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?