A Friend Goes Off on WaPo

Ms. Howell:

I read your article in today's Washington Post, the Two Washington Posts. I disagree with changing Froomkin's blog. I find his blog to be a refreshing counterpoint to the Post's usually conservative voice. To be honest, I read his blog then read the rest of the website, including the front page, editorials, opinions, articles, and blogs.

In contrast with the silence of political reporters such as Woodward, Froomkin speaks openly and appears to be honest in his blogging, listing links that provide the source(s) on which he bases his comments. Froomkin has credibility.

I have to wonder, based on this administration's history of attacking its critics, why your political reporters are attacking him. Is it because they are parroting the Administration's talking points, attacking him in order to retain their "access"? Is that why your column singled out Froomkin to complain about? No mention of any other problems with the website (other than that pesky Metro thing but that's being fixed). Only Froomkin receives criticism.

Perhaps the reason your political reporters "do not like" him is because they are threatened by the fact the readers LIKE and TRUST him instead of "reporters with access" (such as Woodward)?

Froomkin's blog encourages me, the reader, to THINK. I truly wish that all the Washington Post's political reporters did likewise. Perhaps then, they will not be threatened by Froomkin's following. My suggestion to the Post's political reporters who do not like him is to grow up and deal with it. Perhaps if they followed his example, they too would be trusted.

That is why they don't like him. Froomkin comes across as trustworth and credible. They are jealous.

In the light of current media scandals (Woodward, Miller, both Novaks, etc), the need for credibility is even more important in the MSM.

---

Ditto.