the post's dismissive treatment of Dan Froomkin over the years (making it harder and harder to easily get to his posts)...

Glad you mentioned this, because I'd noticed the same thing, too. Even around the time when Froomkin's column was among the most read, finding it from the Washington Post home page, or even their Politics section, was often an absurd hassle.

Like you, I got the distinct sense from this placement that the Washington Post considered him an unwashed outsider, a visitor they reluctantly let into their castle, as some sort of experimental novelty. And yet, his columns were easily the most substantively dense and link-filled material on the entire site, I marveled at how he could find and compile so much every day. He could also put material cohesively together in a way that is rarely seen even on the most assiduously maintained blogs.

In short, he seemed too good for the Washington Post.

but for the sake of the archives (fingers crossed), you can (could always) find Froomkin by using: http://washingtonpost.com/whbriefing and then you'll get redirected to the proper URL.

'Is the Washington Post grooming itself to become another Murdoch acquisition?'

In fact, I read somewhere recently that NewsCorp sought to sell WSJ to some severely harsh right-winger who would is said to be to the right of Murdock, if such a mythical place exists on the political spectrum.

Thanks for the link. Looks as though all 123 comments so far are supportive of Dan Froomkin, as they should be.

The single most transparent and damaging myth in American political discourse is also one of the most unquestioned: The Liberal Media.

where is the logic in that statement? he criticized bush with impunity. he's been fired for (by your account) criticizing obama. thus, disproving the myth of the liberal media.

there's absolutely no sense in that statement.

I didn't know about this site, so thanks to everyone who mentioned it. Its definitely ass-kicking.

If you criticize Obama you will get one of 3 responses from the Obama apologists

1. you are a republican

2. you are a hillary supporter

3. you never liked Obama to begin with

_______________________________________________________________

You forgot my favorite...

4. He's only been in office for four months.

"a lone voice of simple fact-checking in a wilderness of stenography"

thanks belismith!!!!

back in sept of 2007, when the fcc had their half dozen town halls, i finally got to speak past 11pm, i closed with:

there are people on the right, who think that the media is liberal

there are people on the left, who know that it is not

and there are people all over the country, who unfortunately think that what they hear, see, and read is actually accurate and complete

the post just must not want readers to the paper or viewers to thier site, weird business model

(full speech @ sig)

While in some ways Murdoch is 100% an idealogue, in most ways he's just a brilliant media baron who knows how to leverage his assets into tailored legislation. Murdoch isn't selling anything close to a consistent ideology. Just Imagine what Fox News would have to say about the Fox Network if GE owned it.

In some ways his media is for sale to those who will further his empire's growth, in other ways he simply influences society directly on issues that further his empire- usually meaning if it sells it's good. Thus while his machine supports extremely pro-family-values politicians, he also pedals tons of soft-core porn and, like Disney, ensures that no fundies get in the way of that money stream.

He's like Bush or Cheney, he's ferociously focused on the 10% of issues that matter to him- allowing media monopolies, lowering taxes, allowing offshoring of profits, etc. The other 90% is up for sale.

Although your garbage piece is littered with unsubstantiated idiocy, I will only address one example. For you or any clear minded, objective person to believe your statement, “Rachel Maddow is one of the few prominent media figures who will interview and criticize Democratic politicians "from the Left” is credible, speaks volumes. You belong to a group of empty, lowly individuals who are unable to provide details, points of view and critiques based on merit. The underlying reason you need to unremittingly launch personal attacks against anyone in support of individual Liberty is that this is all you can do. Most of you are educated and know you can not argue with intellectual heft that your nonsense ideas possess merit, due to the fact that when implemented, the policy proposals you advocate, have always failed miserably, without exception. Regardless of the superficial, outward appearance you exhibit, the majority of self-professed, delusional elitists like you are driven by a need for power and the sense of personal adulation you ascertain by taking part in anything which serves to control others, or limit the available options provided to the citizenry. Even more sinister is the fact, that lowlife twerps like you could care less about anyone or anything other than themselves. In turn, your sleazy mantra consists of disparaging and discrediting facts, reality and irrefutable historic precedent while simultaneously besmirching the messengers and supporters of policies which conflict with the positions you have chosen to support. The ad infinitum, abject, hypocrisy demonstrated by you and your cronies is not only childish, insulting and shameful; if such antics where employed in court, they would be disallowed and the attorney using them would be subject to sanctions. However, you folks must realize this, for if you did not, then this behavior would be practiced in your personal lives, which it is not. For example, only a lunatic would use his own money to invest in financial products, which have failed 100% of the time. Yet, leftist, radicals like you, Mr. Greenwald, have no problem advocating the use of communal money for endeavors which you know will fail, as long as doing allow you to experience the pleasurable wave of tingling sensations through out you bodies.

In addition to the reality, leftist haters like you, have never and are never able to offer viable alternatives to the issues they oppose; the evidence is ubiquitous and incontrovertible that you are never able to defend your positions intellectually and the “destroy the messenger tactic” is the only strategy people of your cerebral capacity have at your disposal. Please do not obfuscate this truism, instead take the time to consider this reality. Please examine every issue, you can think over the last 100 years, where progressive ideologues took a position against the status quo and provide one example

Where people representing your side of an issue, addressed the actual issue at hand.