I'm not sure I understand why this is even a question. Indeed, it would seem to me that it would be grounds for immediate dismissal.
"Immediate dismissal" is an overreach, but Jon is right to call Froomkin out for his bizarre musings about how to cover Barack Obama. No journalist should ever wonder whether skepticism of politicians is warranted; it always is.
The problem these days is that few mainstream journalists are the least bit skeptical of Obama. And the fact that the Post columnist tasked with covering the Obama administration is even thinking of giving Obama a pass, if only for an extension of the honeymoon that began with his candidacy, doesn't bode well for future coverage of "The One."
Froomkin's subtle confession of favoritism toward Obama is all the more disappointing when you put it in the context of what Froomkin said three years ago when his column faced fierce internal and external criticism. Then-Post ombudsman Deborah Howell called Froomkin's work "highly opinionated and liberal."
Froomkin changed the name of the column from "White House Briefing" to "White House Watch" in the aftermath, but he defended his work by portraying himself not as a liberal Bush-hater but as a watchdog of whomever is in the White House. "[M]y job is to watch the White House like a hawk," he told Rosen in a PressThink interview.
Froomkin added further insight into how he sees his job in an entry on the Post's blog (via BuzzMachine):
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. And he should be able to easily withstand that scrutiny. I was prepared to take the same approach with John Kerry, had he become president.
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.
The journalists who cover Washington and the White House should be holding the president accountable. When they do, I bear witness to their work. And the answer is for more of them to do so -- not for me to be dismissed as highly opinionated and liberal because I do.Those words don't square with the internal conflict Froomkin recently admitted:
So what do we do with President Obama? Do we treat him with the same skepticism with which we learned to approach Bush? If not, how do we hold him accountable?
Though his liberalism prompted Froomkin to overstep the bounds of good watchdogging at times, he was right about his job during the Bush administration; he needs to remember his role once someone who shares his liberal worldview is in the White House.
He said he was ready to be a Kerry watchdog, and in light of his recent public waffling about how to cover Obama, Froomkin had better be even more aggressive now or his journalistic reputation will be shot.
Cross-posted at my personal blog, The Enlightened Redneck




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Uh, I think the skepticism
January 1, 2009 - 14:54 ET by RR GOPUh, I think the skepticism he's actually referring to is to make sure that Obama carries out Marxism and doesn't falter in that regard.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Personally I think once you
January 1, 2009 - 14:57 ET by thebutlerdiditPersonally I think once you ever muse something like that aloud your journalistic integrity is shot. I think that makes a very strong case as to why to fire him. Who could trust what he says now, assuming they ever did?
Oh, great
January 1, 2009 - 15:03 ET by StarAZWell, I am not surprised...They think this guy is so "smart" that he cannot do anything wrong, so why worry? This is what got us here--kissing the feet of clay of a mortal man, and a vague, elusive one at that.
I disagree
January 1, 2009 - 15:16 ET by KC MulvilleAccording to the Constitution, the role of watching over the president belongs, not to the press, but to the other two branches of government. With the other two branches of government, there are established procedures and standards. With the press, any witless scribbler can concoct accusations out of thin air - and history proves it.
The media has largely convinced themselves, and a sad portion of the American public, that our government depends on the press. That attitude's self-serving agenda should be enough to make the public skeptical, but beyond that, the further irony is that these hacks who demand acountability from the president reject any accountability themselves.
And to anyone who thinks, "sure, but that's not how it is in the real world - we need the media" ... that very thought proves that you have fallen for the rhetoric and myth that the media themselves created. Consider yourself a zombie.
True.
January 2, 2009 - 07:33 ET by sam.i.amI see a lot of zombies out there today.
Watch the White House like a hawk?
January 1, 2009 - 15:23 ET by Gary HallWatch the White House like a hawk?
It's a cyclic thing. The MSM watches the WH like a hawk in "Republican term cycles."
Would have been interesting in 2000 to have polled the MSM on how many times the likes of James Raidy and John Huang had visited Pres. Clinton in the White House? (;~/ gary
Froomkin will be a DEAF AND BLIND watchdog ...
January 1, 2009 - 15:38 ET by Jayke... he already is. Along with all the other LAME STREAM MEDIA. I would love the opportunity to ask him just who he THINKS that BARRKY is. He will not be able to answer me because NOBODY knows who BARRKY is. He is an ILLEGAL ALIEN/FAUX-PREZ. When will people WAKE UP?! He is a USURPER!
Of course these jackals
January 1, 2009 - 16:50 ET by MidAmericaOf course these jackals are worried about what criticism of obama can do. Look at what they were able to do to George Bush with nothing other than a coordinated effort to destroy his Presidency. Heck, they even took down Bill Clinton to protect their 'Chosen One'. With obama only getting 53% of the vote any critical narrative now could easily push him into negative territory. Obama, as President will be constrained by reality when it comes to bold new initiatives so negative criticism will come from the left and right. We'll know when obama is in any kind of trouble because just like in the Clinton years, whenever Clinton was having trouble we were constantly subjected to polls that found he had overwhelming support of the American people and they don't care what he did they just want him to continue on doing the Peoples Business.
He said he was ready to be
January 1, 2009 - 17:05 ET by bigtimerHe said he was ready to be a Kerry watchdog, and in light of his recent public waffling about how to cover Obama, Froomkin had better be even more aggressive now or his journalistic reputation will be shot.
Will be shot?
Heck... that's already a done deal!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hmmm....
January 2, 2009 - 09:15 ET by godfodderWait a minute (he says, stroking his chin), weren't we told during the last eight years that journalists were "professionals," and thus did not allow their personal political preferences to skew their reporting??? Wasn't the the entire basis of the press's defense against reports of Leftward bias (despite what multiple objective studies showed)? Now they tell us it's maybe not so true?
You want an honest to goodness White House Watch column? Put a conservative in charge of writing it!
Skepticism does, however, carry risk
January 2, 2009 - 12:37 ET by Jack ColemanPeople might think those possessing it are journalists