Comments on: Dan Froomkin Should Be Ashamed

By: The Enlightened Redneck » Post Pulls The Plug On Dan Froomkin

The Enlightened Redneck » Post Pulls The Plug On Dan Froomkin — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:39:37 +0000

[...] the start of the year, I chastised Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin for what I perceived to be a double standard in how he [...]

By: The Enlightened Redneck » The Deferential White House Press Corps

The Enlightened Redneck » The Deferential White House Press Corps — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:22:17 +0000

[...] you were reading this blog a couple of weeks ago, you may recall the debate that ensued over White House watchdog Dan Froomkin’s musings about how skeptically he and [...]

By: SteveMG

SteveMG — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:14:25 +0000

If I understand Froomkin’s point (and Rosen’s followup) correctly, I think he (DF) raises a plausible question. Borrowing from the Consititutional rules, should the press go from a “suspect classification” standard used against the Bush White’s policies to a (lesser) “strict scrutiny” measure at the start of the Obama Administration?
To argue that the same standard should be applied - not that no standard but the same - ignores the fact that the Bush White House as a result of 9/11 enacted ground-breaking and controversial policies that warranted that higher level of scepticism. These have been extraordinary times that required, it seems to me, a different type of press scrutiny. Was that scrutiny sometimes hostile and not just sceptical? Yes. Was some of that hostility ideologically-based and not substantively based? Yes. But to pose the argument that by normal historical standards the press should have played no different role than at other times ignores the reality of the abnormality of these past eight years.
In any event, I’d settle for a “strict scrutiny” of Mr. Obama. Something that, in my view, was badly lacking during the campaign. Let’s face it: Who really is this guy?

By: The Skepticrats » Turning skepticism on and off like a light . . .

The Skepticrats » Turning skepticism on and off like a light . . . — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:39:50 +0000

[...] Honestly, they just make it so easy sometimes. [...]

By: sherlock

sherlock — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:02:31 +0000

Many of you are still missing the point.

Skeptical reporting is not reporting facts and then expressing doubts that they are the facts.

Skeptical reporting (aka honest reporting) is reporting the facts you find, after digging deep into the official statements, the public record, and the myriad other resources real reporters use, to ensure that what is reported is the truth.

That there is so much emphasis in the comments about skepticism as an attitude, rather than skepticism as a behavior, shows me that most of you just don’t get it.

Readers do not want your angle, be it sycophantic or hostile. They do not want to have to wonder whether you are trying hard to find the truth, or slavishly taking down talking points for re-publishing.

They want the results of your fact-finding skills, to the best of your ability. Try that.

By: Wintoon

Wintoon — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:53:52 +0000

It’s time to stop the president bashing. I say give Obama the benefit of the doubt and also give him a zone of privacy and presumed good will in which to work. He is a unique president in American history. We all owe it to our country to do whatever we can to make him a two term success.

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Pardon our dust!

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Pardon our dust! — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:21:01 +0000

[...] Dan Froomkin be ashamed? Be sure to read Enlightened Redneck to decide. Danny Glover’s doing a great job [...]

By: BC

BC — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:05:25 +0000

“The idea that nothing unusual happened that would justify extremes of suspicion is to me a strange and dark one.”

I’d suggest the strangeness and darkness is chiefly a function of the orifice into which you and your colleagues in the liberal press have had your heads inextricably crammed.

By: The Enlightened Redneck

The Enlightened Redneck — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:36:04 +0000

[...] with perfect timing for the debate I’ve been having in the comment section of my post about Dan Froomkin of The Washington [...]

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:29:52 +0000

Danny,

I disagree. Among the post-Cold War presidents (Bush I, Clinton and Bush II), this administration has earned a more skeptical press over time. Bush II is an outlier among this limited set. Assessments of these presidents will mature as more post-Cold War presidents are added to this set.

If you include the Cold War presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan), then there are more comparisons/analogies available.

If you include FDR and WWII, even more comparisons/analogies can be made. But these were also different times and all analogies have flaws.

Each of these Presidents have experienced a cyclical press as I described above, and I would expect the same will be true for Obama.

But then, Jay thinks I’m just out to normalize Bush.