Dan Froomkin and White House Watch

-

whitehousewatchbanner.jpg
Politico‘s Patrick Gavin (who is editing Michael Calderone’s column this week) reports and I have confirmed that Dan Froomkin’s invaluable White House Watch blog has been discontinued at the Washington Post.
Froomkin was the new media hybrid of Woodward and Bernstein during the George W. Bush administration and provided one of the best informed portals into America’s palace politics.
I want all TWN‘s readers to know that Froomkin was one of those who greatly furthered serious public discourse about torture, domestic spying, the Iraq War, and many other stressful and important subjects — and his platform at the Post will be missed.
— Steve Clemons
Update: Here is a statement from Dan Froomkin:

I’m terribly disappointed. I was told that it had been determined that my White House Watch blog wasn’t “working” anymore.
Personally, I thought it was still working very well, and based on reader feedback, a lot of readers thought so, too. But from what I could tell, it was still working very well.
I also thought White House Watch was a great fit with The Washington Post brand, and what its readers reasonably expect from the Post online.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

11 comments on “Dan Froomkin and White House Watch

  1. erichwwk says:

    Wigwag does indeed.
    “The Discredited aka Neoncons” given an outlet today [ Friday, June 19 ] was none other than Paul Wolfowitz.
    http://tiny.cc/czOmQ
    While I have no expertise to add re. who is influencing the election in Iran and to what extent, I have been following the manipulation of public perception and U.S. voting for four decades.
    Thus I am dismayed not only at the speed with which the Iranian vote was alleged to be tabulated, but the speed with which some seem to jump to conclusions here in the U.S., the U.K., and the Israel MSM and blogs as to what happened.
    M K Bhadrakumar notes that:
    “Helene Cooper of The New York Times reported on Thursday, the continuing street protests in Tehran are emboldening a corpus of (pro-Israel) conservatives in Washington to demand that Obama should take a “more visible stance in support of the protesters”.
    atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF20Ak03.html
    Paul Wolfowitz’s post is of that kind, and does not bring up the role he had in a very similar sophisticated PR effort that led to the first Gulf War in 1991, as reported here:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html

    Reply

  2. erichwwk says:

    Wigwag does indeed.
    “The Discredited aka Neoncons” given an outlet today [ Friday, June 19 ] was none other than Paul Wolfowitz.
    http://tiny.cc/czOmQ
    While I have no expertise to add re. who is influencing the election in Iran and to what extent, I have been following the manipulation of public perception and U.S. voting for four decades.
    Thus I am dismayed not only at the speed with which the Iranian vote was alleged to be tabulated, but the speed with which some seem to jump to conclusions here in the U.S., the U.K., and the Israel MSM and blogs as to what happened.
    M K Bhadrakumar notes that:
    “Helene Cooper of The New York Times reported on Thursday, the continuing street protests in Tehran are emboldening a corpus of (pro-Israel) conservatives in Washington to demand that Obama should take a “more visible stance in support of the protesters”.
    http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF20Ak03.html
    Paul Wolfowitz’s post is of that kind, and does not bring up the role he had in a very similar sophisticated PR effort that led to the first Gulf War in 1991.

    Reply

  3. alan says:

    I say: WigWag makes a great point. The Post is now the go to place for The Discredited aka Neoncons in need of an outlet.

    Reply

  4. Zathras says:

    I have to agree with the poster upthread who remarked that a recent format change made Washington Watch less readable. I also think that, apart from some issues Froomkin carried over from his years following the Bush administration — like detainee abuse and wiretapping — he’d lost some of his edge.
    Having said that, the Post carries around a lot of columnists just because they’ve been around a long time, and several more who were either staff or cheerleaders for the Bush administration and are thus judged to be conservative voices during a liberal administration in Washington. In Hiatt’s place I’d work with younger reporters and columnists and start moving some of the older guys out.

    Reply

  5. Scott says:

    Email I just sent to the Post’s ombudsman, CCing Hiatt:
    Dear Mr. Alexander,
    The Post’s decision to terminate Dan Froomkin is highly regrettable. It seems to be another misstep for the Post, an institution for which I used to have great love. The Post was on the breakfast table in my house since before I was born. In middle school I picked it up and have been a news junkie ever since. In recent months, though, the Post has disappointed again and again (downsizing of Book World, George Will’s false climate change claims, etc.) That the Post would terminate someone who held presidents of both parties truly accountable — the whole purpose of journalism — is another of these missteps.
    In an era where The Post needs to attract as many readers as possible, driving away a talented person like Froomkin makes no sense. I hope he will land quickly at another publication/institution that actually values his goals in holding our leaders accountable for their actions (and inaction), no matter which party they belong to. We now know the Post might not be one of those places. Whatever other criticism and lost readership the Post gets from this, it is unfortunately wholly deserved.

    Reply

  6. WigWag says:

    So the Washington Post has no room left for Dan Froomkin but does have room for:
    1) George Will
    2) William Kristol
    3) Michael Gerson
    4) Robert Kagan
    5) Charles Krauthammer
    6) Robert Samuelson
    7) Jim Hoagland
    8) David Broder
    9) Ramesh Ponnuru
    10) Sally Quinn
    And on the “left” side of the ledger they have room for the irredeemably dimwitted Eugene Robinson, Dana Milbank and Ruth Marcus.
    It tells you everything about the Washington Post that you need to know.

    Reply

  7. Dan says:

    This is really hard to believe. That the Post would kill off Dan Froomkin’s blog says so much more about the Post than it does about Dan. Looking forward to see where he ends up. I’ll be a daily reader. The Post diminished itself again.

    Reply

  8. Jason says:

    I love the post, but this really pisses me off. Dan
    Froomkin was one of the few consistent voices of
    reason during the Bush administration, and he was
    starting to bring up some good issues about the
    Obama administration as well. He is much more of a
    watchdog than a liberal. The Post made a big
    mistake.

    Reply

  9. ToddinHB says:

    I love Dan Froomkin, but must confess that I stopped reading his blog after the format was changed. I can’t pinpoint exactly why – maybe it was all the clicking – but something was lost in the transition.
    I sincerely hope he gets another blog and it returns to its previous glory.
    Go Dan!

    Reply

  10. John Waring says:

    To: Dan Froomkin
    Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and find/create another base.
    You did not do good work for the Post. You did great work. Your views were a piercing ray of sanity. You reminded me of the Post during its Watergate glory days. That era is long gone.
    I am disgusted with the leadership of the Post.
    Hold your head up high, Dan. This action is no reflection on you.

    Reply

  11. Lisa says:

    Terrible news.
    Fred Hiatt and his contingent are killing what used to be a superb
    national daily newspaper.
    Hope Dan Froomkin lands somewhere even better and becomes
    even more prominent.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *