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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

...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

I've been reading this column for quite some time now, and this latest posting has me wondering why we are all so confused about what the Post has done.

I've been unhappy with the Post for well over 10 years, ever since they dived in and roasted Bill Clinton alive on their front pages, month, after month, after month, without a column inch of counter investigation. Since then, we have examined and magnified numerous faults the Post has committed on a regular basis. And yet, here we are wondering what they could be thinking.

Isn't it about time to replace this paper of record and reward any other honest publication that takes the time to act like a real journal? You want to influence Obama, then start with his newspaper. We harp for days on end about journalistic ethics, yet can't help but pick up the same paper every damn day knowing full well its pages will have some level of propaganda from both the left and right, with an agenda that serves only their corporate interests or power they hope to attain. For the life of me, I don't understand why we still insist on putting money in the pockets of people who are the heart and soul of the cocktail weenie circuit(Froomkin excepted), who actively write, print, and support an America sharply in contrast to what progressives believe in. Kill the links to WAPO. I bet no one notices. This is something we should have fixed a long time ago. From now on, I'll proudly read McClatchy.

There remain large numbers of people, both online and offline, who like to call themselves progressives, but who pretty much blindly accept everything Obama does as defining correct progressive decision making. Such people would not be happy in the least to have the likes of Froomkin criticizing their idol.

I don't expect visible and vigorous protest from them over Froomkin's firing.