The WashPo Is Run by Idiots

But you knew that already, right? Still, there's always more...

First the Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, runs a column airing complaints from the political reporters about Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing column. (No, not complaints from readers, although her role is theoretically to be the reader's representative; complaints from co-workers.) The issue is that the 'White House Briefing' title might lead readers to think Froomkin belongs to the elect and sanctified order of White House Reporters, and thus taint their credibility (which is of course unimpeachable) with his icky liberalness. (The political reporters also complained about Technorati links to blogs critical of their stories; to her credit, Howell dismissed this complaint.)

Froomkin wrote a response, and today we get a response to the response from John Harris, who proves himself the biggest idiot of them all. Again raising the issue of icky liberalness, Harris says something truly astounding:

Dan, as I understand his position, says that his commentary is not ideologically based, but he acknowledges it is written with a certain irreverence and adversarial purpose....If he were a White House reporter for a major news organization, would it be okay for him to write in the fashion he does? If the answer is yes, we have a legitimate disagreement.

Think about that for a moment: Harris thinks 'irreverence' and 'adversarial' reporting on the president are not okay. Transcribing White House spin is perfectly acceptable, of course...but god forbid there should be any irreverence.

But it's actually much worse than that, because Harris completely misrepresents what Froomkin said about his approach. Here's Froomkin:

There is undeniably a certain irreverence to the column. But I do not advocate policy, liberal or otherwise. My agenda, such as it is, is accountability and transparency. I believe that the president of the United States, no matter what his party, should be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable....This column’s advocacy is in defense of the public’s right to know what its leader is doing and why. To that end, it calls attention to times when reasonable, important questions are ducked; when disingenuous talking points are substituted for honest explanations; and when the president won’t confront his critics -- or their criticisms -- head on. [emphasis added]

Note that Froomkin never uses the word 'adversarial' here; that was Harris' invention. More importantly, Harris completely omits the substance of Froomkin's acknowledged agenda--an agenda that, in theory, is exactly what every newspaper in America should be doing.

Are newspapers not advocates for transparency and accountability, for the public's right to know? Is there any serious person who believes they should not be? Not the Washington Post, apparently, and not John Harris.