The Firing Of A White House Watchdog
By K. Daniel Glover | June 19, 2009
The Washington Post has decided that it doesn't need a White House watchdog -- or at least it doesn't need liberal blogger Dan Froomkin to serve as the watchdog of a liberal White House.
Politico broke the news yesterday that the Post will not renew Froomkin's contract to write the column/blog hybrid "White House Watch" he has been writing since 2004, and the newspaper's ombudsman confirmed the rumor. Bloggers on the left are upset by the news, and even conservative blogger Ed Morrissey of Hot Air finds it a bit curious.
Post editorial-page editor Fred Hiatt said Froomkin's liberal bent "was not a factor in our decision," but he also said, "With the end of the Bush administration, interest in the blog also diminished." Those two points may conflict. If interest in Froomkin's blog diminished, a point that is being disputed, it's entirely likely that his political orientation was to blame.
I made that point on Twitter yesterday while backing the Post's decision. My tweets: "A liberal blogger watchdogging a liberal president is weak journalism. Sound news judgment by @washingtonpost. Now [the paper] should tap a conservative blogger to fill the void. It still needs a watchdog, just a skeptical one."
I say that as someone who used to be a Froomkin fan -- and not just because he once dubbed my former blog, Beltway Blogroll, one of "the essential Washington political blogs." Although I didn't always agree with Froomkin's critiques of the Bush administration, I appreciated his efforts to hold the administration accountable. Every journalist should be so committed.
But I quit reading Froomkin's column after he wondered aloud whether the press should approach President Obama with "the same skepticism" as it did Bush. The mere fact that Froomkin, a liberal, asked the question about a relatively conservative president undermined his defense years earlier that his job is to "watch the White House like a hawk" no matter which party occupies it.
Liberals like New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen and bloggers Glenn Greenwald and Oliver Willis insist that Froomkin has been watching Obama like a hawk just as he did Bush. But after perusing Froomkin's blog today, I'm not convinced.
Here's the message I got when I searched for any mention of Gerald Walpin, the supposedly "independent" inspector general who the Obama administration fired last week: "Having trouble finding what you're looking for?"
Indeed I am. And that's because Froomkin, who fancies himself a watchdog, has written nary a word about the politically motivated firing of a watchdog who dared to question an Obama supporter over his alleged misuse of federal grants.
The only time Froomkin mentioned the firing of Walpin (and not by name), he buried links to Associated Press and New York Times stories in a "Quick Takes" roundup -- and the Times story emphasized the White House's laughable and ageist defense of the firing.
That lack of coverage doesn't pass the watchdog smell test. It is unconscionable for Froomkin to have remained silent this long as the White House first fired and then smeared a man who actually has been watching the Obama administration like a hawk.
If you want thorough coverage of the IG scandal, you'll have to get it from The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is the target of the probe that got Walpin fired) or from conservative watchdogs like those at The Washington Times and Washington Examiner.
Froomkin's blog started down the path to irrelevance when he began "wrestling with" his watchdog role during the transition from Bush to Obama. His decision to all but ignore the IG scandal even as conservatives assumed the watchdog mantel hastened the blog's demise.
Odds are good that Froomkin will continue his blog as a solo venture or move it to another publication, perhaps a liberal outlet. (Can you say Huffington Post?) I hope he does -- if he is finished wrestling with his inner watchdog and ready to consistently be a thorn in Obama's side as he was for Bush.
K. Daniel Glover is the online communications strategist for AIM for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
11 Comments | Post a Comment
Froomkin is neither a watchdog nor a journalist. He is a typical liberal blogger: a gadfly whose commentary runs the very short gamut from leftwing conspiracy theories to DNC talking points.
The only mistake the Post has made with respect to his blog was waiting this long to shitcan it.
One less liberal shill to worship at the alter.What’s the difference?
I saw an empty cab pull up in front of the Washington Hilton and Daniel Froomkin got out of it.
joe conason is out with is blueprint for the defense of the walpin firing.
won’t bother with the link, but since this is all the leftie have to offer…
it is pretty weak, but I suppose if they want to hid an admin behind a fig leaf, this is all they have to work with.
Liberalism is religious in practice. A good liberal like Froomkin could no more criticize Obama than a parish priest would critique the Pope. The Post would no more publish a watchdog on the Obama regime than would L’Osservatore Romano would publish hard hitting inside Vatican news. It just isn’t in their belief system.
None of the lapdog media could ever be a real watchdog. It just isn’t in the breed.
Dan Froomkin is a talented journalist and a principled man. I’m very sorry to see the Washington Post not continue his White House Watch column, and wish they had given him more of a chance to figure out how to cover the Obama administration. I believe that in time Froomkin would have become more realistic about the strengths and weaknesses of the new President.
The weird thing is that I remember thinking just last week that this guy might get fired in some budget cutting. I remember occasionally perusing his column during the Bush years and it was quite clear he was a liberal hack masquerading as a “journalist”. I was actually quite surprised how partisan a supposed non-partisan columnist like Froomkin was.
Following Obama’s election, the tone completely changed to one of deference. As mentioned, there was not even a mention of the Inspector General who’s been fired by the administration for having the audacity of doing his job. So much for the “White House Watch”.
Since Froomkin was just another liberal hack defending anything this administration did, he became expendable. After all, most of the media are reliable hacks for this President already. How many does one really need?
I normally would feel bad for someone losing their job (even if I strongly disliked them) if for nothing else than the bad karma associated with it, but I can’t find any sympathy for this hack.
We have a President who is fundamentally trying to undo the things that have historically made this country great. And I blame people like Froomkin for that. Good riddance.
Arguably Walpin was exposing improprieties that occurred during the Bush administration. All of the $44M in AmeriCorps funds that CUNY improperly spend subsidizing its Fellows occurred before Obama took office. Ditto for Kevin Johnson’s St. Hope expenditures. In this sense Walpin was clearing the deck for the new administration and its emphasis on transparency.
Yes, it’s a Friday night, and yes, I have been drinking, but …
June 19 at 2:25 pm | #1 | Link
He should simply admit, as that reporter from ABC did, that it is hard for him to objective when it comes to Obama. Did anyone see John Harwood almost ejaculate when Obama swatted that fly in front of him? I don’t trust the mainstream media when it comes to Obama: they’re intoxicated by him. Plus, they think, metaphorically speaking, they’re on the side of good in a country full of evil.