Yesterday, The Washington Post fired Dan Froomkin, more an online than in-print pundit, not only capable, but consistent enough to be a prod to both the Bush and Obama White House. Today, having discarded a source of information that was popular, the Post prints two op-ed pieces, one by Charles Krauthammer, the other by Paul Wolfowitz, that demonstrate (especially taken with yesterday's dismissal of Froomkin) the editors' commitment to a new direction - failure.
Please note that this is not just an ideological critique. Krauthammer and Wolfowitz are not only propagators of a particular political point of view; on the specifics of policy preference - pretty much everything they insist the United States either ought to do, or (in the case of Wolfowitz) actually implemented as national policy was not only a dismal failure, but counterproductive and rejected by the American people during the last two election cycles. I am not suggesting they should not have a voice; I am not saying they shouldn't have their views printed in an organ as important as the op-ed page of The Washington Post.
One of the jobs of an editor is to make decisions that will not only reflect a certain consistency of viewpoint - if, say, The Washington Times or The Wall Street Journal offered a spot to Froomkin it would certainly raise a hue-and-cry from the right - but that benefit the paper financially. In the midst of a recession and changing market structure that is undermining the newspaper business in a variety of ways, making personnel and editorial decisions that not only reduce the number of readers your newspaper gets (Froomkin was not only popular, but linked and crossed-referenced all the time), but also present your paper as the mouthpiece for an ideological stance that is both out of favor politically and a dismal failure practically pretty much indicates that, as a business leader, the front wheels are already over the edge of the abyss.
Way to go.
Virtual Tin Cup
