As JosephP noted, Donald Graham is a bottom-line bottom-feeder of the very worst kind. As well, the neo-cons have had an axe out for this paper since Watergate. Looks like they finally get to scratch another "to-do" off their hit list.

...and give Froomkin one instead.

Aren't Froomkin and Maddow on the Left? Isn't it actually a fact that they critique Obama "from the Left"?

Oh, it's because you need to make the point but don't want to seem to be diluting the notion that Froomkin is "real journalist" with stuff about his being a Lefty, since being a journalist is still supposed to be about pursuing the story regardless of ideological, political or partisan considerations.

As for writing commentary for opinion pages, the trick there if you're being paid by a major newspaper is not so much what opinions you proclaim but whether you're writing stuff that people want to read because it's lively, interesting, different or provocative -- and smart and well-written too. I don't know, but it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that Froomkin was not capturing readers for WaPo while Krauthammer was (notwithstanding that Froomkin supposedly drove a lot of internet hits on some occasions).

The whole thing strikes me so far as like the Right compaining that The New York Times didn't keep Bill Kristol on its op-ed page.

Then again, maybe the publisher jusy doesn't like Froomkin. Everything is not a neocon conspiracy.

It was Katherine Graham herself who told her son that the paper's leftward shift had gone too far and needed to be reversed.

Columbia Journalism Review • Sept-Oct, 2002:

Donald Graham's Washington Post

by Scott Sherman

[...]

Graham spends much of his time on matters pertaining to other parts of the company [...] Still, Graham remains deeply involved in the enterprise. For instance, Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, reports directly to Graham (and not to the publisher).

[...]

At his mother's urging, one of Don Graham's first and most important acts as publisher was to remove the longtime editorial page editor, Philip Geyelin, who was a solid liberal, and replace him with Meg Greenfield, a maverick with strong neoconservative leanings.

Many observers say the pages have been drifting right ever since. In October 2001, the former Post editorial writer and syndicated columnist Colman McCarthy published a scathing article in The Progressive entitled "Why the Washington Post Op-Ed Page is So Dull." McCarthy monitored the Post op-ed page daily for three months, and concluded that "it is a sheet of numbing sameness: centrist or rightwing viewpoints, listless writing, and pro-establishment megaphonics."

Friends say that Graham has grown increasingly conservative in recent years, and that the op-ed page--which features Robert Novak, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will as regular columnists--is not inconsistent with his own views. What is clear is that it's a page in which conservative voices are very strong and liberal voices are very weak.

Asked for his opinion of the Progressive piece, Hiatt replies mildly, "I don't remember the piece well enough to give you a general response." But he does take the opportunity to announce the latest addition to the Post's editorial board--the gifted (and conservative) writer Anne Applebaum, whose work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Spectator, and The Daily Telegraph, and who will join the paper in October.

- - C J R , 2002

__________

that lowlife twerps like you could care less about anyone or anything other than themselves. -- pcisbs

It's "couldn't care less." That is, unless you meant what you wrote and you believe that Greenwald does indeed care.

Why are all wingnuts fucking morons? Actually that is a silly question.

by the Washington Post. Naturally, I wish him the very best, and I hope he finds whatever job he wants.

Piss on the Washington Post. It's nothing but a Goddamn statist, neocon rag anyway. Hopefully, it'll go belly-up before too long.

With its right-wing editorial page & corporate cheerleading squad (Ruth Marcus, Krauthammer, Kurtz, etc...), the WaPo is less than a shadow of its former self; it's now just another mouthpiece for the rich & powerful. Froomkin is too good for that birdcage liner.

Every time I followed a link to Froomkin's work, I did a doubletake when noticing that I was reading a thoughtful commentary from the WaPo. I get the same reaction whenever I accidentally stumble onto another ask a wingnut piece.

Don't intend to ever read anything by Krautahammer, but if the end timers need a ringer to play Satan, this guy is perfect.

Thank you Mr. Greenwald for the report. I had been looking for Froomkin in the Post, and figured I must have just missed him that day.

To: Dan Froomkin

Your work and contributions were working. I don't know what's going on at WaPo; but I urge you to resurface somewhere.

Talk to the Salon folks here. I don't see why you couldn't start contributing here, tomorrow.

Stay involved. You do good work.

Thank you.

Bruce from Pennsylvania

Doesnt make much sense at all does it? Scary!

RT

www.anonymity.tk

That Venezuela has one of the most vigorously anti-government media in the world, and to suggest otherwise is to listen to US establishment propaganda too. Don't get sucked in Glenn.

Migrate over to their website and you'll see Chris Cillizza and Dana Milbank dressed in faux smoking jackets looking like jackasses as they clown for hits. Yeah, the same Chris Cillizza who went on cable news to say that the question of whether torture is wrong hasn't been settled.

Its no secret why traditional news outlets are going under. If anything they can't go away fast enough. They're run by establishment figureheads who don't understand their audience or what they want. Worse still, they bring their own biases to bear in running their business (i.e. "he's highly opinionated and liberal).

Froomkin will be okay. Talent always finds a home. The Post will be something we look back on in 20 years and shake our heads about.

As for writing commentary for opinion pages, the trick there if you're being paid by a major newspaper is not so much what opinions you proclaim but whether you're writing stuff that people want to read because it's lively, interesting, different or provocative -- and smart and well-written too. I don't know, but it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that Froomkin was not capturing readers for WaPo while Krauthammer was (notwithstanding that Froomkin supposedly drove a lot of internet hits on some occasions).

-- jeburke242

You've never read Froomkin, have you?

All evidence points to Froomkin being one of the Post's most viewed online writers. Your "beyond the realm of possibility" is based on what, besides your opinion, which is based on, what?

Was your intention to say that Krauthammer's writings are "lively, interesting, different or provacative -- and smart and well written too"? That makes me wonder if you've ever read Krauthammer either.

Here a sample:

This [Protests in Iran] started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The link is at my sig.

Krauthammer reeks of self righteous indignation and hyperbolic, horse dropping dramatics.

Hey, what's with the '242'?