Sunday, 21. June 2009, 22:25:05
Run- down at Greenwald's blog:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/19/washpost/index.htmlAnyone who has read this blog for a while will know why I'm frequently quoting and linking Froomkin, either on his so called "opinion" column on the online part of Washington Post, or at niemanwatchdog.org. He offers an incredibly constant stream of insightful and knowledgeable context to issues on the agenda at the White House. As well as on related issues of the day. More than that, through the Bush- years for me, and before that for others, he kept many of us interested in facts and analysis rather than simply spin, and so helped us - I won't mince words here - retain our sanity when confronted with how the political situation in the US was degenerating into a very ugly mess. Where controlling information and establishing initial and unquestioned parameters was and is central to maintaining narratives about affairs of state. Rather than analysis and discussion.
Not simply because he relentlessly questioned the Bush- administration's insanities, in other words, but because he did so without the very easily adopted antagonism and equally wrong internal counter- logic that most administration critics typically have - regardless of the issue in question. He was often frank about this - the idea was to reveal and discuss the methods and attempts by politicians to establish facts, conventions and words as having certain meaning. And so he questioned them, and revealing without antagonism the substance of the positions.
The criticism naturally has been mounting steadily. No wonder - he made everyone else in the Washington establishment, journalists and politicians, look stupid. Remembering and illuminating how the narratives would change from week to week, rather than simply reiterating them - as is the typical mode of journalism and commentary in the US - inevitably did so.
In fact, the criticism was very revealing. As repeated incidents would show - no one was ever capable of challenging Froomkin's objectivity or content. Instead, the substance of the critique would be that Froomkin at all challenged the establishment narratives in the first place. If it did not become a liability for "real" beat reporters, it was frequently alleged that Froomkin undermined Washington Post's credibility. Allegations like these would not from politicians, however, but from other journalists and the editors at the Washington Post.
The reason for this is obvious, and described at length by me and others - critics and supporters - before. The way journalism is run in the US is through a very high dependency on access. You earn access by printing what your sources want, pure and simple. When you no longer repeat what they say, you become uninteresting for the White House PR efforts.
Something Froomkin, in his admirably measured way, would point out made a certain distance from the White House helpful in covering the issues in a meaningful manner. Described carefully with the fact that reporting from the White House insiders contained information fully available from simply listening to the White House speeches.
It will be interesting to see how this develops. The political situation in the US is still dire. Establishment policies are formed in an opaque a manner as ever, while Obama's insistence on openness certainly will not carry over into real measures taken by his administration. Even if Obama and his closesest advisers would wish it, and his electorate will demand it. Simply because the lack of substantive debate about any issue is so obvious - and indeed as pointed out, central to the continuation of the standing policies. Whatever names they would be advanced under.
Substantively, firing Froomkin means there is no longer any real journalism being done by any main- stream media outlet in the whole of the United States. At the same time, very few avenues exist for people who wish to discuss issues rather than method for advancing your already found point of view. And so political dialogue and legitimity suffers, while naturally criticism in itself successfully becomes associated with radical policies, or even simply policies opposed to the Administration's pronounced agenda.
I will wish Dan all the best in the future, though. Whatever he decides to do, I believe he will continue to be an invaluable source for intelligent commentary. And realistically, a different and freer context for such commentary will maybe make it even better, and more incisive and to the point, than what could safely be done at the Washington Post.
WIDGETIZE