Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Short Break

By Andy Alexander

I will be off for a few days. Blogging will continue shortly.

By Andy Alexander  | June 23, 2009; 10:04 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Post Axes Froomkin's "White House Watch"
Next: Froomkin Departs, Leaving Angry Loyalists And Questions

Comments

Oh, well then -- don't worry about the paper or Froomkin. The paper can die without you, and Froomkin will be fine. It's not like your readers are upset or anything like that.

Posted by: mdean3 | June 23, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

If I were in your situation, I'd hide under a rock for the next couple of days too.

Posted by: bybrklyn | June 23, 2009 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Alexander, as I said before, I, at least, am looking forward to your response and sorry that you are unavailable for the moment. I am attaching the WP description of the ombudsman's role, just to remind you of the expectations we've been led to have of you.

"As The Washington Post ombudsman, he serves as its internal critic and represents readers who have concerns or complaints on a wide range of topics including accuracy, fairness, ethics and the newsgathering process....He is operates under a contract with The Washington Post that guarantees him independence."

Will check back in a "few" days (is that few as in 3 or some larger number?).

Posted by: formerloyalWPreader | June 23, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

You really are a coward. Everyone needs a break, but couldn't yours wait until after you provided Froomkin's readers a more specific defense of why he was fired? After all, it would take all of a couple of minutes. It is obvious your failure to respond to the readers concerns is a significant contributor to the decline of your papers readership.

Posted by: bolisalindalae | June 23, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I truly think that Mr. Alexander is going hiking with Mark Sanford.

Posted by: bybrklyn | June 23, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

After waiting several days to read your response to the outrage over Froomkin, this is incredibly disingenuous of you. At the very least, you could have posted this information last week.

What a disgraceful move when hundreds of readers are relying on you to provide some insight into an editorial quagmire. Shame on you.

Posted by: brownbagger46 | June 23, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

If you can't stand the heat, it's time to hit the Appalachian Trail for a few days...

Posted by: jerkhoff | June 23, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Run along, little man. Run and hide under your little rock and keep praying that this will all blow over. Ombudsman....my @$$!

Posted by: August30 | June 23, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I see Fred Hiatt has made a sincere effort to hire the most competent people....NOT!

Posted by: August30 | June 23, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it hysterical that Ms. Alexander's last column was about a school official that wouldn't communicate with the Post.

Yet here is Mr. Alexander, supposedly the reader advocate, studiously avoiding talking to his readers about the issue that has inflamed them. And the story of Froomkin's firing has inflamed your readers above all others combined, if the number of comments is an indicator---almost 800 at the moment compared to a typical response of about half a dozen.

For almost a week you could not muster enough energy to do more than jot down a quick little vacation note. The scorn and disdain for your readership is obvious.

It's a bit hard for readers to get too worked up about that school official's attitude when the Post shows the same lack of concern towards its own readers.

Posted by: wasntme543 | June 23, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Many thanks to formerloyalWPreader at 11:28 for enlightening us as to the actual functions of the Ombudsman's job. After the last posting, I had been under the impression that the Ombudsman served as a kind of apologist for the paper's powers that be.

Looking forward to your next report to us.

Posted by: candelaria | June 23, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I can only laugh at the narcissism of Froomkin's supporters. As if the world should stop because a columnist got axed. Get over it (and yourselves.)

Posted by: bobmoses | June 23, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Do your job or resign! Have some integrity. The readers have awaited your response regarding Froomkin and you've made none. Thanks for nothing.

Posted by: lillianlil | June 23, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It isn't narcissism, @bobmoses. Although many of us loved Froomkin, you're right that the Post has the right to axe any columnist they want at any time.

For me, the thing that I find most outrageous is the insulting attitude that the Post obviously has for its readers.

Froomkin has always been exceedingly popular, perhaps the most popular columnist at the post as rated by page hits. I and others have always enjoyed his "no bull" attitude, especially when it is so needed in an environment full of partisan hacks and talking point regurgitation. Froomkin is no Obama apologist either---his columns took Obama to task for his continuation of some of the worst Bush era excesses such as warrantless wiretaps.

Yet it appears that the Post made every effort to trivialize him and minimize his traffic. They renamed his column to emphasize that it was a mere blog, as compared to what they regard as respectable reporting. They listed his column in the "W"s in the alphabetized listing when every other columnist was listed by name.

And this final insult---firing him with no explanation other than some PR speak about needing to make some changes, etc. And to add to the insult, Mr. Alexander, the reader advocate, merely repeats editorial editor Fred Hiatt's empty little excuses, making no observations of his own or commenting on the outrage that this firing has ignited among readers.

I'm sure Mr. Froomkin will find a home somewhere else where we will continue to be able to get his insights. But the attitude of the Post---hiring and promoting establishment hacks like Krauthammer, Kagan, Gerson, and Kristol, and kicking a popular independent voice like Froomkin to the side, has generated outrage in readers that have watched the Post decline from a world class newspaper to the corporate tool it has now become.

Posted by: wasntme543 | June 23, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else get the eerie feeling BobMoses is really Howard Kurtz, or some other hack working for Fred Hiatt?

Posted by: August30 | June 23, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Your job requires a level of integrity. Indeed, your entire job is about integrity. If you feel that you have to hide your head in the sand when it comes to Froomkin, then you really need to surrender your job to someone else.

Posted by: tmoore1 | June 23, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

So, after five days of massive postings by outraged readers/commenters, you emerge to say . . . that you are taking some time off.

Come on, Mr. Alexander. No comments about the Froomkin firing, the reaction on the Web to same, or the unprecedented (literally) number of comments posted to your blog because of same? Are you serious? Not even *one sentence* of exculpatory explanation? Nothing at all?

Not a good showing, Mr. Alexander. No; not a good showing at all.

Posted by: dougom | June 23, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

A bit of research turns up the following interesting facts:

Mr. Alexander became the Post ombudsman on 5/4 of this year. In that time, he has put up 8 posts his first week on the beat, and then 4 posts/week for every week since. His maximum drop-out time has been 3 days--for weekends, one presumes.

Except this time.

How fascinating--and telling--that for the first real, genuine controversy of his tenure, Alexander heads for the hills. No explanation, no apology, nothing. Just gone.

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Posted by: dougom | June 23, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The more events unfold itself, the more uglier it gets. WaPo's silence speaks volumes. I'm now 100% sure that Dan Froomkin's column was unjustly axed and had nothing to do with a drop in site traffic.

Posted by: August30 | June 23, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey Fred Hiatt...why don't you shut down all comments section. Much like the Mullahs in Iran, it's apparent you don't give a flying cr@p about your readers' concerns. We'll still have facebook and twitter to expose your neocon rag of a newspaper.

Posted by: August30 | June 23, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Since we don't know why Alexander is taking a few days off, I suggest you hold your horses. The reasons may be personal. So far, Alexander has not been a coward.

Posted by: asoders22 | June 23, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Brave move, people. You get almost unprecedented negative response about Froomkin so you just ignore it and shut down the Ombudsman. I guess that fits because when your neo-con columnists tell lies, you leave those alone too.

Can there be any mystery why the newspaper industry is sinking toward the horizon? Not all that different than Iran. The ruling powers have their version of facts and all others are to be crushed.

Posted by: interactbiz | June 23, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Sheesh, can't a guy take a coupla' days off? It's not like he's a real ombudsman anyway.

What's a froomkin?

Posted by: tresangelas | June 23, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

He's not an ombudsman...he's a Hiatt apologist.

Posted by: August30 | June 23, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't begrudge the ombudsman a day off.

I do begrudge the paper allowing him to take off without responding to the Froomkin comments.

Yesterday Kurtz held a live discussion on the state of the media...and i submitted a question about the Post's justification for cancelling Froomkin's contract...but, no answer, no acknowledgement.

Post has gone silent on Froomkin!

After reading firedoglake.com, Krugman at nytimes.com, and other blogs...i'm going with my initial instinct and signing off the post the day Froomkin leaves.

But i intend to complain until then.

Posted by: las100 | June 23, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

HEY PEOPLE!

I'm incredibly, unspeakably grateful for all your support.

But lay off the ombudsman please! The poor guy broke his foot.

Posted by: DanFroomkin | June 23, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Dan, Thanks for the clarification on the ombudsman's absence. I'm sure we all wish him well and a speedy recovery. I wouldn't want anyone to be ill or injured.

However, The Post has remained silent on your firing, other than the initial "reasons" (excuses) and we readers would like to hear more to explain this inexplicable decision. Even better, we'd like to hear that you'll be staying and continuing the excellent work you have been doing.

Posted by: allenofwoodhaven | June 23, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey Dan, as the victim of this saga, you're showing an incredible amount of decency that we expected from that low life editor of yours, Fred Hiatt. HOW DARE HE TREAT US LIKE THAT!!! How dare he not acknowledge our grievances. I can expect this behavior from a fast food cashier, but not from the editor of the flagship newspaper of my city. I hope the post goes out of circulation.

Posted by: playa_brotha | June 23, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Too funny. The only useful info came from the guy they fired.

Posted by: pmp2430-wp | June 23, 2009 8:40 PM | Report abuse

pmp2430-wp

God on a bike! The irony of this situation is absolutely dumbfounding. I feel sorry for Andrew Alexander, but I can't help feeling that Dan's excuse for him is a trifle lame (sorry). Moreover, it does nothing to dispel the theory that AA was out hiking with with Mark Sanford. Nonetheless, the fact that AA didn't come out with an immediate reaction to Dan's firing (broken foot or not)is probably a good thing. I'm sure there is a lot of digesting and cogitating going on and as soon as AA posts anything substantive on the matter he will reignite the firestorm - I can understand that he wants his ducks in a row.

That the fired DF had to be the one to let the readers know what was going with the ombudsman kind of reinforces the sense that there must be something of a bunker mentality at the WaPo. I'm sure Hiatt is a nice enough guy, but he has just completely lost the plot and it is really hard to make smart decisions when your confidence has been shattered.

Posted by: RichardHooker | June 23, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Fred Hiatt is not a nice guy, and one of the worst hypocrites you will find. He's a jerk in real life.

Posted by: playa_brotha | June 23, 2009 9:34 PM | Report abuse

1. @RichardHooker, I think that we all can be sure that Fred Hiatt is not a nice guy, even without @playa_brotha's input. His hypocrisy comes through in every column of his I have ever managed to get through. And he is a shameless promoter of Republican talking points. This episode with Froomkin's firing only reinforces it. Hiatt's comment on the firing was typical: "With the end of the Bush administration, interest in [Froomkin's] blog also diminished." That of course is not true---Froomkin has never been an Obama apologist, and I'm sure there is no traffic statistics that would bear out the assertion that interest in Froomkin's blog has dropped since the election. It is simply a talking point to assert that Froomkin is anti-Bush and nothing more. Hiatt axed Froomkin because he was angry that Froomkin called out Hiatt's hero Krauthammer on the torture issue. It's that simple. So we all can see what type of person Fred Hiatt really is.

2. I'm of course sorry about ombudsman Andy Alexander's injury, and hope he gets better. But it still doesn't explain his glaring silence on the issue. It has been a week now. Alexander is supposed to be "giving voice to reader's concerns." That is the actual subheading of this very blog. And this issue has been in the forefront of reader's concerns, yet he has said nothing. And I mean nothing---his single post on the firing contained not one iota of independent thought from the ombudsman or even any readers. It just quoted both the Post spokeswoman and Hiatt giving vague, unconvincing statements. It was nothing more than a corporate PR statement and insulting to reader's intelligence. It was pretty much the opposite of what you would expect from someone called an ombudsman---a representative of the readers, who claims that his independent employment contract gives him reader credibility.

3. As #pmp2430-wp said, it is hysterical that the only true new information in this entire blog post came in the form of a comment from Dan Froomkin himself!

Posted by: wasntme543 | June 24, 2009 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Dan. I had a feeling AA is not "hiding" at all. I don't know AA, but so far he hasn't come across as someone who is or wants to be an apologist and he may well give a voice to the readers to Hiatt directly. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. We will probably sum up reactions in a column to follow.

Dan Froomkin - of course it's an incredibly bad move to fire you. You were needed during the Bush era for obvious reasons, and now you are needed as the "slave on the wagon" whenever Obama is tempted to take the easiest way out or forgo his promises and intentions.

Posted by: asoders22 | June 24, 2009 2:37 AM | Report abuse

Mr Alexander, you had many days before taking off on the 23rd to address the firing of Mr Dan Froomkin. As neither you nor Mr Kurtz, in any of your various cross-media-platform iterations, have deigned address this not-insignificant reader concern by now, shall we simply assume you have no intention to ever do so?

Posted by: hongdb | June 24, 2009 7:43 AM | Report abuse

@playa_brotha and wasntme543. OK, I stand corrected on Hiatt. Just sayin that attributing DF's firing to simple malevolence on Hiatt's part implies a level of self indulgence that is hard to believe - is Hiatt really in a position to be settling scores?

I know a lot of the comments have concentrated on a supposed conflict between DF's and Hiatt's politics, but Jay Rosen has said that Brady's departure left Dan without a protector on the web side of the WaPo. Brady has just been given a consulting position at the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/12/jim-brady-guardian-america and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that isn't a potential destination for Dan. Unlike the WaPo, the Guardian is a successful web operation and I am sure they are much better attuned to DF's extraordinary value.

Posted by: RichardHooker | June 24, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Dan, while I appreciate your interjection (and do wish Mr. Alexander a speedy recovery), I still stand by my original comment. If a post can be made about a brief hiatus, there is no reason why there couldn't be some communication about your situation.

Even a simple sentence acknowledging the volume of e-mails and promising an impending response would have been sufficient.

The post above only feeds conspiracy theories and leaves us readers feeling alienated from our proper vehicle of recourse - especially when it comes after five days of silence on the matter.

Posted by: brownbagger46 | June 24, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I once sent an email to Mr. Hiatt protesting some of his lies about Iraq's WMD in one of his op-ed pieces in 2003, and the guy responded using angry swear words. Even then I though that was beneath an editorial writer for a paper like the Washington Post.

Posted by: August30 | June 24, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Be Careful, folks
Andy may send the Bassij after you...

Posted by: bsaleeby1 | June 24, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Ombudsman,

Comments left by readers for your post "Post Axes Froomkin's "White House Watch" are being deleted. This is perfectly within the rights of of the WaPo, but when people leave comments they do so because they feel strongly about something - and occasionally put time and effort into commenting. Each comment is free content being generated for the site - it may be smart, stupid, kind, offensive, and it may violate WaPo posting standards.

Can I make a suggestion about basic comment editing etiquette? Instead of simply disappearing a comment, couldn't you leave a marker in place? Something like:
----------------------------------------
DanFroomkin
June 30, 2009 5:00pm

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
----------------------------------------

Just a thought. The way WaPo's on-line readership is being dealt with in regard to the Froomkin firing continues to be absolutely lamentable.


Posted by: oncebitten | June 24, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. Froomkin for weighing in on the Post's Ombudsman's blog's comments section regarding why the Ombudsman hasn't responded to us. Your kindness to your colleague and your readers exemplifies why you've developed the loyal following you have. The Post's disregard of all of us; you, the Ombudsperson, and us, in letting this situation fester with NO response or explanation, demonstrates why they are experiencing losses so extreme that the only remaining decisionmakers are those who are creating the environment that's causing the losses.

Dan, please keep us posted on your plans. Mr. Alexander, i hope you recover well, from this awful gaffe and your foot injury.
Mr. Hiatt, i hope readers are successful in getting Post executives to reconsider the terms of contract.

Posted by: las100 | June 24, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Is this a joke? Are you kidding? What kind of Ombudsman are you??? What the heck is going on at this once-great paper? Do you realize that to anybody in the know it looks like you're RUNNING SCARED? I'm really just flabbergasted by all this. Neocons and cowards are at the helm of the Washington Post....stunning...absolutely stunning.

Posted by: AdHack | June 24, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

PS - I broke my foot once, in college. I was in class the next day, in a cast, on crutches. I had writing assignments, I finished them. He broke his foot, okay. Does he type with his foot?

Posted by: AdHack | June 24, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Boy, it's sad to see how far the Washington Post has fallen. I used to check the online version regularly, but the editorial pages and opinion pages have really become a horrid mess (with the exception of Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne). Now it just seems to be the province of loons like Krauthammer and Gerson, and idiots like Richard Cohen, and gasbags like Broder.

While I didn't always agree with Mr. Froomkin, at least he was a consistent journalist, who actually questioned authority rather than do the standard "balanced" reporting so typical of the old dying news media.

And sad to see that our Ombudsman doesn't seem to really follow his job description. Must be the bloggers' fault...


Posted by: elrick_2000 | June 24, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Just a word about your visit to Argentina: Mobile phones do work there, so don't turn yours off. Somebody may need to get a hold of you while you're away.

Posted by: jlewis3 | June 24, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Where's Froomkin? Sad to see a once respectable paper desperately pandering right-wing of the Republican Party.

Posted by: Civ4ever | June 24, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"Does he type with his foot?"
- AdHack June 24, 2009 6:03 PM

Yes - in his mouth, in the tank.

I instance the prehistoric stenographic race-calling split-the-difference non-fact-checking trivializing notion of objectivity revealed by this part of his column explaining Froomkin's sacking):

"concerns by some at The Post newspaper that readers might believe Froomkin was a White House reporter, working alongside those offering objective news reporters."

If he was merely meaning to report others' notions of who where "objective news reporters" he could have made that plain - but that might have hinted that disagreement with them was possible.

Posted by: AlanDownunder | June 24, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I hear the Appalachian trail is beautiful this time of year!!!

Posted by: esibley76 | June 24, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Since Mr. Alexander's been under the weather, why don't we enthusiastic Froomkin supporters help Mr. Alexander out by offering him the fruits of some of our reasearch. We could cite some sources and provide some URLs that explain for him reasons most every credible commenter and analyst in the news and blog world report Hiatt and the Post screwed up cancelling Froomkin. As i've looked elsewhere for the analysis i'd hoped to get from the ombudsman, i've become MORE convinced that the Post cancelled the contract as a desperate (and possibly clueless) attempt to cover for its last years legitimizing and normalizing the evil committed under Bush's radical and norm-changing, criminal presidency. Others may have other summaries.

Wouldn't it be good of us if we helped Mr. Alexander out by covering for him over the next couple of days and notes of our research here...for each other and to make his return a little simpler?

I'll offer up Glenn Greenwald's interview with Jay Rosen regarding Froomkin's firing, on Salon.com on 6/19/09 (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/19/washpost/index1.html) or the updates, which were even more direct (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/19/washpost/index.html#postid-updateA2). The interview referred to the inaccurate (maybe dishonest) stats the WP used (and Mr. Alexander quoted without checking or analyzing). I found the detail on those stats at Firedoglake.com (http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/06/21/the-huffington-post-eating-the-washington-posts-lunch/). Check them out...they are amazing!

Posted by: las100 | June 24, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

bring Froomkin back, you dummie!

I am so glad that Sanford was not messing up the Appalachian trail.

Posted by: dancewater | June 24, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

My sympathies on your broken foot, sir. In high school I once broke my ankle (tore all the ligaments, too!) but was back in school the next day, hobbling to all my classes on crutches, a different class every 50 minutes. Neither my mother nor teachers expected me to miss any of my adolescent tasks -- and I didn't.

The Washington Post is broken, sir. A loved, respected and essential writer has been dismissed for what appears to be political reasons. Readers are outraged, your comments page flooded. So where are you? Where is your publisher? Where is any recognition of the importance of this moment in the Post's history? A political writer has been fired for political reasons. You are a professional, sir. Get to work.

Posted by: bgeorge33 | June 25, 2009 3:14 AM | Report abuse

Andrew Alexander has no place at the Post. He botched the story behind the firing of Dan Froomkin, led me to cancel my print subscription, and ought to do what he can do to restore Froomkin. (Sorry, Dan, but I don't care about his foot problem.) I don't want to be talked down to by the imperious Krauthammer, the predictable Will, the former Bush speechwriter Gerson, the austere Samuelson, Kagan who brought us into one war and is looking for the next, Michael Hayden who brought us warrantless wiretapping as one agency head and torture as head of another. Enough! Far prefer being informed/informed by top-of-the-line reporters -- Priest, Deyoung, Ricks, Balz, Pearlstein -- with an op-ed mix of the very bright Ignatius and Robinson. Can the others, Broder included as he's so far inside the Beltway and crypto-conservative that he doesn't speak much beyond his ingrained instincts.

Fred Hiatt and his editorial page seem unable to write in declarative sentences and often finish with a vanilla version of, "We would hope that.........." That is beneath the standards of my "hometown newspaper" whose hometown is the nation's capitol. The Post has taken a lurch to the right and doesn't fit into my way of looking at America and the world. The last eight years are toast, move on, look for and report new ideas. Find an encourage people with primary sources, not just keyboards and access to the views of others on the internet. It's time to move on and the firing of Froomkin was not a good omen.

Posted by: harper-d | June 25, 2009 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Andrew Alexander has no place at the Post. He botched the story behind the firing of Dan Froomkin, led me to cancel my print subscription, and ought to do what he can do to restore Froomkin. I don't want to be talked down to by the imperious Krauthammer, the predictable Will, the former Bush speechwriter Gerson, the austere Samuelson, and far prefer being informed/informed by top-of-the-line reporters -- Priest, Deyoung, Ricks, Balz, Pearlstein -- with an op-ed mix of the very bright Ignatius and Robinson.

Fred Hiatt and his editorial page seem unable to write in declarative sentences and often finish with a vanilla version of, "We would hope that.........." That is beneath the standards of my "hometown newspaper" whose hometown is the nation's capitol. The Post has taken a lurch to the right and doesn't fit into my way of looking at America and the world. The last eight years are toast, move on, look for and report new ideas. Find and encourage people with primary sources, not just keyboards and access to the views of others on the internet.

Posted by: harper-d | June 25, 2009 7:39 AM | Report abuse

I guess the Post's big advantage from HAVING an ombudsman is that every other employee of the paper -- right up (down?) to Fred "WMD" Hiatt -- can throw up their hands, and say, "Whoa -- it's not MY job to talk to readers, or communicate with them -- talk to the ombudsman!"

Posted by: mdean3 | June 25, 2009 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Still away, Mr. Alexander? How is the weather in Argentina?
:D

Posted by: Gray62 | June 25, 2009 9:15 AM | Report abuse

"But lay off the ombudsman please! The poor guy broke his foot."

When trying to kick same ass, no doubt. Didn't you tell him Hiatt is hard as steel, Dan?
:D

Posted by: Gray62 | June 25, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

You stink as an ombudsman.

Posted by: born2bdave | June 25, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Wow, no journalistic integrity AND a coward. You've really found your niche, Mr. Alexander!

Posted by: PMaranci | June 25, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

For how long has White House Watch been placed under "Other Blogs" on the "Political Blogs" page?

Posted by: jwalker6 | June 26, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

And comments are now CLOSED on the original "Froomkin is fired" entry on the Ombuds blog.

Sheesh. Way to respect your customers.

I guess they're waiting until AA's foot is actually fully healed to comment.

Posted by: mdean3 | June 26, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

So Froonkin's gone, the Post has closed the comment section on his firing, and has deleted comments regarding it. Aleaxander wrote that Froomkin's departure would be in early July, and like everything else .... it was a lie. I will now delete my bookmark for the Post and await its speedy demise. An ombudsman who is not the readers' advocate is no ombudsman. The lack of integrity is nauseating !! Thanks again to the Post for demonstrating the MSM's arrogance and myopia. Whitehousewatch.com is where I'll be

Posted by: lillianlil | June 26, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander: The vicadin prescription should run out soon, and when it does, you need to show us that you represent the readers and can exercise the independence that is supposed to be part of your job.

Posted by: tmoore1 | June 26, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

What a shame. Dan was honest, entertaining, and enlightening. I don't quite see the same in the postings of Kristol, Krauthammer, and Gerson, just more of the same rhetorical posturing.

Perhaps I will continue to look at the Post every day, perhaps not, but an important voice there has been silenced by . . . ?

The "Well, that's the way it goes" attitude of the quoted Post administrator is hardly encouraging for a newspaper that wants us to believe it is worthy of our readership.

For shame.

Posted by: syrdavid | June 26, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

You'll be "off" for a few days? Everyone deserves a summer vacation, but not while you're ditching one of your few remaining journalists (Dan Froomkin). But maybe you're off having tea and crumpets with Charles "Captain Polemic" Krauthammer?

Posted by: obeah | June 26, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Subject for next Ombudsman column: "How Fair is the Post's Coverage of the Michael Jackson Story?"

Posted by: wasntme543 | June 26, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

when treasury sec john connally switched from dem to rep just in time for nixon to tank, tx dem sen ralph yarborough said it was 'the only known case of the rat climbing aboard the sinking ship.'

when pat buchanan famously said the rep party had deserted him and he was gonna run independent, mn dem sen gene mccarthy said it was 'the only known case of the sinking ship deserting the rat.'

now with froomkin getting kicked off the 'washington post,' it is the first case of the rats and the sinking ship together expelling the ratcatcher...

Posted by: natty-bumppo | June 26, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Anyone curious how the crippled Charles Krauthammer has sex with his wife? Ewwwww.....that's a mental image nobody wants.

Posted by: August30 | June 26, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

POST TO READERS: DROP DEAD

Posted by: formerloyalWPreader | June 26, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company