Criticizing Mr. 25% vs. Criticizing Mr. 65%
This is a fairly minor point to add to Jane’s excellent discussions about readership with regards to the Froomkin firing.
As we know, one of the WaPo’s key defenses for canning Froomkin had to do with declining readership for his column. The tail off in readership from last year to this–which Froomkin admits but attributes partially to not getting linked on the front page–justifies its actions, the WaPo claims.
But ignore placement issues for the moment and consider this.
Froomkin’s column was one of the most popular columns at WaPo back when he was criticizing Mr. 25%. His columns about Bush–widely disliked for the span of Froomkin’s column–were hugely popular.
His columns about Obama, a President still commanding close to 65% approval ratings, are less popular.
There’s an obvious logic to that–the audience actively seeking criticism of Obama, at this stage of his presidency, is a lot smaller than the audience actively seeking criticism of Bush from 2004 on in his presidency.
But isn’t that precisely the reason to keep a column like Froomkin’s around? Wouldn’t we have all been a lot better off if the loyal Republican opposition had held Bush accountable back when he was polling at 65%–or even 90%?
Is the WaPo basically saying it won’t keep columns that call a popular President to account, because those columns don’t draw the same readership? I thought that was precisely the press’ responsibility?
The Washington Post ceased being responsible to anyone not of the ruling class during the reign of Bush the First. Newsprint will go the way of the horse and buggy before the Post gets its groove back. I totally agree that Froomkin’s been done wrong, but surely in the long run he’s better off elsewhere.
Are not most all political blogs suffering from a relative dropoff from their level during the year and a half coverage of the election and transition/
There you go again, thinking the media is supposed to be objective. It was only in some very brief periods of American history where the public believed the press was objective. Post WWII to Carter/Reagan was pretty much it. The biggest disappointment of the current press is the lack of an aware public combined with communications markets that have shrunk to the point where the single remaining press voice is declining in readership and is dying on the vine ( see Clear Channel )
The public is somewhat demanding other outlets ( eg your exemplary blog ) but the overall effect on the public is minimal. With most public receiving their info from the all Michael Jackson all the time cable stations there aren’t really a lot of people who realize what they are missing.
So, back to Froomkin, he is an awesome voice of 4th estate but he needs to find a good outlet ( more than just web) for his calling the bums to account.
There is a reason it is called the Washington Compost. Some people call it the Pravda on the Potomac. I thought that’s what they called the Moonie Times.
I suspect it’s simpler. In spite of the litany of “reasons,” or possible “issues,” it is that the WaPo didn’t want to pay Dan Froomkin to criticize the rest of its stable of writers from under their own masthead. Froomkin could probably have criticized bloggers of any stripe, writer of the NYT by name, or any of the “news magazine” types not affiliated with the WaPo. But, Froomkin could not criticize anyone at the WaPo, or the WaPo itself.
What leads me to this conclusion is: (1) Dan’s audience was principally online. (2) No matter where Dan goes/lands he will be able to continue to write the same columns, or even more acerbic columns, to be read by the same people and linked as before. In many ways – other than the paycheck – nothing changes for Dan. He can aggregate in the same way he always has, without any fear that the WaPo will spike his columns.
Dollars aside, the only thing that really changes for Dan is the masthead. What changes for the WaPo, dollars aside, is their stable of “fine thoroughbreds” doesn’t have to put up with Dan’s public criticism originating from under their own roof.
bmaz (2) — Yes, they did; I think I may have mentioned that in a comment responsive to one of Jane’s posts. I spent quite a bit of time combing through what traffic and attention numbers I could glean. ALL sites with political content had a drop off of traffic after the election and through the inauguration, with a slow trend upward. The only sites which reliably sustained traffic through this period were tech sites — partly because the people that read them may do so for work (which doesn’t take a break for political season changes) and because of the pre- and post-holiday/year-end technology purchasing.
If anybody cared to look farther out, they’d see this is a typical trend which follows election cycles; there was a similar drop-off in traffic at sites with political content at the end of each of the presidential and mid-term election years, with predictable spikes in-between correlating to primaries and scandal events.
WaPo can’t legitimately use this as an argument, and at the same time ignore their role in this process; if Dan’s traffic fell off more than the norm, how much of this was due to the poor to non-existent promotion of his content by WaPo?
And why wasn’t Dan ever offered a syndication deal like the rest of Washington Post Writers Group contributors? this would also have helped drive readers to WaPo’s site looking for his content.
there has been a drop off in blog traffic cuz I been selfishly playing Pangloss in the meat world, and neglecting teh toobz
it’s all my fault
but everybody has to tend his garden
(duckin & runnin)
Oh freep, and I suppose you’ve been playing at Pangloss with others who also pulled the plug on their toobz time…[sigh]
Explains why you weren’t here one day to bat clean up. We’re going to have to dock your pay.