Who's behind the Froomkin fuss? WaPo reporters or RNC operatives?

Or is there a difference?

From Brad DeLong's blog, a conversation with the Washington Post's John Harris:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/12/astroturf_vs_gr.html


...yesterday, I read you telling Jay Rosen http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/ that Dan Froomkin critic Patrick Ruffini http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/03/dan_froomkin_se.php was a grassroots conservative weblogger. And my jaw dropped because he is eCampaign Director for the Republican National Committee. A matter not of conservative grassroots complaints about liberal bias but rather Bush-can-do-no-wrong paid Republican operatives working the ref. So why did you characterize Ruffini in this way?

A: He wasn't at the time working for the Republicans, he wasn't when he wrote that piece <about Froomkin last March>...

Q: So you knew <Ruffini> had been a Republican operative in 2004, and didn't tell that to Jay Rosen?

A: <Ramble of which I caught only scattered phrases> But assuming you aren't posting this at least immediately... A good relationship between the print Washington Post and WPNI... Happy to answer privately... Really don't want to be quoted on the record... If you want to call me an idiot without my response, that's fine...

A: No I want your response.

A; <stream continues>But I shouldn't respond... I've promised people I won't respond... We need to cool this down... It's a really a very narrow issue: are there people confused about Froomkin's role...

<We go off the record for a while>

...

bullshit, it will backfire and the story will become why they are caving to pressure from the White House and/or going public with so-called "bias" issues that are best kept administrative. Hell, they could have just changed the name of Froomkin's column for all I care - even though it's a little ridiculous - but the fact that they advertised it to shore up their Republican street creds is pretty sick.

Disgraceful.

We may have to organize a campaign in support of Froomkin. I'm one of his biggest fans.

I'll bet by this time today he's gotten a thousand more. I tried to
add my comments on the WaPo blog thread...but was too steamed to write.

But, if this goes on then maybe we need a petition or something.

I still can't believe that they would target Froomkin...figured he was below their radar. But, no one is safe now. They never give it up..they are indeed full fascists now. They aren't even trying to hide it and the NYT's and WaPo Management and Ownership have aided them every step of the way. That we ever had hope that the MSM was just too afraid after 9/11 and would come around...going after Froomkin and the rest of the crap they are putting out there today proves that it's always been calculated. They don't like the exposure and Froomkin is the best at cutting through the crap.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2005/12/john_harris_res.html#comment-12103247

Add your voice to the myriad others posted after his column. He needs to understand what kind of shitstorm rains down when you pull shit like this. And read some of the posts, if you have the time - lots of new and interesting info contained therein.

the whole dust-up within the pages of the WaPo. (For clarity: she was the first to write about it, certainly not the first to complain. That was left to RNC operatives.)

To Deborah Howell:

On Dec. 11 you wrote an article titled "The Two Washington Posts" in which you contrasted web writer Chris Cillizza with WaPo blogger Dan Froomkin, stating that Post reporters like the former, but not the latter. Specifically, after commenting on Froomkin and marshalling quotes from editor John Harris to support the idea that Froomkin is "opiniated and biased," you wrote:

"On the other hand, Chris Cillizza, a washingtonpost.com political reporter, appears in The Post frequently. When he writes for the paper, he works for Harris, who is happy to have him."

Perhaps this is because Cillizza is willing to let editors like John Harris have their way with his column without regard for the facts. In support of this hypothesis I submit a recent column by Cillizza that listed names and party affiliations of politicans recently involved in corruption scandals.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2005/11/political_scand.html

According to Cillizza, his list was altered by an editor in a biased way to give the impression of "balance." Or more appropriately, to give the impression of "Ballance." You see, the rules of the list were bent to allow Frank Ballance, a Democrat who left Congress more than a year ago after a corruption scandal, to be added while the name of John Rowland, a Republican governor who left office around the same time after a corruption scandal, was withheld. In a reader chat on your website, Cillizza had this to say:

Cillizza: "This was an editorial mixup. In my original post, Ballance was not included since, as you rightly point out, he is not a sitting member of Congress. After an edit, Ballance was unnecessarily included for, frankly, balance. I did not read the final edit and therefore was unaware that Ballance had been added to the list. I apologize for my editor's error (he's been flogged). And let no man (or woman) say The Fix opposes full disclosure."

(http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2005/12/ask_the_fix.html)

Perhaps Froomkin is not willing to accept such attempts at balance.

Sincerely,

*****************************

(Credit where it's due: the facts from this letters largely come from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.)

I took note of that little dust up meself. :toast: