...that the post and family owners have been spooked up for generations ? ? ?

hee hee hee

i used to deliver the post when a youngster, the post, the post, the post, it's one of the world's great newspapers ! ! !

ho ho ho

how many papers get a sousa march composed for them ? ? ?

ha ha ha

if you examine numerous quotes by the empress dowager katherine, she explicitly endorses power elite (straussian) 'values' in REPRESSING information and reportage about -you know- icky stuff the public doesn't really need to trouble their teeny tiny minds about...

ak ak ak

when we devolve, i think i'd rather be a morlock than an eloi...

eater eatee eater

art guerrilla

aka ann archy

eof

has taken on the brown-noser Ezra Klein and removed the recalcitrant Froomkin, it has assembled the perfect lineup of righties and "lefties" to fulfill its mission: Speaking Truthiness for Power.

Well I am not surprised. I read Kagans piece yesterday and today Kathleen Parker says the same thing in her little piece, so they fire their one real reporter. Ahh the post has really taken a sharp turn away from the Watergate Days haven't they.

GG provided reasons why one should view the firing as suspect, i.e., the fact that Froomkin has one of the more popular blogs, and the fact that he is one of the more respected WP writers. You opined out of nowhere, apparently, that it was possible child porn had something to do with it.

I'm betting you won't be able to see the difference. But its there regardless, and pretty obvious to anyone else here that you're whining to about being censored.

In a novel move, the Washington Post just retroactively fired Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, effective June 17, 1972. "They just weren't a good fit with us, and we regretted the brief period of political accountability their work fostered," explained Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli. "If we could take it all back, we would, but we hope this shows our sincere contrition for our previous lapse."

I have my doubts that most of the "left" is going to mourn terribly much his passing from his prominent position at WaPo.

-- frankly0

Political definitions and labels are always a tough call, so I don't know what your definition of "The Left" is, but I can't imagine that what I would consider to be "The Left" wouldn't be quite outspoken about Froomkin's firing. Wapoo's website traffic will also tell a story as their hits, and subscriptions, will likely plummet.

I was just stating he probably got fired for a reason OTHER than his political beliefs.

You know Goddamn well that's why he was fired--and I'd phrase it differently in any case: namely, his ethics rather than "his political beliefs" were the cause of his termination, and those cowards at the Post, naturally, lack the wherewithal to step forward and say so.

Whatever else you're referring to (what was it? molestation?) is just horseshit.

Froomkin was becoming quite critical of Obama on certain issues. I have my doubts that most of the "left" is going to mourn terribly much his passing from his prominent position at WaPo.

I've met Dan twice - nicest guy in the world. This is sad news.

Washington Post Company's single largest shareholder is Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffet, who runs Berkshire Hathaway, wouldn't be considered a conservative and certainly he is not a Republican.

Last time I checked he was also a pretty good businessman.

It was hardly libelous.

I named a few things he might have gotten fired for, not indicating that any of them were the true reason, hence the "probably" and "or something".

I was just stating he probably got fired for a reason OTHER than his political beliefs.

You're doing the exact same thing, only vice versa. You're indicating he got fired BECAUSE of his political beliefs, and NOT for other reasons. Neither of us know the truth, we can only speculate.

I don't think what you're doing is libelous, and neither is what I said.

He may not fit too well with the current gossip/tabloid style of Salon, but I'd say bring him here.

He pulled my post, guess it was "too right" for him....

No - it was idiotic and libelous. If you want to accuse someone of trafficking in child porn just on a whim, go to Free Republic.

Well here's your chance. Finally a situation where instead of just complaining on Glenn's comment section you can actually do something.

You can short the stock. It seems clear based on many of the comments that management is certifiably bonkers and that this is surely the beginning of the end of the newspaper. So pony up and short the stock and you can watch with satisfaction and vindication as the stock plummets meanwhile making more money than you've ever imagined. Then with the all that money you have amassed you can buy the paper fire everyone you don't like and reinstall Froomkin as Editor in Chief.

Ain't capitalism grand!!!!!

Ha ha, Jim!

The thought of that hideous Krauthammer gloating over his behind-the-scenes manipulations is just too much to take. Blech.

"One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong..."

Like DeanOR, I each day was amazed to see Froomkin still writing there, or at any newspaper, and on some level I was kind of embarrassed for him. He was the furrier at the PETA convention.

It's nice to know that as readers continue to vote with their feet, such destructive, insulting simulacra of "journalism" like the WaPoo accelerate the process in such a dismally predictable way.

The imminent demise of the Post and its even shabbier imitators is something I no longer fear, and layoffs for everyone currently in the op/ed side of the print media would, in many ways, be a boon to Democracy, rather than the opposite.

Newspapers have forgotten that their only value lies in their reputation, and that's gone, in most cases. In the long run, especially judging by the comments here and elsewhwere, I think Froomkin's firing is a good thing. It's a bucket of water on the wicked witch of the WaPoo.