Management by Stupidity (Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps Washington Post Edition?)

Ah. This is amusing. John Harris, national politics editor of the Washington Post, makes his play for the Stupidest Man Alive^TM crown.

When Jay Rosen of PressThink asks him:

PressThink : You also said, "I perceive a good bit of [Dan Froomkin's] commentary on the news as coming through a liberal prism--or at least not trying very hard to avoid such perceptions." But you don't give any examples or links to past columns.... Could you help me out here? What issues does [Dan Froomkin's] W[hite ]H[ouse ]B[riefing] tend to view through a liberal prism?...

John Harris replies:

Does Dan present a liberal worldview? Not always, but cumulatively I think a great many people would say yes--enough that I don't want them thinking he works for the news side of the Post. Without agreeing with the views of this conservative blogger who took on Froomkin, I would say his argument does not seem far-fetched to me...

Who is the "conservative blogger" that John Harris cites? His name is Patrick Ruffini http://www.patrickruffini.com/. More interesting, Patrick Ruffini is eCampaign Director at the Republican National Committee http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/10/same_fight.php.

Shouldn't John Harris have told Jay Rosen that Patrick Ruffini is not some grassroots "conservative blogger" outraged at Froomkin's bias but rather a Republican operative engaged in working the ref?

---

What things does Ruffini think are examples of Froomkin's hackdom http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/03/dan_froomkin_se.php?

Here is Ruffini's first example of "bias": Froomkin's writing:

For a guy who's so resolute, President Bush is apparently of two minds when it comes to the Terri Schiavo case. First he dramatically rushes back to the White House in an effort to intervene, then he retreats into silence. So what's going on? Is he caught in the rift between the social conservative and libertarian wings of his party? Is it a political reaction to bad polling numbers? Was he dragged against his will into intervening in the first place? And what's Karl Rove's role in all this?

Here is Ruffini's last example of "pure Froomkin bias":

It is flatly un-American for people to be hauled out of a public event with the president of the United States because of, say, a political bumper sticker on their car.

But is it too much to ask the White House to say so?

Apparently.

To note an internal tug-of-war within the White House over what PR position to take on Terry Schiavo, to assert that it is un-American to throw people out of a public event for having the wrong bumpersticker--these are the things that John Harris (indirectly) points to as Dan Froomkin's "bias."

Comments

[Howard]

3-4 years ago, when patrick ruffini was merely a young putz of a blogger, i spent some time on his site as a result of a link from tacitus (in which tacitus basically siad, if you want to read a down-the-line bush backer, ruffini is your man), and a better example of the class of propaganda robot the republicans are producing these days one could hardly hope to find. that he ended up as the bush-cheney '04 webmaster came as no surprise.

that john harris thinks he's a reputable source about anything, in conjunction with len downie's remarkable comments today, pretty much settles the question of what's wrong with the editing at the washington post.

as a shareholder (through my berkshire hathaway holdings), i'm apalled at what these clowns are doing to the wapo. poor ben bradlee: for this, he defended woodward and bernstein?

[Howard]

btw, didn't we gather recently that jonathan weisman, rising star of the wapo, was being transferred over to the political beat?

and wouldn't that mean that mr. john harris is his patron?

just asking....

[Robin]

Sorry Brad,

Wrong title, clearly: John Harris is not being stupid. He's being either a coward or a moral cretin. Although he could be both. So many people outside government have stepped up to the plate to denounce anyone critical of this ethical catastrophe in power as being an enemy of the state. And as many have been willing to help take this country a few steps closer towards the level of openness found in Brezhnev's USSR.

[Chris]

The Washington Post needs to make a staff change, but it isn't dumping Froomkin, it's dumping Harris and Downie.

Unless, of course, they *intend* their paper to become a sock puppet for the Bush Administration.

[Chris]

Shorter Harris/Downie: "I, for one, welcome our new Administration overlords... I mean, non-partisan minders!"

[MTC]

Dump Harris? No, no, no! It is crucial to the nation's health that he continue to vomit forth his awe-inspiring innanities. Without his inexplicable incapacity to shut up, we would never have known that the Washington Post's political editor gets his read on the news from a blogger/webmaster at the RNC. Indeed, Democrats (nominally conservative ones, of course) should take John Harris out to the best restaurant in DC, liquor him up and let him reveal the whole sordid web of influence and intimidation. Oh yes, and they should not forget to bring the video camera.

[CapitalistImperialistPig]

At least this incident exposes Downie and Harris as Republican flunkies they are. Helps explain Woodward, too.

[monkyboy]

Nothing is more foreign to dictatorial thinking than the bourgeois concept of objectivity. A dictatorship is by its very nature subjective. It takes sides by its nature. Since it is for one thing, it must be against another. If it does not do the latter, it runs the risk of having people doubt its honesty about the first.

-Joseph Goebbels

[sm]

I agree, it is inadequate to call this stupidity.

[kharris]

Talking Points quotes Editor&Publisher quoting Downie --

"We want to make sure people in the [Bush] administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin's column because it contains opinion," Downie told E&P. "And that readers of the Web site understand that, too."

This, I think, is a very funny catch by Talking Points. The White House needs assurance. Wouldn't want the White House unhappy. Can I polish up those shoes for you? Get you a drink? Fluff your pillow? Oh, and the readers. Say something about the readers, too.

[anne]

"We want to make sure people in the [Bush] administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin's column because it contains opinion," [Executive Editor Leonard] Downie told E&P.

This from the editor who is Bob Woodward's boss. This is more frightening than stupid, though it is astonishingly stupid as well.

[sglover]

It's easy to imagine financial realities deterring Froomkin from making the leap (I think he mentioned that his wife is going to have a kid very soon), but I'd kinda like to see him tell the Post to go fuck itself, and go independant.

Short of that, if the Post had any sense, they'd sack pretty much their entire op-ed page, and give Froomkin a hefty raise. Other than his column, the paper offers less and less that's worth more than a quick glance. Is the paper continuing its rivalry with the Times, this time by competing to see who can plunge furthest, fastest?

[anne]

There is no comparison. The New York Times is simply superb, and worth subscribing to anywhere in the world which is why it so often is subscribed to wherever I happen to travel. Brad DeLong is right to push to make the NYTimes even better, but simply reading the science and health sections yesterday was a lasting pleasure. Maureen Dowd is magnificent as usual today. Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman and Frank Rich are magnificent. Book reviews, art, and on and on.

[sglover]

"There is no comparison. The New York Times is simply superb, and worth subscribing to anywhere in the world which is why it so often is subscribed to wherever I happen to travel. Brad DeLong is right to push to make the NYTimes even better, but simply reading the science and health sections yesterday was a lasting pleasure. Maureen Dowd is magnificent as usual today. Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman and Frank Rich are magnificent. Book reviews, art, and on and on."

At the risk of opening a flamewar, count me unimpressed. Krugman's great, and the science columns are OK (for a newspaper). Good book reviews aren't unique to the Times -- other than Froomkin's column, the only part of the Post that I actually spend time reading (as opposed to glancing through) is their Sunday book section, and Yardley's intermittent reviews. And there are lots of other places that offer worthwhile reviews. If you like Dowd, Herbert, Rich and Dowd, fine, but for my money the first two are awfully predictable, and Dowd's long been just embarrassing.

Otherwise, nowadays neither the Post nor the NYT offers much there that can't be had elsewhere, better, cheaper. And between Judy Miller at the one shop and Bob Woodward at the other, neither paper has much more institutional prestige than Izvestia, to my mind.

[KevinNYC]

As someone else pointed out, if the White House is too stupid to understand the difference between columnists and reporters, the columnists are the ones with their pictures next to the headline.

[anne]

I quite understand any frustration, but I love the New York Times and thought I should say so as I do so often. As for Maureen Dowd, only men are ever embarrassed :)

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/opinion/30dowd.html

November 30, 2005

The Autumn of the Patriarchy
By MAUREEN DOWD

Everything was groovy.

But not anymore. Cheney could not believe that Karl had made him go out and call that loudmouth Jack Murtha a patriot. He was sure the Pentagon generals had put the congressman up to calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. Is the military brass getting in touch with its pacifist side? In Wyoming, Vice shoots doves.

How dare Murtha suggest that Cheney dodged and dodged and dodged and dodged and dodged the draft? Murtha thinks he knows about war just because he served in one and was a marine for 37 years? Vice started his own war. Now that's a credential!

It always goes this way with the cut-and-run crowd. First they start nitpicking the war, complaining about little things like the lack of armor for the troops. Then they complain that there aren't enough troops. Well, that would just require more armor that we don't have. Then they kvetch about using incendiary weapons in a city like Falluja. Vice likes the smell of white phosphorus in the morning.

What really enrages him is all the Republicans in the Senate making noises about timetables. Before you know it, it's going to be helicopters on the rooftop at the Baghdad embassy....

[anne]

"How dare Murtha suggest that Cheney dodged and dodged and dodged and dodged and dodged the draft? Murtha thinks he knows about war just because he served in one and was a marine for 37 years? Vice started his own war. Now that's a credential!"

Thanks, Maureen :)

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/opinion/14dowd.html

December 14, 2005

W. Won't Read This
By MAUREEN DOWD

Jack Murtha, a hawkish Democrat close to the Pentagon who supported both wars against Iraq waged by the Bushes, has been braying against the Bush isolation. He told Newsweek that a letter he wrote to the president making suggestions about how to fight the Iraq war was ignored for seven months, then brushed off by a deputy under secretary of defense. Even after he went public, he still did not get a call from the White House.

"If they talked to people," he said, "they wouldn't get these outbursts."

Mr. Murtha told Rolling Stone that the administration's deafness had doomed Iraq: "Everything we did was mishandled. Plans that the military and the State Department had in place - they ignored 'em. The military tells me that when they were planning the invasion, the administration wouldn't let one of the primary three-star generals in the room." ...

Thanks, Maureen....

[CapitalistImperialistPig]

Monkyboy - Wow! Sort of nails the W-verse.

[KevinNYC]

Brad, your further post confirms this.

The scandal is really about John Harris.
It truely is JohnHarrisgate.

[liberal]

anne wrote, "The New York Times is simply superb, and worth subscribing to anywhere in the world which is why it so often is subscribed to wherever I happen to travel."

sglover wrote, "At the risk of opening a flamewar, count me unimpressed. Krugman's great, and the science columns are OK (for a newspaper). ..."

Well, FWIW, the _Post's_ *news* coverage in the runup and aftermath of the invasion of Iraq was much better than the _Times'_. Perhaps not good in an absolute sense, and from what I've heard Knight-Ridder had the best coverage.

But while of course the _Post's_ op-ed pages are just total garbage, and the _Times'_ are pretty good (former came out in favor of the invasion, and latter were against, IIRC), the _Post_ seems to have better news coverage.

As for book reviews, my impression is that the NYTBR isn't nearly as good as it was in the 1980s and early 1990s.

[Jonathan Goldberg]

It's easy to slam the Times. For instance, nobody has even mentioned Ceci Connolly; if you have a strong stomach google her at dailyhowler.com and read all about it. She did enough to elect Bush in 2000 all by herself, although in fact she was greatly assisted by Kitty Seeley at the Post.

Despite all of which, Michael Massing's two-parter in the New York Review has convinced me that everything else is an order of magnitude (or more) worse. Which means we need to support the Times, as well as criticize it.

Never forget that the most important distinction in politics is the difference between bad and worse.

[liberal]

Jonathan Goldberg wrote, "Despite all of which, Michael Massing's two-parter in the New York Review has convinced me that everything else is an order of magnitude (or more) worse."

Have to disagree with you there. _Post's_ Iraq war coverage (meaning, on the reasons we went to war) was much better than the _Times's_. Of course, the _Post's_ op-ed section is risible.