My question is ``who is John Harris'' and what more do we know of his past?  Is this simply the access question, is it inside-the-beltway-clubbiness, or is it possible that Harris himself leans right?  The evidence from other postings today (eg, from an online discussion on the WaPo pages mentioned by Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake) suggests this.  The other odd thing from my perspective is his evasiveness in the interview with you at your own blogsite.  He kept saying things like ``I am not supposed to say anything...'' According to who?  The WaPo lawyer?  Dick ``Palpatine'' Cheney? 

 So this leads into the following speculation, worth, of course, what you are willing to pay for it.  WE know that this administration in particular has been willing to pay off conservative hacks in the US, and has been willing to try to buy reporters wholesale abroad.  Without naming names, there are a whole bunch of reporters out there who are not working for identifiable partisan battleships like Fox News or the NY Post but who nonetheless have a detectable rightwrard tilt.  If this culminating administration of the right wing movement is so willing to pay for the truth, is it not possible that the Scaifes and Coors of the world cultivated some covert right leaning journalists for the NY Times, NBC News, CNNs of the world?  And in this light, is John Harris simplay a standalone wanker, or are there more out there? 

I had no idea the Ruffini part of this story was as prominent as this.  Thanks for telling the rest of the story.  Sounds like the WaPo is going through an incredibly rough time trying to cope with a changing market, though Harris's recent comments really concern me about the institution's foundations.

Having said that, Jim Brady comes off looking fantastic, and I can't say enough good things about washingtonpost.com.  They are truly technological pioneers and clearly have spent a good amount of time philosophizing about the future of the news business. 

While I don't see why Brady needs to defend Froomkin's title- we'll all read him no matter what- Brady truly seems to grasp the big picture.  I wouldn't be surprised if he someday became the head of everything over there.  He'd be just the shot in the arm that place needs.

Harris has been pretty soundly thrashed (I was going to write 'excoriated' by I'm not sure of the spelling) on various blogs today, especially Brad DeLong's own. Has he responded in any way, to anyone's knowledge? or is responding to mere blogs beneath the lordly thane of the WashPo politics section...?

Sounds like the WaPo is going through an incredibly rough time trying to cope with a changing market, though.

That's really what's going on. I wish people would look big picture rather than always rally to the "us v. MSM" meme immediately. You're all going to be one "the media" soon. There's problems that have to be dealt with.

I also sense a little bit of what's going on here is a desire on the big editors in part to take too much to heart the old "the liberal media" slur, that it still is something that upsets them and this colors what they do. Not so long ago that whole thing was revisited in a very strange way with the whole Koran in toilet brouhaha. The White House and conservative movements still uses it against them in all kinds of ways, as they've got plenty of ways, including conservatively slanted outlets to chose from if they want to give them a hard time.

All said, I really do buy this, I think it is a sincere concern on many editors' part, as blogistan develops as it has, from Jay Rosen's piece:

Q: You say, "The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work." What kind of obstacle do you mean?

John Harris: As you surely can appreciate in your position, there are many people--especially conservatives but increasingly many liberals as well--who have no regard for the tradition of objective journalism and view much of our work as an ideological weapon in the guise of neutral reporting. I profoundly disagree with this view, but this view is a reality and I believe we have to push back against it and do our work as best we can.

That's why I made this post about Atrios'comments. Everyone in blogistan complains about mixing punditry and reporting, but hardly any try to separate it somehow themselves. If they agree with the punditry, it's great to do it. If they don't, it's morally wrong and reprehensible. Atrios was right there to complain about reporters jumping into the pundit fray, but he's not exactly setting an example with his own work. Newspaper editors are the only ones who even seem to care to try anymore; most of blogistan, beyond Josh trying to hire reporters, has no answers. All they do is perpetuate the problem by example, taking away audience from the papers, training audiences not to expect attempts at objectivity anywhere. If one judges by the example most of blogistan sets, rather than what you say, you are telling the papers that you want them to return to the 19th-century inflammatory adocacy Fleet Street model.

Why try to run this guy's ass up a flag pole.

Can you give me a link where it says they did that?

What I read is that they wanted to change the title of his column.

They're afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.

That is nonsense.  The White House reporters at the Post may not like Froomkin's column, but it is not for the reason stated.  How anyone could read Froomkin and come to the conclusion that he is a White House reporter is beyond me.  

"White House Briefing" is a misleaidng title? Sure, and maybe Josh Marshall should change the title of his blog, too--after all, he calls it "Talking Points Memo," but he doesn't actually TALK . . .

Atrios was right there to complain about reporters jumping into the pundit fray, but he's not exactly setting an example with his own work.

He's not supposed to. He's a blogger, not a reporter.

All they do is perpetuate the problem by example, taking away audience from the papers, training audiences not to expect attempts at objectivity anywhere.

No one expects objectivity. Accuracy, would be nice.

And beware the echo chamber problem. I am sure much of lefty blogistan is blissfully unaware of the number of complaints WaPo's omsbudsmen gets from righty blogistan.

When did they single this guy out and cite only one complaintant, who is in the employ of the RNC?  I don't think that is enough to seriously call into question his objectivity.  Are there tons of complaints from the rw about "liberal bias" on the blogs?  I am sure there are.  Just like the FCC gets tons of complaints about allegedly "offensive programs" on the airwaves.  And just by Harris saying they "are not trying to sink his column" sends up red flags for me.

In the wake of Judy Miller and Bob Woodward my confidence in the MSM is at an all time low.  I am questioning all their actions now...especially when the case in question is based on a single complaintant who is part of the RNC.

Point taken that "officially" they are not trying to sink him.  I was using the term "running his ass up a flag pole" was not in terms of quashing him, just making an example out of him.

Like a lot of print guys, Harris is just plain uncomfortable with the blog format.  He doesn't like Dan's blog hogging all the hits on the Wapo homepage and he doesn't like Dan's attitude.  So when Harris's dislike for White House Briefing was combined with official complaints from the White Hous, Harris lashed out.  What Harris didn't understand is that attacking Froomkin is not unlike attacking a popular liberal blogger.  And one attacks popular political blogs at their own risk.

The name of Froomkin's column is a big deal, just not for the reason Harris gives.  While nobody is going to confuse Froomkin's column with that of a White House beat reporter, it could easily be confused with a blog.  Think about it: White House Briefing.  Sounds an awful lot like Talking Points Memo, doesn't it?  And dammit, the Washington Post is bigger and more respectable than blogastan!

Bloggers are kind of like rappers or professional wrestlers.  Instead of "the Rock" or "50 Cent," you've got "Atrios" and the "Bull Moose."  Call them nicknames or pseudonyms or stage names, but giving yourself or your column its own name is just so damned...bloggy.  

Trust me, if Froomkin just called himself Dan Freakin' Froomkin and put his column right next to George Will's, everything would be okay.  Harris would defend Dan's right to attack the White House and all would be right in the world of the WAPO.

But Dan isn't Dam Froomkin.  He's the "White House Briefing" and he uses a lot of links in his columns and he writes with attitude and -- god forbid -- snark.  Let's face it: everything about Dan screams blogger.  And John Harris will be damned if he's going to let HIS paper turn into the launching pad for just another in-your-face, snarky, foul-mouthed, disrespectful blogger.  What's next, some conservative monstrosity along the lines of Powerline getting the second most hits per day on the Wapo homepage?!?

To me, the story is about blogging, not White House strongarm tactics.  Harris is using the White House complaints as a pretext to attack Froomkin, not vice versa.