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

I am not now - and never have been - interested in catering what I do to the preferences of this class of people.

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'm doing OK, thanks. I think it's more important to express myself authentically - as I react to them.

Your post on Beck beautifully sums up the gaslighting of America. The most decrepid morals parade as status quo wisdom and the wrenched out voice of the individual is held up as absurdist lunacy. It becomes more and more like that Yeats poem.

I'll get as much useful info from the Weekly Standard or Faux Newz, which is less than zero. I hope Obama success sinks these bottom feeders.

How could this happen? Dan was exceptionally candid, even more so when you consider the den of iniquity he worked out of. He was deservedly admired for his work. He asked questions no one else dared ask on that paper.

Wait. I just answered my own question. Scratch it.

Anyone else gotten the impression over the past week that Iranian politics look a lot like ours? We have a state religion. It nixes candidates, reform legislation, public debate, and social critics, and it'll even turn an election if it can get away with it, all to maintain a discredited, unyielding orthodoxy as antithetical to popular opinion as anything you're likely to see in Iran. Our symbol just differs. It's the dollar sign.

Yes you'd be more quotable without sarcasm, and will undoubtedly be horribly misquoted because you sometimes drip with the stuff. But saying you should write without sarcasm is, in my opinion, like saying you should paint with fewer colors so that it will take less time to look at the pictures.

Actually that's not far off from a common criticism of UT. "Couldn't you say it quicker like other bloggers do?" Yes. But then it would be like those blogs, not like this one.

The criticism of the Post for not articulating their reasons for this action are certainly valid. However, one needs to remember that the Post, like every major newspaper is losing millions of dollars every month. Millions! Unless we get a more complete story, we can also consider the possibility that any termination at the Post (such as the firing of Tony Kornheiser) is driven by financial concerns alone. Bean-counters tend to not have any political allegiance.

I look forward to hearing more on this story. But we can also expect to hear continued terminations of popular and important journalists from all media organizations for the foreseeable future.

This is, of course, just one person's opinion.

What does Rush Limbaugh, Dick Morris, or Ann Coulter say about it?

You said you were done with the WaPo. I empathize completely with that sentiment, but what is a local DC-ite to do? The WaPo is the only decent newspaper we have. Forget the Moonie Times. City Paper is subpar. The various Gazettes are local. Only the WaPo gives you decent local news, comics including not only Mutts, but Cul De Sac AND Spiderman, and pretty damned good news reporting, despite Fred Hiatt's droppings in and around the Op-Ed pages.

Alas, if you live around here and have a functioning brain, the WaPo is all you have. In that respect it is much like the Democratic Party: deeply flawed, but better than the insane alternative.

a trip down memory lane...

The Two Washington Posts

By Deborah Howell

Sunday, December 11, 2005; B06

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121000938_pf.html

The two Posts interact every day. Post reporters and editors often participate in online chats (about 50 hours a week) and there is a Continuous News Desk at The Post in charge of feeding the Web site.

Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal. They're afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.

John Harris, national political editor at the print Post, said, "The title invites confusion. It dilutes our only asset -- our credibility" as objective news reporters. Froomkin writes the kind of column "that we would never allow a White House reporter to write. I wish it could be done with a different title and display."

Froomkin calls it like it is, and you know we can't have that!

The Washington Post simply could no longer "allow" that.

Like a great many of your commentaters. the only political commentary I still read on the Washington Post was Dan Froomkin. Krauthammer and those other neo-Nazis, excuse me, Neo-Cons, sometimes it really is just so hard to tell the difference, like snails, you know? It is really sad to see the newspaper that Kitty Graham made famous has sunk so low as to become Fox News lite - at least Fixed News has the balls not to pretend to be anything other than what they are. Thanks for the updates, Glenn!

Dan Froomkin was the only reason to go to the Washington Post site. If they've really let him go, they're going to start seeing a significant drop in online readership. They don't have anything else to offer.

On the other hand, wherever Mr. Froomkin finds his next gig will be assured of inheriting his loyal following of regular readers.

People looking for a little truth and insight will be sticking with Froomkin and dumping the now-featureless wasteland of the Washington Post's "cavalcade of witless neocons". WaPo has nothing of value to offer, so they'll probably be closing up shop in a few weeks. Good riddance!

from fishbowl DC I look at the names and columns and I think most were likely on top of the hit count because they were so unpopular people came in droves to complain.

Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol are 1 and 3 on the list (IIRC, from a glance) and I hate to say it but I'm pretty sure I was one of the furious hits who made them more "popular" than Froomkin's best. More unpopular more like.No doubt the same thing is true for Froomkin's biggest days too, massive angry response from either side will push up the numbers.

So Kristol draws cheap heat where Froomkin draws people seeking a way to inform themselves, far the harder route, and both succeed. I understand why Kristol has a major print job despite being unreadable. But by what business model does Froomkin, labeled an opinion blogger, get fired? Is the official story "he hurt Kraut's feelings?"