Not that I ever read the man’s column in anything like regularity, but it’s interesting to note the amount of smoke rising from the ears of his readers, and from Washington Post editors, as regards his recent decision to terminate his contract. Amusing in the extreme, to note the lengths to which both Froomkin and the Post go to deny the obvious.
Andrew Alexander writing in his column [1] this morning, doesn’t do much to quell the discussion:
First, it’s not about ideology. My original Omblog post quoted Hiatt as saying Froomkin’s “political orientation was not a factor in our decision.” In my discussions with Froomkin, he has not cited ideology as the primary reason. And several veteran Post reporters have dismissed that as the cause. In an online chat this week, Post Pulitzer-winning columnist Gene Weingarten, who expressed “respect” for Froomkin and regret that White House Watch was ending, said: “I don’t know why Froomkin’s column was dropped, but I can tell you that the diabolical conspiracy talk is nuts. Froomkin wasn’t dropped because he is too liberal; things just don’t work that way at the Post.” It’s also worth noting that The Post hired Ezra Klein, a liberal political blogger, within the past several months.
Second, reduced traffic played a big role. White House Watch had substantial traffic during the Bush administration, but it declined noticeably when President Obama took office. The Post will not disclose precise numbers. Froomkin acknowledges the drop but told me much of it can be blamed on a change in format and poor promotion.
Well, now. If it’s not about ideology, then why the huge drop off in traffic? Clearly, Froomkin had a rather rabid group of followers who suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome… who once a Democrat was in office, suddenly no longer needed the services of someone watching the white house and its actions closely. In fairness to Froomkin…
He said that shifting White House Watch from a column to a blog when Obama took office was disruptive to his audience and “dramatically reduced the number of page views per reader.” He also said poor promotion, especially through links from the home page, had caused traffic to dip. “I felt that with adequate promotion, page views would have been much higher,” he said.
Then why, I wonder, would those things have been changed subsequent to Obama taking the oath of office? Is it possible that the Washington Post didn’t find closely watching the actions of this White House to be all that attractive? Again, one can only wonder if ideology isn’t the driver here. Here’s the problem; Froomkin stopped writing with any degree of fire at all, once Obama was in office because that was always the purpose of the column… to get a Democrat in the White House. One of my oldest and dearest friends once told me before he died, if you can write with fire, don’t write. Froomkin, following Januray 20th of this year, had no fire, because with a Democrat as a target, his heart was not in the work.
I have always said that the Washington Post knows its audience, knows full well where its bread is buttered, and is about servicing that narrow vision. That narrow Liberal worldview. I see nothing in the back and forth on this change in status for Froomkin… including the half-assed denials, that would change my mind on the point.
Of course, comment is always welcome. Anyone care to try to change my mind, here?