I can't even express how appalled I am by this news. Froomkin was, quite literally, the only thing on the Post's web site that I read at all, let alone regularly. His was the only mainstream media blog--unless one counts Sullivan's "Daily Dish"--that I have bookmarked.

Fred Hiatt's editorial hackery, the hiring of the perpetually-wrong Bill Kristol, now this. What next? A sale of the Post to Murdock?

I hope to God someone else picks up Froomkin.

Excellent, specific analysis. I didn't know about the Kaplan connection.

Just this morning, I was in a conversation bemoaning the decline of print journalism. Our chat started and ended with the premise that external trends and developments (people's hectic schedules, 24-hour cable, etc. etc.) are causing newspapers' demise.

Sheesh. This one's purely self-inflicted. I'm over the edge, now. My next such conversation will start with the premise that the major newspapers are not worth saving. Time to move on.

Oh, one more thing. Hire Froomkin, Salon.

Pincus or Savage?

Ideologically and journalistically I agree with Glenn, but it seems to me that this firing comes as a business decision. They probably felt that Froomkin's traffic/exposure was not high enough to warrant the investment anymore and thought that their resources would be better allocated to other WaPo bloggers like Greg Sargent and Ezra Klein. It should also be pointed out that while the Post's print columnist stable is a complete mess, this won't change that lineup--Froomkin was an online publication. Finally, it's not like he's getting silenced completely--reporting and watchdogging as valuable as Dan's will undoubtedly get picked up by somebody.

Is this bad news? Yes. Is it an indefensible, end-of-the-world political hatchet job? It doesn't seem that way.

Well, I like Eugene Robinson, too, but because of Dan I went to the website every day.

No more.

The Post can keep all its neocon liars and crooks and go fuck itself.

now there's no reason to read this rag any more, good luck and goodbye

Why did he get axed?

Part of the answer is in Glenn's opening.

Froomkin likely didn't get canned for being too liberal. The Village tolerates partisans.

Froomkin got fired for his consistency and his principles. THAT shit makes the locals nervous.

This is sad. I grew up in NoVa and my dad read the post every morning. As cancer took his senses I started reading the post daily. For years I considered it the best paper in the country. Than sometime during the Clinton administration the Post started to tilt right, mostly becoming an echo-chamber of inside-the-beltway conventional wisdom. Than came Bush and his war which the post backed to the hilt and never critisized. Richard Cohen said once 'Anyone who doesn't believe Hussain has WMDs is a fool...or French!' (I imagine a 'hyuk' after). Never has the WaPo apologized for it's 100% backing of Bush's misguided war. Also telling was amost no editorial comment on the terrorist murder of Dr. Tiller in Kansas. The WaPo regularly backs torture or comes out against any investigation of government sponsored torture. Lately there was Krauthammers attacks on Froomkin, and it seemed like Froomkin was forbidden to respond to Krauthammers idiotic comments. Now there is maybe one or two columnists that are worth reading and all the rest are neocon human debris. I swear my cats poop is too good for the WaPo to clean up. My dad is spinning in his grave.

Two days ago Salon.com ran a story that basically argued that anyone who criticized Obama from the left was an extremist, "neo-Naderite," conspiracy theorist paranoid about the Trilateral Commission. Now its bemoaning the loss of one of the last critical voices from the Left in the mainstream media and placing all of the blame on conservatives.

Look in the mirror sometime.

WAPO gives voice to Krauthummer, Kristol lite, Will, Hoagland, Kagan, etc. but cannot tolerate Froomkin?

Was his balancing voice too popular? Is insanity more easily sold if not challenged by good sense? Was he attracting too many hoi polloi and not adequately serving the rich and powerful? Yecch! As traditional media disappears in the morass of its own confusion, we will know it earned those just deserts.

People like Froomkin are only tokens anyway, like those who decorated boardrooms a generation ago. I remember asking a lawyer if any of his 100 or so partners were female. He proudly said, "Oh yes, we have two!" That same contempt for balance continues today in the MSM.

I was stunned to read that Froomkin is gone! Froomkin! Daily blog reading includes Froomkin (and Glenn, of course). I cannot completely state that I won't read WaPo as I follow Ezra, but...

There can only be one place for Froomkin to go and that is up, up, up the ladder. He is well respected and will easily land in a better and more respectable venue.

"Liberal media bias" my you-know-what. It's just a crowded field of more of the same: hysterical, willfully ignorant DBags and DNozzles. Or, our "media elite."

Dan Froomkin was the only columnist at WaPo I went to read every day (other than to mock the likes of Broder, Krauthammer, Hiatt, Wills and others)...

I've taken it off my bookmarks bar, and will never go there again..I guess sticking him all the way down at the bottom in "Other Blogs" still didn't dent his popularity!

Please let Glen, Andrew and other know where and when you will appear again Dan, and I'll come religiously to read your columns...hope we don't have to miss you for too long a period.

Another thought -- Froomkin's column was most popular when he was criticizing a deeply unpopular president, essentially giving MSM cred to some of the more critical strands from less established sites. Now, he's offering tepid criticism of a popular president -- that's just not as fun or enticing to readers.

The March of Dimes was a huge deal before polio vaccines were discovered -- now where are they? Dan Froomkin's a victim of his own success. We should honor him as a martyr.