June 18, 2009
Washington Post Fires Dan Froomkin

Not a big surprise: by doing his job he made too many of their honchos look bad.

But likely to be expensive for the Post. Dan has lots of page views he can take with him...

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/06/washington-post-fires-dan-froomkin.html

"Fine. For personal testimony of my sanity, speak to my two closest associates: the flock of pigeons outside my apartment that speak with a single hive mind in the voice of the late Katharine Hepburn, and my telepathic urine collection that secretly controls the weather."

You've missed your calling as a writer of flash-fiction.

After working for various small companies for the last 30 years, in the same business, I've discovered a useful, if disturbing fact:

the people who have run those companies, with really only one exception I can think of, lie routinely, as a matter of policy. I've been in full staff meetings where the CEO of the company spent nearly the entire meeting lying about nearly every last subject of discussion in the meeting.

And when addressing actual crises? Hah. Then the lying goes into overdrive.

so, the WaPo will NEVER cop to why they fired Froomkin: because lying is standard operating procedure now in corporate America as well as everywhere else, it seems.

I always hoped that those CEOs who told us blatant lies to cover up their own incompetence (yes, I'm not exaggerating, this was exactly what occured) didn't believe their own lies, but, increasingly, I'm of the opinion that CEOs who lie for their own benefit do, in fact, believe their own lies. It's only way to lie effectively, after all, to believe in the bullshit you're shoveling.

Crazy way to run a society, for everyone to lie about everything, but, it's how humans dominate other humans. If you can keep the vast majority of people permanently confused by your lies, you win!

"The reason would be of no matter; Froomkin (along with Salon) was/is a pathologically deranged Bush hater. I say this as one who believes Bush went off the rails over Iraq and the the Republican deficits." Come on!!!!

Because Dan told the truth that Bush was a damgerous imbecile who was bad for the country, he gets dismissed as a "Bush hater." When is the right going to wake-up from their daydream that calling Bush bad for the country is the TRUTH. He was bad for the whole world.

Dan would point that out using facts and common sense and a desire for our government to stick with the constitution and the rule of law. Crazy I know, but tradition works sometimes. Is it pathological to want the law to govern America? How about seeing hundreds of years of institutional precedent getting thrown out so the incumbents could "save our way of life" by destroying our way of life?

Froomkin proved that facts are facts to him by using the same criteria to point out President Obama's faults. So you may call him pathological (if still inside your daydream), but for our democracy, (maybe), not out of some desire to detest Bush. Results do matter and wherever Dan settles, he will continue to win readers by using facts to say that what works, works, and what doesn't work, should be changed.

Too bad about Froomkin, but I don't think he's going to disappear. Who knows, maybe Digby has room at her Crib. It's getting to where I don't believe anything from the MSM or large publications anymore (at least without double checking). Look forward to your interview, Glenn.

O/T Happy whatever Pedinska!

O/T II Rendition of PieceofCake (link @ Signature)

The Post's inability to articulate a coherent, credible explanation for what it did speaks volumes. Any media outlet is foolish if it doesn't strongly consider taking advantage of the Post's conduct by hiring Froomkin.

Exactly. This might be a case where getting the boot will look good on the C.V. It might also open new horizons and up his asking price. Shit, if the kid does well he might even be able to splash out and buy himself another "o" to stick in his name.

Hi Glenn,

When I read this article today, I was confused about who was who and by which points were meant to be sarcastic or not.

When people read web articles, they are often in a hurry and they don't want to do too much thinking or deciphering.

So this is just a heads up that I think your writing would be clearer if you removed sarcasm and just described things simply and directly. I think it would be better for your communication and it would make you more quotable too.

I agree that sacking Froomkin is a horrible decision.

Maybe he got the sack for having too many "O"'s in his name. Just a thought.

The reason would be of no matter; Froomkin (along with Salon) was/is a pathologically deranged Bush hater. I say this as one who believes Bush went off the rails over Iraq and the the Republican deficits.

Why did he get fired

For the same reason as Walprin. When are liberals gonna figure it out?

Would you be so kind as to draw us a diagram? One with plenty of lines showing connections?

There was nothing wrong with your wording and your post was a good one. It was just me taking the piss whilst imbued with the spirit of Spike Milligan.
(Never heard of him? Don't worry about it.)

Glenn - I think you've jumped the gun....there's more to this story than you've been told or chose to interpret.

If you really know something, speak. Otherwise, stop trolling.

For the same reason as Walprin. When are liberals gonna figure it out?

Sorry brother I didn't mean to blaspheme. I just assumed there was a near infinite supply being created and recirculated through the universe and that The Mutterers wouldn't miss a dram or two put to a higher capitalistic purpose thereby enriching the coffers and urine urns of the Most Holy Temple of the Eureter.

My bad. Please send my most humble apology to the Holy Minders of the Ammonia Scented Bladder Brine.

Still think we had something which was worth the risk of offending the High Yellow Gods sitting on their Heavenly Thrones Above.

Think about it. : (