Comments on: The WaPo’s Omerta on Froomkin

By: 4jkb4ia

4jkb4ia — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:56:36 +0000

Via DougJ, Washington City Paper on Froomkin

By: Julia

Julia — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:10:55 +0000

Don’t be ungrateful. After all Dana Milbank did in 2000 to make sure we weren’t stuck with a president who thought he was all that, he deserves to put his feet up. Of Chris Cillizza, suffice it to say he thought the Harold ad was one of the best ads of that cycle and leave it at that.

By: STTPinOhio

STTPinOhio — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:21:30 +0000

my guess -

fromkin “insults” charles krauthammer in a column. krauthammer goes to hiatt and throws one of his patented fits, screams “fromkin or me” at hiatt. hiatt chooses krauthammer and fires fromkin.

I’d bet good money you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head.

And all the other bullshit reasons given are just cover for the above.

By: fuzed

fuzed — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:58:00 +0000

I cut my Sunday only delivery of WashPO after that, after hiring Crystal, that was too much.

By: bayville

bayville — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:01:48 +0000

Somerby beat Alexander by 24 hours in explaining why Froomkin got fired. Seems Alexander confirmed Somerby’s hypothesis.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:52:54 +0000

The Post’s omerta may be rationalized as protecting Mr. Froomkin’s privacy, like the way the Bush and Obama administration’s protect their prisoners’ privacy. A more likely reason is that it doesn’t want to own up to its progressive readers what it’s main focus is now, and that it feels its neocon and establishment friends already know. It’s makes their journalism a farce, but they obviously don’t care about any journalist’s opinion except their own.

By: iamwilliam1

iamwilliam1 — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:46:52 +0000

Katie Graham’s GHOST FINALLY GOT her tit caught in a big fat wringer.

No Froomkin, no revenue, no venue.

Bye-bye WaPo.

By: spocko

spocko — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:21:17 +0000

The scope for gamesmanship here is infinite: there’s an entire industry of HR, PR and legal consultants whose job is to explain firings by naming everything but the real reasons. The aim is “plausibility” and obfuscation, not accuracy.

I know people have probably moved on, but earlofhuntingdon I just wanted to say how spot on this observation is. It was something that everyone I knew in the HR and PR biz hated, the vague words the euphemisms. At least on the side when someone is fired for cause and they are giving a chance to resign they have a phrase they are allowed to use, So and So is leaving to “pursue new opportunities and spend more time with is family.”

If Mark Stanford resigns will they say, “He is resigning to spend more time another other man’s family”?

By: STTPinOhio

STTPinOhio — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:56:38 +0000

Rachel really likes her. I get the sense that they’ve ~~worked~~ drank together really well for years.

Fixed it for you.

By: Leen

Leen — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:52:14 +0000

Asking a reporter not to “criticize” More like asking a reporter not to do any critical thinking or real reporting. Telling and oh so pathetic. WaPo going down