Andrew Alexander:
Dan Froomkin’s online White House Watch ended today in The Post, leaving an army of angry followers and a string of unanswered questions about the decision to terminate his contract.
[...]
Institutionally, The Post is now responding by circling the wagons -- ironic for a news organization that insists on transparency from those it covers. Its initial statement on June 18 from spokeswoman Kris Coratti lacked substance (“Editors and our research teams are constantly reviewing our online content to ensure we bring readers the most value...while balancing the need to make the most of our resources”).
I was off much of this week with a minor medical problem. But when I was able to start querying editors yesterday, a wall of silence was erected. Raju Narisetti, the managing editor who oversees the Web site, declined to go beyond last week’s PR statement. Online Opinions Editor Marisa Katz, after talking Thursday with the Washington CityPaper, said she had been instructed not to respond to additional queries. And Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, who had previously responded to questions from me and other journalists (including the CityPaper on Thursday), today said he was unable to comment.
Meh. Who is this guy coming late to the dance and all expecting to get his questions answered and stuff?
Andrew Alexander is the WaPo's ombudsman.
Oh.
In his own defense, Alexander does spend the next eighty-seven paragraphs making the best possible case for his corporate overlords.
(h/t: Attaturk)
2 comments:
That's pitiful, when they won't take a question from their own ombudsman. And their columnist lineup looks like the Washington Times, with few exceptions.
Thank goodness for blogs!
* And their columnist lineup looks like the Washington Times, with few exceptions. *
Yeah, except WaPo has the A-list wingnuts, while the Washington Times' lineup is strictly B-list.
Post a Comment