As are many of us, I'm perplexed and outraged at the termination of Dan Froomkin's contract with The Washington Post.
I wrote to Andy Alexander, the Post's ombudsperson, to express my thoughts. He responded in kind.
Follow me over the fold for the exchange.
Mr. Alexander,
First of all, thank you for serving as Washington Post's ombudsperson. I know it's a tough job, particularly nowadays when the newspaper industries -- and news industries in general -- are fighting to stay alive.
I'm heartsick that The Post has decided to terminate its contract with Dan Froomkin. I'm not sure what is meant by the statement that the blog "wasn't working," but I do know that changing the format from a column to a blog that's posted throughout the day made a difference for many of us readers. It was quite nice to find a little quiet time during the day, log in to read Mr. Froomkin's column, and know I'd read what he had to write for that day. I also enjoyed his online chats and believed I received great value from the give-and-take.
Mr. Froomkin has a rare attribute among columnists, which is that he's respectful and responsive to his audience. Not in a pugnacious, sparring kind of way, but in that he has always considered the fact that people don't see things the same way he does and he doesn't consider that a personal insult to his intelligence or his "authority" as a journalist/columnist. He invited readers to provide information and perspective. This mutuality of information and viewpoint dialogue brought a richness to Mr. Froomkin's writing that was evident and that invited readers to not only read his work but also to engage actively with it.
And that made the Washington Post a better medium.
I'm concerned that many media products are turning into boxing rings, where value is placed on the pundits and opinion writers who can elicit passionate (sometimes abusively so) rebuttals. Perhaps the measure of good newspaper business is the ability to stoke the type of anger that leads to bizarre warnings and vituperative insults and hence the desire to tune in another day?
I was really looking forward to Mr. Froomkin's approach to the Obama White House as the administration settled in and began to take over the work of governing in a new world. His response did not disappoint. He continues to dig deep and provide context to the workings of the White House.
Mr. Froomkin's incisive writing obviously brought many readers to the www.washingtonpost.com site; his column was highly read, emailed to others, and linked to.
Do you think that the format change from regular column to periodic blog was a factor in the data used to terminate Mr. Froomkin's contract? What data was used? How often do readers get to provide input when a well-known and well-regarded contributor is fired?
Thanks again for your work and your consideration. I wish the Washington Post much success in weathering these difficult times and trust that you'll be a valuable asset in making sure that it does.
Kind regards and fierce grief,
MsSpentyouth
Here was Mr. Alexander's response:
Kim,
Thanks for writing. As you may know, as ombudsman I operate independently from The Post's newsroom and management. But I regularly inform them of what I'm hearing from readers. Currently, I'm receiving a large number of e-mails from readers like you who are unhappy with Mr. Froomkin's departure. I appreciate your comment and will share your views.
With respect to whether the switch from column to blog worked against Dan, I simply don't know. I have not yet gotten to the bottom of exactly why management decided to end his contract. I suspect it may have been a combination of things - money, declining traffic, suggested changes in the blog, etc. But again, I'm only speculating and hope to learn more.
Best wishes,
Andy Alexander
Washington Post Ombudsman
Let's keep writing and calling The Post to learn why the management has made this nutty decision and to ask them to reconsider the value of keeping on arrogant liars such as Charles Krauthammer and George Will who treat their readers as serfs in their fraudulent fiefdoms of frippery while firing people who not only ask their own questions but ask questions on behalf of their viewers who truly want answers rather than smartypants rhetoric.