There's something fishy here:
We all have heard the reasons that the press is under pressure by
forces not of its making. This is an example of a self-inflicted wound.
Are papers like the Post under suspicion for being too insidery and
old-media-y? How does it make sense get rid of an independent minded,
new media, presumably not-that-expensive, non-Washington-cliquey voice
on politics and the media and leave... well, the full opinion and media
lineup the Post is sticking with? Some people tell me that it's a
mistake to say that the Post's editorial page (and the weight of its
op-ed lineup) has "become" neo-con and establishment-minded under its
current editor, Fred Hiatt; the argument is that this is the Post's
long tradition, which its anti-Nixon crusade concealed. I don't know.
But I would have liked to have heard the argument about why Froomkin
was the necessary next person to cut.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/06/fallows-on-froomkin/199984/
