John F. Harris on line with my comments

Des Moines, Iowa: Is there a reason that your concerns about Dan Froomkin's column surfaced now after it has been running for (I believe) over two years?

John F. Harris: Good morning, folks. There are TONS of questions on this topic, as I knew there would be. It's been boiling on blogs in recent days, and some comments I made there have been a big part of the conversation.

To be honest, I'm only going to answer a couple on this, for two reasons:

--I've addressed it in other forums, and the whole matter has been diverting me from other work.

Evidently he is referring to his interview in PresThink with Jay Rosen (see below). In addressing the issue he made a claim that Froomkin has a slant which is too liberal (or has not been careful enough to avoid the appearance of such a slant) to be appropriate in a White House beat reporter. In addressing the issue Harris was unable to present either a single example or any statistical analysis. Instead he directed the reader to Patrick Ruffini, eCampaign Director for the Republican National Committee, identifying him only as a conservative blogger. Harris claimed that anonymous complainers (a new catagory ) believed that Froomkin was a reporter not a commentator and that this had something to do with the title of his column (which includes the words White House which belong to Mr Harris). Harris counted both Ruffini and a source who handles campaigns. He should at least be prepared to swear under oath that these two people who complained confusion are not one and the same. He claimed that there were many such people. He has not named one nor given any reason why the anonymity of people who choose to press the Post to change editorial decisions should be protected.

--More important, the uproar on blogs has made what is by agreement of everyone at the paper and website a pretty narrow issue seem like a huge deal. It's not, and I'm eager to cool it down.

Given that the affair shows Harris being willing to make accusations and unable to support them with facts and willing to present a political operative as an independent analyst, I'm sure he wants it to cool down. When interviewed by Brad Delong, he claimed that " I've promised people I won't respond" and "I cannot comment for the record because I've promised I won't comment on this." Oddly his explanation today contains no reference to such a promise or such people. I guess that he was telling the truth then and is trying to hide something (like an order to shut up from Leonard Downie) from readers of www.washingtonpost.com now

The narrow issue is how washingtonpost.com labels Dan Froomkin's popular White House Briefing column, and whether enough is done to make clear that he is a commentator but not a Washington Post news reporter. The Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, wrote a column saying more should be done to clarify that, and I was quoted agreeing with her.Harris is trying to shift responsibility to Howell. She wrote that reporters were displeased. In order to avoid responsibility for the controversy, Harris is claiming it started with her, that is, that she lied. It is not possible for the claims of both Harris and Howell about the origen of the debate to be true. One is attempting to deceive the readers of the Washington Post. I guess that one is Harris An uproar ensued in some places, getting the issue all tangled up in controversies about the war and journalism generally. As if we needed a reminder, these are emotional times.

For those who are actually interested in the details, Jay Rosen's site "pressthink" did a full and responsible airing of this relatively minor issue, and I said everything I need to say (and a little more)on that.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/
This is really special. Harris says that the details are in an interview in which he omitted the interesting detail that the only source of specific criticism of Froomkin he could think of is a Republican operative. In the interview with DeLong he revealed that he knew this (no surprise) and argued that Ruffini was not an operative the day he wrote his criticisms (of course you have to read both interviews).
For all its interesting and useful features, some things I don't like about the on-line crankosphere are its frequent humorlessness and tendency to blow issues way out of proportion.

not to mention its tendency to respond to arguments with insulting words

After I popped off on some of these issues, some colleagues gently suggested I might be flirting with these traits myself. (They are liars and no longer my friends.)

LOL

I did get irked by one thing Dan had said on-line, which I took to be suggesting that Post reporters don't work hard to hold the White House accountable. He later quite graciously made clear this was not at all what he intended, and I felt bad about responding hotly. I like Dan and his column.
This is a very decent apology, but does not do justice either to the heat of the hotly or the paranoia of the taking to be suggesting. Froomkin definitely implied that some reporters somewhere do not always hold the Bush administration accountable, since he links to other sources there was no implication that any of these reporters are employees of the Post. Harris's reaction was, as Harris notes, unreasonable. Such sensitivity does not imply a guilty concience.
It just goes to show what my mother always said about counting to ten before speaking in anger. Unfortunately, we've fallen out, since she apparently loves Osama and Saddam more than America.
ROTFLMAO
_______________________

Northampton, Mass.: With the revelations about Miller, Woodward, and Viveca Novack the public is naturally concerned about the too-cozy relationship between the Washington press corps and their official sources. How, in your view, can we combat this problem and build a stronger and more independent fourth estate?

John F. Harris: I don't ever wish to be complacent about these issues. I can only tell you from my vantage point, as the person who edits the White House coverage, that coziness between the Bush White House and the Post reporters who cover that place aggressively and fairly has not been a problem.

I call Yalta. Is Harris saying that coziness is not a problem among the subset of Post reporters who cover the White House who also cover that place aggressively and fairly ? This is a tautology. Or am I to assume that he included the definite article "the" by mistake, because (like me) he has trouble with English grammar and he meant to assert that all Post reporters cover the White House aggressively and fairly or (most likely) did he add the qualifiers "aggressively and fairly" just to get the words out without thinking about what a qualifier does ?
In addition, as we have seen in recent years, there are more voices holding not just public officials but the media accountable than ever before. All for the good.l

_______________________

John F. Harris: Knowing how literal-minded some people are, maybe I should hasten to add I was just kidding about my mom. I stop rolling on the floor laughing my ass off and wonder why Harris thinks idiots are reading (probably solid evidence)

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: What is the breakdown of questions you are receiving this morning in terms of from the left or the right? Is your aim to choose questions to answer based on the popularity of theme or on your interest in the subject?

John F. Harris: These things really vary depending on the news. Today, there's many more coming from what I'm supposing is probably the left, but that's because of the matter I mentioned in my first question.

Some days, conservatives are worked up on something and we can expect a lot of questions.

In general, I'd say the balance of these chats is pretty even. Many and probably most of the questions or comments are not identifiably tilting in any direction.

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: With the advent of the Internet age, what are some of the ways The Post can maintain its identity as an objective source of news. Is there anything you like about the Internet?

John F. Harris: The Internet is an overwhelming net positive, of course.

The ease of finding information, the diversity of voices are all great things.

From the Post perspective, since our paper version is a local newspaper and not nationally distributed, it's great knowing we are reaching readers all over the country and the world. That's by far the most satisfying change for me professionally over the past decade.

I also like doing these chats, as do all the reporters on the political staff.

yeah right I'm sure he's having fun today

_______________________

Dudley, Tex.: Reading The Post one gets the impression that being against the Iraq war and thinking Bush lied to get us in there is an outside the mainstream point of view. But a majority of Americans answer yes to both (and a majority of Americans before the war thought we should go in only with U.N. support). When will your coverage treat that like a legitimate viewpoint, not a crank viewpoint?

John F. Harris: By no means do I think that is a crank viewpoint.

The Washington Post poll, like most national polls, shows that a very strong majority of Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake. The numbers are high, though not as high, on the question of whether Bush deliberately distorted information in making the case for war.

I would doubt that anyone at the Bush White House would honestly say this is a crank view. The fact that they know these attitudes are pervasive is amon the biggest political challenges the president faces right now. That's why he's been making a series of speeches trying to bolster his support.

Peter Baker wrote a very good and clear-eyed analysis on this in today's paper.

omigod did I just read that ? Harris was asked something about the view at the Washington Post and he slipped and wrote "Bush White House" instead of "Washington Post" and this on the day when he has to prove he works for the Post not the White House and knows the difference. The guy is under pressure. This has to have a post of its own.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: How do you see the immigration issue affecting next year's congressional races? Do you see it as an issue that can fracture the GOP's control of Congress?

John F. Harris: Many Republicans expect this to be a large and growing issue, in 2006 and 2008. There are divisions in both parties, but I think they are especially consequential on the Republican side. We've written quite a lot about that, including a story by Jeff Birnbaum on how the GOP's business supporters are estranged from the Hill leadership on this issue.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Now that President Bush has broken with his usual practice of avoiding direct comment on pending criminal investigations to express his faith in Mr. DeLay (in a Fox News interview), will your White House reporters press him or his Press Secretary to comment on the Plame investigation?

John F. Harris: I agree: that apparent contradiction seems like a reasonable thing for the White House to be pressed on.

_______________________

Portland, Maine: I read today that Bob Novak believes Bush knows the source of the leak, and suggests the press start asking Bush to reveal the source. Can Bush do that without dragging himself into the Fitzgerald probe?

John F. Harris: I'm sure he won't take Novak up on his invitation to say what he knows.

To be honest, I've always regarded the "can't comment, under investigation" as a transparent dodge. But every politician uses it. As journalists, we should (and pretty often do) keep pressing even when we know the answer is likely to be no comment.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: In Four Speeches, Two Answers on War's End, (Post, Dec. 15, 2005)

_______________________

Birmingham, Ala.: How effective will the Republican latest tactic to try to show that Abramoff was/is as shady with the Dems as the Repubs?

John F. Harris: I can't predict. The lobbyist culture and the ethical questions raised by it is bipartisan. But the Abramoff-Scanlon matter is overwhelmingly focused on Republicans, and that's a problem of still-unknown size for the congressional GOP.

K street project what K street project ? By limiting his statement about partisan association of lobbyists to Delay's former spokesman and a college Republican, Harris obscures an extremely important issue. He explicitly asserts that the eithical issues related to lobbyists remain bipartisan, which stongly suggests that bribery and near bribery are roughly balanced. In fact, ignoring Abramoff and Scanlon, recent corruption is overwhelmingly Republican. Harris either is a Republican partisan or he feels the need to balance the obviously accurate observation about Ambramoff and Scanlon with a vague and misleading assertino. I'd actually guess the second, that he considers it a rule of proper writing that clauses should be balanced and not unbalanced politically

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Immigration Pushes Apart GOP, Chamber, (Post, Dec. 14, 2005)

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: What are your least favorite catchphrases used by journalists/broadcasters these days. Mine are "on the ground" (as opposed to "in the trees?"),if you will (what if I won't, buddy?), and "at the end of the day" (as opposed to mid-afternoon?). Just curious. Thanks for your work and these chats. I like both you and Froomkin.

John F. Harris: These do seem like cliches, and I'll try to remember to take them out of reporters copy when I'm editing it.

My favorite new word is "truthstigious" invented by respected journalist Stephen Colbert, who says his show is the most trustworthy and prestigious on television.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I was wondering, to the best of your knowledge, can you tell me when was the last time The Washington Post endorsed a Republican candidate for President, or either local elections for Senate or Governor?

Thank you very much.

John F. Harris: I don't know, but it's been a while.

This is a good time to remind people that as the Post's political editor, I work for the news side of the paper, not the editorial side.

I do recall that the Democratic-leaning (but pretty hawkish) editorial page made no endorsement at all in 1988, because they did not think Michael Dukakis was suffiently strong on foreign policy and national security issues.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: How does The Post determine which stories the chief political editor edits? Do you just edit all stories by particular reporters or is there some editorial process which assigns particular stories to you to edit? For instance do you edit Dana Milbank's column? Or is his column outside your purview? Any insight into how the political editorial process operates at the post would be welcome.

Thanks.

John F. Harris: Glad to do it. The Post's White House reporters Harris claims that his issue with Froomkin is over identification of the 3 White House beat reporters and here he again refrains from naming them. This proves that his claim about his issue with Froomkin is a lie. If the issue was who is and who is not a Post White House reporter, Harris would take every opportunity to name them. Instead he has avoided two such opportunities in a row. Dishonest and not too bright.and our purely political reporters--people like Dan Balz and Tom Edsall--work directly with me.

Dana Milbank, as it happens, is edited by my colleague Maralee Schwartz, one of the Post's most graceful and skilled editors. (She used to improve my work often when I was a White House reporter.)I sure would want to know exactly how that happened. Milbank was a target of Bush administration wrath long before Froomkin. Milbank is clearly a political reporter. Was Harris ever Milbank's editor ? If so how was the decision made to remove him from the role ? Does the questioner from New York know something I don't or does he or she just guess what I guess ?

But these are not strict lines. Sometimes I'll edit congressional stories, even though usually that's done by congressional editor Eric Pianin. We often end up kind of winging it, especially on busy days.

_______________________

Curious: Is Bush on the rebound? Fox News recently ran a comparison of other second term President's approval ratings at around this time, and Bush's were comparatively HIGH. Other Presidents were in the twenties or low thirties. Is there misreporting, or is Fox playing games with stats?

John F. Harris: I'm quite eager to see the next Washington Post poll on this subject (and am not sure exactly when polling director Rich Morin is in the field next, but I imagine its soon.)

Bush's numbers--both overall approval and specific issues, including Iraq and general trustworthiness--were really bad in our most recent poll. It's going to be interesting to see what the trendlines are.

Well I have to admit that I admire someone who can respond politely to someone who takes Fox News seriously.


I guess the main thing is that Harris mixed up the Washington Post and The Bush White House.