Paul Krugman on the firing of Dan Froomkin

[WilliamPitt]

(Mods: this is a Krugman blog post and not a column, so I have posted the entire thing with a link. If it needs to be edited down for copyright, let me knoiw and I'll do so. But the firing of Dan Froomkin by the Washington Post was utter bullshit, and Krugman makes a very salient point.)

The Froomkin firing
By Paul Krugman
June 19, 2009

I’m a bit late on this, but the Washington Post has fired Dan Froomkin, of the White House Watch blog.

On the face of it, it’s a puzzling decision. Aside from the excellence of Froomkin’s work, he’s popular with readers. On sheer business grounds, why drop him?

OK, I have no idea about the actual decision process. But I have a theory about the general mindset of the people who made this decision.

Here’s how I see things: many people in the news media, especially at the managerial level, decided a long time ago that movement conservatism was The Future — and that the sensible thing, whether or not you yourself were a conservative, was to go with the wave. That meant treating right-wing politicians and media figures with great respect, while ridiculing the opposition as the Incredible Shrinking Democrats or the Incredibly Shrinking Democrats, or whatever.

Edited to conform to DU's fair use policy for copyrighted material - Lithos, DU Moderator

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/the-froomkin-firing/#more-2737

[MADem]

1. Interesting thesis.

I'd also have to ask these questions, though:

What's the financial posture of the WAPO? Very solvent? In trouble?

What's Froomkin's salary? A pittance? A big payday?

What's his "salary to column inches" ratio?

Newspapers all over the country are making deep, painful cuts. This may be one of those--or it may be what Krugman postulates.

[hlthe2b]

2. Knowing they brought in Paul Wolfowitz in Froomkin's place....

Would you still be wondering if finances were the reason? When one looks at the cast of neocon commentators--none who would be likely paid as ingenues, somehow I think benefit of the doubt re: economic issues is probably not warranted.

[MADem]

10. What are they paying Wolfie, is what I'd ask.

If Wolfie is working for minimum compensation, and just using WAPO as a platform to prosecute his warped ideas, then WAPO is getting (politics aside) a "good" deal. They can get a flawed argument that appeals to a certain sector, and not pay much for it.

OTOH, if he's getting a large salary, and if Froomkin also got a large salary, that's a different issue. That's plainly a partisan shift on their part. Why, I don't know. Are they simply being contrarians, or is theirs a "world view" shift?

I don't know the answers to these suppositions, you see. I am simply in the "wondering" phase.

[hlthe2b]

11. I don't believe economics justifies tilting totally to either side....

so that any semblance of balance has been removed... They seem to be emulating Faux News and Washington Times in this move..

[MADem]

12. I don't either. I'm just wondering if that factors into their decision, is all. NT

[Dr.Phool]

3. I bet they'd save a lot more money by shit canning Krauthammer.

And they'd raise their credibility, and their I.Q. level by about 60 points.

[lordsummerisle]

7. That would be great

[MADem]

8. No argument from me, there. But maybe Charlie fills their quota for

disability hires, being a twofer (he's clueless AND he's in a wheelchair).

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. The Post is NAKED!

They just tore off their last fig leaf of credibility, honesty and fair play.

It seems that the owners of major print newspapers are bound and determined to accelerate the death of their own species. It is interesting, but not surprising, that these businesses never seem to discuss that a major factor in the drastic decline of paid readership in the last ten years is due to their extreme and blatantly obvious sins in regard to manipulating or ignoring major issues or just flat out lying.

[edhopper]

5. The WAPO's editorial page

is to the right of the WSJs'!

[Captain Hilts]

14. It's just awful. And of 30 columnists, 3 are women. nt

[nashville_brook]

6. having seen the "backside" of the newspaper business, it wouldn't surprise me at ALL

if the explanation were as simple as he needed to be silenced in order to please someone high up the food chain.

people have this notion that newspapers are bastions of rationalism and even-handed ethical behavior. they're old boys clubs -- even *some* (not all) of the so-called "alternative papers" like the free weeklies every good city has. this means that they are subject to the same back-biting, politicking and manipulation as any other business.

and dig this -- people behind the machinations of "the newspaper business" take their power-wielding extra seriously, so that getting rid of a pesky voice can be seen as being done for "the larger good" of THEIR interests. and make no mistake, "their interests" are the interests of the super elite. there's so solidarity with "the common person." that's for blogs.

[Jade Fox]

9. Apparently Conservatives still believe.....

not only the myth that the U.S. is becoming (or has become) a "center-right" nation, but also that the media must help this center-right drift along by reporting with a right-wing slant.

Thus, the print media continues to commit slow suicide.

[Captain Hilts]

13. The WP has hired several conservative columnists in a row. Gerson, Parker, Kristol, now this.

I cancelled my subscription after they hired Gerson.

[JackRiddler]

15. In case anyone's wondering Froomkin was their top columnist on the web

See Greenwald's coverage of the firing:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/18/froomkin/index.html

[mrdmk]

16. There is a trend that is present here...

That trend is to go to war with Iran over their elections. Hate must sell very well according to the Brass at the Washington Post. As I have said before, "Idiots!"

[scarletwoman]

17. WaPo has become the house organ of the neocons, that's really all there is to it. (nt)

[BlooInBloo]

18. It's already understood to be a torture-thing, in the small. In the large, Krugman is likely correct

[MessiahRp]

19. For Print Media they probably do see movement conservatives as who they need to cater to...

Since it seems Democrats and Liberals in general use the internet for their news coverage many of these newspapers have found that the only people that really still read papers (or at least in a majority clip) are older conservatives. This is purely conjecture on my part but in my experience it seems like the open mindedness of liberals generally opens them up to research more news sources to draw upon the facts that they base their opinions on, whereas Republicans/Conservatives find a singular source of talking points to reinforce their opinions.

And as the newspaper industry dies off because the wide variety of news sources available their conservative readership might be one of the few customer demographics left for newspaper companies to try to grab onto and hold... and it's especially cheap when all one has to do is have a few employees that will print a list of GOP talking points with slightly different angles from pundits rather than hiring real journalists or reporters who fact check and investigate.

Rp

[live love laugh]

20. Wow Joe Klein's Time articles on "Shrinking Democrats" are really substantive.

:sarcasm:

[KoKo]

21. Froomkin Fired? That's hard to take. He was one of the Best of the Best...

This doesn't portend well for media coverage for the future. Knocking off the Left (yes, some of us here know the funding has been cut for liberal web sites) and now firing Froomkin when he'd actually toned down his coverage since his "radical reporting" for the past five or so years when he became a MUST READ for Democratic Activits.

This wind that's blowing has a stench about it that I wouldn't have suspected.

Very sad...