, I believe that it is my duty to fully explore all sides. I will leave out any comment on the obvious actors, at least with respect to those elected leaders who are now at the helm.

Dan enables me to stay in touch with my country while I am living abroad.

I truly belive that he would cover John Kerry in the same fashion had be been elected. Dan is one of the few columnists in the 'MSM' (given Derba Howells' explanation today that describes the current management reporting system that you have in place) that actually tells it like it is. Yes, as he sees it, but that is the point. And these days, the dearth of truth creates a strong and forgiving demand for writers like Dan Froomkin.

If you must turn another cheek, please do it in favour of writers like Dan Froomkin vs our fallen hero, Mr. Woodward, as much as I used to admire him. Make your editorial decision when the pendulum has swung back to a more comfortable place for you. Your loyal readers will wait. That is how serious we are.

Respectully yours,
A citizen living outside of the U.S. right now but who wants to come back to a country that remotely represents the country that is was what it did the year that this President was elected.

Digby links to this interview with Mr. Harris regarding the Post WH reporters' coverage of the Clinton administration:

John F. Harris: "The mood of the press corps was oftentimes kind of sour -- sour in both directions. People tend to forget, for understandable reasons because the Lewinsky scandal was such a sensational affair, that 1997 was in its own way a very sullen, snippy, disagreeable year in the relationship between the White House and the press. Most news organizations -- the Washington Post included -- were devoting lots of resources, lots of coverage, to the campaign fund-raising scandal which grew out of the '96 campaign, and there were a lot of very tantalizing leads in those initial controversies. In the end they didn't seem to lead anyplace all that great.But there were tons of questions raised that certainly, to my mind, merited aggressive coverage."

Hmm. So because the mood was "sour", it was okay to be aggressive in reporting campaign stories that didn't lead anyplace, okay to be aggressive about reporting about the president's sex life-- hey! We might even call that "adversarial!" We might also call it "trivial" along with the vast majority of the American people. But okay-- tell me, Mr. Harris, why was it okay to be adversarial against Clinton, even if most of the scandal stories you admit went nowhere, and it's not okay for Froomkin to be adversarial with the current administration?

Do you really think the president's sex life is more important, more newsworthy, than his warmaking? No? Then you should be giving your reporters Froomkin's column and saying, "Why don't you guys analyze like that? And why not ask Scottie a followup question sometimes? And didn't you NOTICE that guy Jeff Gannon sitting next to you at the WH press briefings?"

The truth is, Mr. Harris, that the Post really isn't doing generally great journalism. And often the really great journalism (Walter Pincus on the run up to war?)is buried on page A18. Your readers deserve better, and we certainly deserve better than you and Ms. Howell venting your spleens about some intra-Post rivalry-- and without even mentioning the names of the carping reporters. Oh, wait a minute. Did they insist on confidentiality too?

It's not about partisanship, and you just don't seem to get that. It really isn't, and if you care about the truth, you'll get beyond that knee-jerk complaint and look at what we're really saying. We're saying that we like analysis. We like context. We like reporters who fact-check. We like reporters who think the truth is more important than "access". We like reporters who report rather than spending months and years refusing to report on news issues because they've gotten entangled in them. We like links to differing opinions so we can check for ourselves. We like having our intelligence and skepticism valued and not derided.

We like Froomkin, and wish there were others like him.

I used to read the WaPo daily, but had to stop cause I couldn't stomach the constant up-sucking to the nefarious Bush administration. I will read Froomkin because it seems as though there's a live human being in there who actually gives a crap about our cultural discourse, but I dont' read a single WaPo columnist anymore. There is simply no variety of perspective at this "newspaper" - other than Froomkin. He doesn't come across to me as a "liberal", just as a live human with a functioning brain.

"The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work."

This sentence is from an _editor_ at the Post?

With the notable exception of Dan, Dana, Walter and a few others, the Washington Post has become indistinguishable from the New York Post (for those among your readership who can't tell the difference between Dan and a White House reporter, I hasten to explain that that's not a good thing). Of course your White House courtesans, er, reporters would resent Dan Froomkin. He writes. They type.

My apologies for not spell-checking.

"The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work."

Mr. Harris, this makes no sense. What in Froomkin's column is an obstacle to your reporters reporting the news? I'm wondering if sources are saying, "Keep publishing Froomkin, and we'll take our story to the Times." That's a story in itself, and maybe you should report on such an source effort to throttle your independence.

If that's not the case, then how does the column pose an obstacle? Does Howard Kurtz's column on the media (much of it on the White House media) cause you an obstacle too? Do letters to the editor pose an obstacle for your reporters?

What I'd suggest is that you sit your reporters down and say, "You have a great job. Great benefits, great working conditions. Topflight technology too. Now all you have to do to earn all that is to do your job, and if that guy Froomkin's column title poses an obstacle, hey! You can show him what-for by being an even better, more skeptical, more analytical, more fact-based reporter than ever before! That sure will show that Froomkin guy!"

And you know what? Froomkin would be first in line to congratulate your reporters on their improved work-- because he doesn't see good reporting by someone else as "an obstacle". Maybe you shouldn't either.

You know what? We'd read his column if it were just called "Froomkin", because he has interesting things to say. Something to keep in mind when you sit your WHITE HOUSE reporters down and tell them that their job is covering the White House, not complaining when someone else does it better.

I'd see you are a bunch of useless scum, except that you have perfected the example of the worthlessness of the golden means fallacy. Perhaps you are worth a footnote in future journalism classes. I mean, yeah, you killed some huge number of people to get to this point but I guess there may be an upside.

Mr. Harris,

Without a doubt this is the single most ridiculous and indefensible journalism piece that I have ever read. The only thing that makes sense is the comment "If I worked outside the paper, I might presume myself that a feature titled 'White House Briefing' was written by one of the newspaper's White House reporter." The poor logic of the rest of the article validates the assertion that the you the author would presume such a foolish conclusion. Assuredly most of the rest of us would not.

As for the final comment "The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work", I have seen more maturity demonstrated by children playing in a kindergarden sandbox than what is being ascribed to the other WP reporters.

Just today, before reading this, I was musing about how would today's WP have covered the Watergate scandal. It was my sad belief that today the WP editors would have pulled Woodward and Bernstein (just city desk reporters) in favor of national reporters with "better access". After that Watergate would have gotten buried in a week's time.

Please revisit the Dan Froomkin "issue" only after Bob Woodward refunds the advance on his next book to the Washington Post as a penalty for egregious and destructive moonlighting.

I stopped subscribing to the Washington Post print version after 20 years because I was sick and tired of seeing only male writers on the Op Ed page. They don't seem to be able to find even one woman who is qualified to consistently give her opinion on newsworthy events, despite the fact that women make up more than 50% of the population.

Anyway, if I hadn't cancelled the subscription already, I'd do so now.

This attack on Froomkin is a disgrace. Attacked for having the "liberal" values of accountability and truth-telling.

I'll take that over "compassionate conservatism" any day.

The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work."

This sentence is from an _editor_ at the Post?

You know I blew mine, but I've had a few beers. What the hell excuse does the editor of WaPo have? This really is sad, what sort of utility are they providing over and above this sorry display?

I think it's clear, Mr. Harris, that renaming Froomkin's blog isn't the issue here. If the Post political reporters (who I also read avidly) feel it's misleading, add a disclaimer in big red letters. Rename it. Whatever.

But 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean something. They do *not* mean 'disagrees with the President' and 'agrees with the President.' Dan Froomkin can pull punches because he doesn't have to call Karl Rove the next day and request and interview on the Next Big Thing in the news cycle.

No one is suggesting (or at least I hope not) that confusing Froomkin for the Post's political staff is acceptable or even desirable. I believe I join in many writing here, however, to say that I am saddened to see such a senior figure in the political news media tossing around 'liberal' like the slur word the current Administration has always hoped to make it.

I would greatly appreciate a follow-up post containing specific examples of Froomkin's 'liberal prism.' You come from a much deeper background than most of his readership so perhaps we miss what you catch? Please, don't perpetuate the tossing about of such labels; back up your words.

I take it the memo came down from the WH that the Washington Post wasn't doing its patriotic duty loud enough? That if it didn't get louder about attacking WH critics its THREEE WH reporters would start having MORE problems arranging "off-the-record briefings" and "Deep Background" interviews?
Did the memo come directly from the WH or was it delivered by a Republican coalition of advertisers?

I'm with Harris.
I luv Froomkin, but reporters don't have the editorial luxury to write like Dan does.

Dan doesn't do original reporting, it's easy to be hard on the WH if you don't have to talk to anyone at the WH.

I like blogs too, but blogs mostly react to stories that newspaper reporters (at the WaPo and at hundreds of paper) did the original work.

You guys (other commenters) don't get it. Froomkin and blogs can't exist without the MSM. Your anger at Harris is misplaced.

I'm sorry to say that it really is your own integrity and reliability that is now in question, Mr. Harris. It is now you should defend and support your actions.
You owe Mr. Froomkin and your readers solid examples of when he has displayed liberal bias. Mr. Froomkin is critical and questioning of the President, but unless you can show that it stems from ideology and not simply the belief that the government must be held accountable for its words you owe him an apology.

Confusion of questioning and criticism with "liberalism" is *extremely* disturbing coming from a person with authority in what is -- and rest assured I believe this -- the most important paper in the world. I beg you to consider whether you have internalized the unfliching right wing campaign of screaming "liberal media" at every turn. They are your media generation's challenge, they are today's McCarthy, and they aim to discredit you no matter what and shut down the people's only direct means of accountability. If you are intimidated, we are the ones who lose.

Okay, listen...

Froomkin's and Kurtz's columns are not blogs. Blogs are collaborative in nature and support user feedback (like poor old John Harris and Deborah Howell are seeing right here).

Regardless, Froomkin's column is the best political chunk of daily news on the WaPo site or in its paper. Also, I'm willing to bet that guys like Harris are getting nervous in general about the progress of journalism (on-line and off).

Mr Harris, you words really reveal a lot about you

"The reporters on the Post's White House and political teams every day push through many obstacles and frustrations to do precisely this kind of accountability reporting."

Call me silly, but if *I* were a big-time reporter, I think I'd have my story right there. A whole series, even.

*Tell* us all about those obstacles. Tell us exactly how you're being pressured and frustrated and manipulated and spun. Tell us what happens to reporters who stray off the reservation. Tell us how all these political figures, all the administration departments, all 537 electees' press operations treat you.

Because image management is the biggest issue of our time, this is the biggest story of our time.

Yet it's the one story I haven't seen any of the regular press do. Even though I can see some of this on C-SPAN with my own eyes and see just how frustrating the White House beat can be, and even though I've watched the most blatant, obvious, shameless, open leading around of media people over the last decade or so that I think the world has ever seen.

Are you afraid of losing "access?" Well, I seem to remember that I. F. Stone did a whole lot of very solid reporting without talking to many sources. He just seems to have thought a lot about what he was seeing.

What people are trying to tell you here is that they think your real job is to tell readers what's being done with and to their lives. Not what the people who direct our lives want us to hear.

Try listening.

I read the other day that one of Chris Cizilla's blog posts on Washingtonpost.com had been edited to put in more "balance." It included the addition of a corrupt Democrat from the recent past in order to make the current crop of corrup Republican congressmen seem so lonely. And it didn't add similar corrupt Republicans from the recent past. So in an effort to appear balanced, you became unbalanced as far as actually giving an evenhanded account of where the corruption lies.

I think your "liberal prism" is more mistaken pseudobalancing. Simply put, you are letting some sort of Platonic ideal of journalism that is designed to shield you from complaints of the powerful prevent you from actually doing journalism. Froomkin, Pincus and Priest are why I continue to read your publication.

How did this column become an obstacle to your work? Does it leap out at your reporters and nip at their heels? Or have the powers that be voiced their displeasure? And why did you pull Millbank off the White House beat anyway?

Mr. Harris,

Time to come down from your editorial pedestal. Back to the trenches and churn some copy, maybe on the crime beat.

As for Froomkin's column title -- who gives a cr#p? Yes, he only hits on Republicans -- because only Republicans are in the White House! This is a red herring, the issue is that you marginalize him by calling him "liberal" when his column consists almost entirely of excerpts from other articles...

I really like this Harris guy.

Please please please fire Froomkin!!

I never want to give your website another single click, and if you fire him, he'll make gobs of money doing real journalism somewhere else (maybe his own place, hint hint, Froomkin), and not have to duck scowls from you and your ilk in the editors' room as your paper sags into irrelevance under the weight of its criminal incompetence.

Oh, and if you need polish for your "Hearst Award for Abetting Illegal Wars", call the NYT - I hear they have plenty.

Mr. Harris points his finger in the wrong direction. The Post itself has put out mea culpas regarding its burying of stories which pointed to the conclusion that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and its most celebrated reporter was found to be knocking an investigation of a crime to which he may be a witness. There is no question that the only person who is willing to stand up and call things like they are is Dan Froomkin. The Post's Political Editor has much to answer for in his paper's failure to live up to its own reputation as a teller of truth. Instead it has, in the name of maintaining access, become little more than a conduit for the opposing viewpoints of the parties, while preserving a slant towards the party in power. This has empowered lies and corruption. That's not what this paper is supposed to do.

As a long time subscriber and reader, I have to say, the Washington Post has failed its readers and its own standards repeatedly and pathetically over the last five years. There are much much larger problems here than Froomkin.

Mr. Harris has been thoroughly and deservedly boxed about the ears for his entirely disingenuous and inadequate explanation.

Here's what I believe happened: The White House is getting annoyed with Froomkin who daily calls attention to the deceptions so eagerly lapped up by other Washington Post political reporters.

So the White House sends three willing Washington Post reporters to the Sunday talk shows to complain about Froomkin's column, giving an opening for the Washington Post ombudsman to write a column that publicly attacks him. When the two public attacks aren't received well by Washington Post readers, the so-called political editor types yet another disingenuous attack.

It is heartening, however, that the whole smear job has been done on the web where people can comment. I have rarely seen such intelligent and thoughtful comments than those which follow Harris' attack.

There was a post above that demanded your evidence Mr. Harris. I second that demand. Where is it?

Mr. Harris,
With all due respect, you are truly a wanker. What a pathetic confused prattle that was ! People might confuse you for an editor, or a reporter. I'm not advocating spiking your job, I just think you should step down.

"If [Froomkin] were a White House reporter for a major news organization, would it be okay for him to write in the fashion he does? If the answer is yes, we have a legitimate disagreement."

Nice work John. You just won yourself another insider scoop. Say hi to Bob and don't forget to mention the aspens.

Mr. Harris, you have indeed been "as clear as possible about how we view our own work."

However, no clarification was needed. It has been apparent for some time that the Washington Post is in the tank for this administration.

Trifle with Mr. Froomkin's column at your peril. Increasingly, Mr. Froomkin is a reminder (a painful one, for those of us who remember what the Post once was) that good journalism abhors "spin" and obfuscation.

As for your contention that Mr. Froomkin's column betrays a liberal bias, it's laughable. It is you, Mr. Harris, who are biased; you and your entire White House and political staff. Your bias is in favor of of a meretricious "balance" fostered by punctiliously situating your coverage midway between the truth and White House lies, which leaves you and your employer in the middle of nowhere.

Keep your hands off Froomkin's column.

Well, Mr. Harris, I for one say thank you. Thank you--and thanks to Ms. Howell--for pricking the nerve of a huge reality-based community out here that has had enough and isn't going to "take it any more."

The unanimous and eloquent chorus of smackdowns in response to your pathetic and disingenuous post is extremely heartening. Folks, I say this should be just the beginning of our finding our voices and raising them loudly and clearly both against attempts like this one to squelch real journalism and to call out the "fair-and-balanced" crowd every time it fails to do the job it is supposed to do.

Dan, I hope you too take heart in knowing how many appreciative fans and supporters you have.

If Mr Harris said that Froomkin wrote from a politically partisan perspective, I'd accept his comment as a disinterested "I'm just concerned about the integrity of the paper" response. It really sticks in my craw that he identified the problem with Froomkin as being "too liberal".
Should a reporter be balanced? No. A report SHOULD be fair. It's not required that a reporter give so many column inches to truth and so many to lies & spin. It IS critically important that when the White House makes a good point or raises a legitimate concern, that their point be presented fairly.

Mr. Harris - I add my voice to the hundreds here (that likely represent hundreds of thousands more) - you need to take a serious introspective look at your fundamental purpose as a journalist. I don't read the Washington Post (or Washingtonpost.com) for a regurgitation of either side's talking points. I read them for facts and critical analysis. "Balanced" journalism doesn't require that you present the Flat Earth Theory every time someone mentions that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It requires that you ask what the motivations are of the Flat Earthers.

You and your cohort have lost your way. At this point? You've become utterly worthless. Congratulations on killing a once noble profession.

At the top of the comments page you will see a link that allows you to email the Post to report offensive comments. The Howell and Harris comments are appalling, and appalling is close enough to offensive to qualify. Email away.

it seems to me that the only confusion that can be justfiably ascribed was caused by the NEWS reporters themselves who have allowed their partisan perceptions to skew their reporting to the point of crossing and then obliterating their journalistic ethics.

Mr. Harris

You know what's really sad?

You've got one of the most honest, gifted and admired journalists in america working for you, and you want to stifle him.

Your journalistic credibility has been nearly non-existent for years, and this little tantrum of yours has finally exhausted what little crdibility you have left.

I, for one, would like Mr. Froomkin to go free-lance. Why, you ask?

Because then I wouldn't have to wade through the slime pit that the Post has become in order to read his work.

Take the hint, Mr. Harris. You could not be any more on the wrong side of this.

I for one am not angry at Harris. I just think he should realize what is clearly being demonstrated by the number of posts. The public desires that in addition to the rehashing of talking points, that someone take them to task when the talking points and reality don't match. Right now the only source for that is people like Froomkin and that is probably why his readership is so loyal.

I love Dan Froomkin's column, and was (I'm ashamed to admit it) annoyed when I learned last week that he would be taking time off when his wife has their baby.

Mr. Harris, do you not understand the value of the loyal readership that Mr. Froomkin has garnered? Does that mean nothing? And my final question is this: Who from the Dark Side called and pressured you into taking this stand? Name names. Or is it something else entirely--perhaps the WaPo has already been bought and paid for by the far-right politicos who believe that if the real news doesn't suit their purposes, you can just hire people to make stuff up.

I am truly disgusted to see what was once a fine newspaper sink so low that the Political Editor doesn't even recognize that political reporting means finding out the truth of what the government is doing and then telling the readers what that truth is.

Every White House reporter you have and the political editor are clearly incompetent and should be fired immediately. I would suggest that Dan Froomkin would make a suitable replacement as he actually understands what is it that reporters are supposed to do.

It means that when the admistration is made of liars and cheats and immoral men masquerading as "Christians", then the reporter's job is to point out that the emperor has no clothes on, not to tell us what the emperor's talking points are.

Left/Right bias is NOT the issue: Access reporting is the issue.

This isn't about the name... it's about Froomkin making sources for the WP writers upset. We know the senior administration officials love to work the refs... and the WP folks are knee deep in senior admin officials to whom they're indebted.

Stomping on Froomkin won't bring back the old Woodward.

Thanks for reminding this DC-Area resident why he doesn't subscribe to the post.

Well, at least now we know why any time Dan Balz or Dana Milbank gets to write something half decent, it's labeled Analysis.

Sara B on t