12/14: Briefing Papers

Today we've done our best to capture some of the reaction to the dispute over the identification of Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing" blog at WashingtonPost.com (see 12/13 Blogometer for the background). It's Topic A in the blogosphere, and has taken on a number of different tracks. There's dispute over what the Washington Post is reacting to. Today, many on the left seem to think the paper is caving into the complaints of the right, instead of concerns over journalistic standards. There also is a wide expression of enjoyment in watching the Post's internal issues being played out so publicly. This is likely a popular topic to some because it shows how the MSM struggles to compete with the new emerging medium that is the blog. Sit back and enjoy.

An announcement: Since late 5/05, the Blogometer has been featuring prominent political bloggers in our regular Blogger Spotlight feature, much like The Hotline does for political and media figures inside the Beltway. Today we're launching a page dedicated to collecting all of those Q&A interviews (40+ and growing) in one place. So click over to The Hotline's Blogometer Spotlights to revisit previous spotlights or catch up on any you may have missed.

Another announcement: the 12/16 edition of the Blogometer will be our last for '05. That means we have 2 editions more left to go, but we didn't want you to be surprised. We'll be back -- with a few improvements -- in early 01/06.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: Next Of 'Kin

Driving the commentary on Froomkin-gate today is NYU prof. Jay Rosen's interview with "two key players" in the Post's internal dispute: Washington Post politics ed. John Harris, WPNI exec. ed. Jim Brady.

Reading the Q&A, Jane Hamsher traces Harris' concern back to ex-blogger/now-RNC staffer Patrick Ruffini, and she highlights Harris' statement that the WH "never complained in a formal way to me, but I have heard from Republicans in informal ways making clear they think his work is tendentious and unfair." Hamsher: "This flap is brought to you courtesy of the Republican Party, who will not stand to see itself criticized by a major media outlet without seeking to take down the one who is doing so. And John Harris bends over and spreads 'em."

Brad DeLong: "Shouldn't John Harris have told Jay Rosen that Patrick Ruffini is not some grassroots 'conservative blogger' outraged at Froomkin's bias but rather a Republican operative engaged in working the ref?" Spot-On: "The flap ... is an instructive little incident that ought to alert the journalism community to an unpleasant reality: having been regarded as the enemy for so long by the American right, it is now equally detested by the American left."

Oliver Willis: "[T]he perspective that Dan Froomkin presents in his column is that the media is much too deferential to the White House. Now, apparently in the world of the national politics editor of what is arguably the most important political paper in the country -- this is evidence of liberal bias." NRO's Media Blog: "What comes across in Rosen's post is how threatened Harris feels by what he perceives as an assault on the tradition of objectivity in journalism. ... [I]f Harris -- or [Post ombudsman Deborah]Howell -- really wanted to address this issue, they should take a look at some of the Post's news reporters who clearly do have a political agenda and whose reporting undermines the case Harris is trying to make for objective journalism." Daily Pundit: "Given how much to the left what the Post newsroom regards as being the center already is, Froomkin must be so far out there in the socialist sunset that he's glowing red-hot for anybody at the Post to actually notice his rampant and unrelenting liberal agenda." Ezra Klein at TAPPED: "Charges of bias require no substantiation whatsoever -- they merely have to be seconded enough times and they become, ipso facto, truth-esque."

Josh Marshall cites WaPo exec. ed. Len Downie's comments at EditorandPublisher.com, that "We want to make sure people in the [Bush] administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin's column because it contains opinion." Marshall: "His primary concern appears to be what the White House thinks; what the paper's readers think is secondary."

Public Eye's Vaughn Ververs, RE: Howell's column.: "It's hard to remember the last time an ombudsman created this much of a flap all on their own, but The Washington Post's Deborah Howell seems to have touched off a real firestorm."

IRAQ: Who's Running? Iran

The New York Times reports that an Iraqi Interior Min. official said border police seized a tanker that crossed from Iran "filled with thousands of forged ballots." The Astute Blogger: "If you ask me: this is an act of WAR. Iraq's next government ought to declare war on Iran and Syria and ask us to attack them both. We'd get THREE birds with one stone." Sister Toldjah"[F]orcing the kind of representation that Iran wants in the Iraqi gov't would be all good for Iran." Unclaimed Territory: "It looks more and more like democratic elections in Iraq will legitimately install pro-Iranian Shiites who intend to do Iran's bidding." Confederate Yankee cites Reuters in challenging its accuracy. "The single-sourced story appears to be totally false."

Power Line runs an optimistic letter from a U.S. Army Colonel in Tikrit. He says: "[T]he elections will be a success, some wind will be taken out of the insurgency, the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police will continue to improve, US combat units will begin drawing down, and Democrats will start a mad dash to take credit for the success. Just imagine, a Middle Eastern country holding three major elections in a single year, voting in a constitution guaranteeing individual rights, and electing a multi-ethnic, multi-religious government."

Captains Quarters wonders if the sentiment at home is changing, saying: "When the Gray Lady sees fit to start reporting that even the Sunni of Saddam's hometown have committed themselves to democracy in the upcoming elections, it might indicate that defeatism has finally jumped the shark."

TAPPED links to Greg Sargent's vision of how the Dems get their message straight on Iraq. In short, they should embrace different views and show they're a party of debate while the GOP is in denial about the war.

Mickey Kaus compares Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) "If they'd talked to me, it wouldn't have happened" quote from Newsweek to then-Speaker Gingrich's suggestion that he "wouldn't have provoked a government shutdown if he hadn't been made to use the rear door of President Clinton's plane." Kaus: "Gingrich was widely denounced as a petty crybaby. How is what Murtha told Newsweek any different?" A reader suggests he's "conflating 'Gingrich's desire for status with Murtha's desire for input.'" He responds: "But if the current President Bush had heard Murtha out, but then ignored him, would Murtha really have refrained from going public ..."

Slate's John Dickerson raised issues with the RNC's Web video he RNC's "Retreat and Defeat." An image in the video shows a soldier in Iraq, as Dickerson puts it, "having his mission and Christmas tarnished by weak-willed Democrats." The original photo actually shows a soldier watching "The Grinch." "The RNC is pimping a mute and unnamed soldier not just to defend the Iraq war but to imply that Democrats are white-handkerchief-waving cowards who want the United States to lose." Blogs for Bush rebuts: "This hardly makes the ad fraudulent or misleading. It merely reinforces the reality that the defeatist rhetoric of the Democrats ultimately gets seen and heard by our troops fighting the war on terror."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Iraq Edition

Tim Graham updates us on the latest survey of MSM Iraq coverage, courtesy of Rich Noyes. "The traditional broadcast networks air[ed] six stories in negative tones for every Iraq story with a positive angle."

The Mudville Gazette and Michelle Malkin take issue with the MSM's reporting of Bush's comment that 30K citizens have died in Iraq.

PENTAGON: Big Brother's Back

An NBC "Nightly News" report (and the related MSNBC.com story) alleging spying on war protesters generates some buzz. Big Brass Blog: "History is repeating itself. Anti-war and civil rights protestors ended up with government dossiers in the 50s and 60s. ... Now it's happening again." American Future: "Everyone who reads this blog knows that I've consistently supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy. ... While I strongly disagree with the protestors, it's their right as American citizens to express, in a non-violent fashion, their disagreement with the administration's policies." Macsmind: "Anyone who thinks that we don't have enemies within our walls who would tear us apart are either mistaken, in on the plot, or just plain stupid."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) apparently goes straight from the Senate floor to TPMCafe, where he reports he debated Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) on the Patriot Act. Feingold: "An actual debate of this kind, unfortunately, is rare on the floor of the Senate, but it was an excellent opportunity for people who might have been watching to really understand some of the issues that concern those of us who are opposing the conference report."

At The CornerMark Levin suggests renaming the McCain anti-torture amendment the "McCain Amendment with al-Qaeda." "And perhaps those who support it might form a group, with the help of George Soros, called 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Terrorists.'"

REDISTRICTING: Who Can Rewrite Congressional Maps? Kennedy Can, Kennedy Can!

New World Man at Red State writes about the role Justice Kennedy plays in the TX redistricting case. "In 2006 the Supreme Court is going to announce that whatever Mr. Justice Kennedy and his clerks come up with between now and then is the supreme law of the land on legislative redistricting, ending 300 years of elected officials being in charge of drawing districts in America. You don't know what Kennedy and his clerks will decide this supreme law is. You don't know if you'll like it or hate it till you hear it. All you know is that it's going to happen. So ask yourself now: Is this democracy?"

THE ALITO NOMINATION: When Dems Attack

John Hinderaker writes about a DNC e-mail claiming that Judge Sam Alito has "on multiple occasions" broken a pledge to recuse himself from cases in which he has a personal interest. Hinderaker: "The two cases referred to in the email are snoozers at best. ... What is significant is not that these charges have any merit, of course, but rather that the Democratic Party is officially campaigning to defeat Alito's nomination."

PLAME: The Original Novak Returns

JustOneMinute tries to extract info from Robert Novak's speech in Raleigh 12/13, and sticks to his theory that the source is ex-Undersec/State Richard Armitage.

THE MARCH OF THE BLOGS: Another One Bites The Dust

Recently we discussed CO Gov. Bill Owens' (R) office blocking staffers from posting on political blogs. Well, now the Springfield State Journal-Register reports that the insider tipsheet Capitol Fax has traced some comments about GOP IL GOV candidates back to Gov. Rod Blagojevich's (D) campaign.

MISCELLANY: Schiavo's Revenge

Liberal Matt Stoller interviews Michael Schiavo at MyDD. Schiavo: "The people leading the Republican party in Washington D.C. and in Florida today aren't like the Republicans I know. ... I have gotten hundreds of letters and emails from other Republicans who agree with me and many of them have joined me in leaving the party. My message to moderate Republicans is: Pay attention. Learn what these people are doing in your name and with your votes. That's why I started TerriPAC."

Author Clive Davis writes: "I'm always struck by the uniformity of views among the artists and literati I've interviewed. For almost all of them, the notion that there might just be another point of view simply doesn't exist."

A number of blogs are pushing for votes at the "Web Log Awards," started by Kevin Aylward of Wizbang. One exception is Power Line: "Given the recognition we received last year, we encourage you not to vote for Power Line this time around. There are some great blogs running in our category ("Best Blog"), and we'll be highlighting some of them in the coming days."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Economics 101

On 12/10 Ann Althouse mentioned that her revenues from BlogAds have gone up since a number of top bloggers decamped for Pajamas Media. On 12/13, Tim Worstall said he'd had the same experience, and offered one reason why: "Pretty much all of the Pajamas bloggers used to run BlogAds. They now, as a condition of being part of the system, do not." But as yet, Pajamas Media has yet to lure advertisers who routinely buy space via BlogAds: "So we have a huge reduction in the number of page views available for purchase (what? 400,000? 500,000? on a daily basis?) but a similar number of advertisers looking for page views. The result?" There's more pie available for the bloggers who chose not to jump. Worstall concludes: "In fact, until PJM do manage to tempt some of those advertisers over to their system I'd say right now is an excellent time to be raising your BlogAd rates."

LEST WE FORGET: That's Officer Sheriff T.J. Hooker

"CSI: 70s" or something...

NOTES AND ERRATA

To read the unabridged edition of the Blogometer, visit http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com. Questions, comments, reservations? Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.