The Post has not merely intertwined its editorial stance with the positions of the Republican Party: it is now adopting their business model. They both seek to avoid antagonizing an ever-shrinking pool of subscribers/believers by exiling the impure.

Do they really not understand the end game that such a strategy ordains?

Last one to leave the Republican Party, please turn out the lights at the Post.

Why did he get axed?

Part of the answer is in Glenn's opening.

Froomkin likely didn't get canned for being too liberal. The Village tolerates partisans.

Froomkin got fired for his consistency and his principles. THAT shit makes the locals nervous.

In your interview with him, Jay Rosen repeatedly refers to Froomkin as an "accountability journalist."

How sad that what should be redundant is, in the field, much closer to an oxymoron.

Some hypothetical NPR copy:

Left-wing bloggers like Glenn Greenwald have asserted that it is the job of NPR and other media to "afflict the comfortable." However, a spokesman for the comfortable, who spoke with NPR on the condition that he not be named, asserted that such uninvited scrutiny was not the role of objective reporters because "it would actually make the comfortable uncomfortable."

Or, if you prefer:

Left-leaning activists have referred to the holding facilities operated by the German government during WWII as "Nazi death camps." However, the phrase Nazi death camp is loaded with political and social implications, and the German government insisted that they did not operate death camps.

Also, not all such holding facilities are alleged to have exterminated Jews. Indeed, one such holding facility, Theresienstadt, offered a rich cultural life to its occupants. What some have called gas chambers, the government has called "enhanced showering facilities.."

It's a no-win case for journalists....But the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate. People have different definitions of death camps and different feelings about what constitutes genocide. NPR's job is to give listeners all perspectives, and present the news as detailed as possible and put it in context.

... because the hypocrites pay no price.

Just imagine the consequences if the Press Corpse could bring itself to confront such blatant hypocrisy, instead of whinging about Nico Pitney's usurpation of their turf, and dressing up in smoking jackets to make pretentious videos.

And without public and embarrassing consequences, the hits will just keep coming.

How they define the job: NPR is a broadcaster, as in one-way, one-to-many communication. They speak, we listen. "Ombudsman" is a Euro-sounding, trendy thing, like paternity leave. But having one does nothing to change the basic model, and does nothing to address real accountability issues.

How we define the job: The whole point of having an ombudsman is to enable effective two-way communication, without which there is no accountability. And, if it is National Public Radio, shouldn't the public choose its own representative?

I think you can go even further in tying the furious efforts to keep the "torture pictures" under wraps and the battle over language.

In a real sense, "torture" is a conclusion; the pictures are facts. (I know that other indisputable evidence exists; but such graphic evidence will completely change the public debate, which is why the pictures are being squelched.) As long as the facts are kept from us, it is possible to fuzz up the conclusion; as long as the conclusion is in dispute, it is possible to mute the demands for the facts. The flip side is that we can make progress on one by winning on the other. So by all means keep up the pressure, Glenn.

I argued for that terminology almost 6 months ago:

May I suggest that we call the Woodward wannabes like Ambinder and Lizza "access whores"? And we can call what they do prostitution. After all, it is difficult to deliver the literal versions of the services our Fourth Estate friends give metaphorically without access either.

But even I never imagined that they would be that blatant in their quest to become the Mustang Ranch of journalism.

Seems to me that the WaPo "Salons" should subject them to the Lobbying Disclosure Act -- and that canceling them may not put the toothpaste back in the tube.

More @ sig.

They decry torture ... except when they commit it.

They condemn moral relativism ... except when they engage in it.

They extol adversarial journalism ... but only when focused on certain adversaries.

They insist on the need for a vibrant free press ... yet they refuse to provide one.

We have to confront a painful question about our President. Many of us were convinced that he would be very different from his predecessor in matters of civil liberties. He is not. The distance between our expectations and reality is a failure that must be explained. So what happened? Is it:

(a) we mislead ourselves -- that is, we heard what we wanted to hear, but Obama's deeds match his campaign rhetoric.

(b) we were mislead by Obama -- that is, that Obama said one thing and is doing another. This option has two sub-parts: did he (i) mean it when he said it, but change his mind when confronted by the pressures of Keeping Us Safe, or (ii) was it a con from the getgo?

(c) Obama is not actually in charge -- that is, he wants to do the right thing, but dark, invisible forces compel these awful things.

(d) ?

My gut says mostly (b), but I am open to other theories. And I don't have enough evidence to know which sub-part applies. But how we approach politics from here depends on how we answer this question.