LETTERS: More on Bush's Reading Habits, Froomkin Spat, and Belief in God

By: Jay DeFoore How much media is Bush consuming these days? Is belief in God linked to intelligence? What's up with Froomkin's hair? All these questions, and more, addressed in today's letters.

***

Bush and Newspaper Reading

Re: President Bush Clarifies His Newspaper Reading Habits, Sort Of

When Bush stayed in Jacksonville Oregon last October 2004, I was contacted by whom I assume was the secret service and they requested that we deliver the local paper, the Mail Tribune, the Wall Street Journal, and the NY Times. They requested it be there by 5:00 AM, at the hotel, as they said it was for a "special guest". It was the day that had been planned long in advance to publish the newspaper's endorsement for president. Out of respect, the newspaper held off the Kerry endorsement until after Bush left. Of course none of this meant Bush read the newspapers, but they were delivered to his staff.

Michael Miller
Circulation Director
Merced Sun-Star

***

Re: Tuesday's Letters to the Editor

When I read that Jim Boyd had received this recent award, I almost passed out. If one searched for candidates not deserving of the award, Boyd would be a superb candidate! Amazing that he actually was the recipient.

Nevertheless, kudos to you for publishing all the letters about Boyd and his award. Put me down as a "ditto" for each and every one. Yes, I cancelled my paper, too -- though I ultimately succumbed to re-subscribing. Now I do my best to simply glance at the opinion pages. (Much more and I worry about suffering a stroke.)

I also commend you for publishing the letter referencing the poor article by the NYTimes on blogs. Again, the letter writer's got the goods, and the Times reporter flubbed it.

But, as long as a publication such as yours allows freedom of expression on all these topics, here's hoping that ultimately, the truth will come out.

Peggy Kaplan
Minnetonka, Minn.

***

More Reaction to Jim Boyd Column

Gary Larson's letter lambasting Jim Boyd read like an Ann Coulter rip-off. WSJ's John Fund criticizing the Star-Tribune for biased news coverage is like a toad dissing a frog.

The three, intrepid Dartmouth rah-rah boys at PowerLine are often fact challenged themselves and given to blatant right wing propagandizing.

In any event, I hope Gary feels better after his rant.

Jerry Fankhauser
Hebron, Ind.

***

Froomkin Dispute Part II

Re: 'Wash Post' Online Chief Won't Re-name Column

It was via the article "Update: 'Wash Post' Editor and Others Want Froomkin Column Renamed--But Online Chief Says No" by Joe Strupp that I was alerted to the online chat with Peter Baker and his money quote on White House reporting (Baker defends himself and his fears of Dan Froomkin with a self flagellating response to whether he felt threatened by Froomkin):

"Insecure? Jealous? Need a life? All of the above. Threatened by Dan Froomkin's column? Hardly. Dan compiles links to other people's work and throws in some thought, analysis and opinion of his own. There's great value in that. But it's a different thing from being a White House reporter."

Let's break this down: Froomkin "compiles links to others works". You mean he actually takes what he is fed into a broader societal context, instead of wrapping himself into the same disingenuous bubble as our President and his main man of disinformation Scott McClellan? What nerve! He actually throws in some thought, analysis, and opinion? Would that involve doing research and having to ask hard questions? Or follow-ups? Does that include fact checking? Boy, that might really cut into those post-briefing happy hours and piss off the leader. Such duties do seem vastly different than being a "White House reporter [sic]".

Patrick Hughes
Laramie, Wyo.

***

Is it just me or is the most revealing comment from someone at the Washington Post this one:

"We want to make sure people in the [Bush] administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin's column because it contains opinion," Downie told E&P.

Hmm, sounds an awful lot like Downie and others at the WP are WAY too concerned with what the Bush administration thinks. The U.S. press is doing great harm to this country by their kowtowing to Bush and Co. The current flap demonstrates exactly how much power the administration has over (or, perhaps, it is just that the corporatized media is simply in bed with the administration) what should be the government's watchdog. Personally, I find it extremely frightening.

Mary Anne Crecelius
Pittsburgh, Pa.

***

Cry Babies at the Conservative Post

It doesn't surprise me that the newspaper of Bob Woodward (trust me when I say I don't mean that title as a compliment) would have a bunch of pissing and moaning about a reporter like Dan Froomkin.

Jim VandeHei objects to the title "White House Briefing" and the opinions expressed therein, but of course he has no trouble presenting republican lies as fact without ever parsing the information for truth. Did he really Implicate Hadly last night on MSNBC without ever writing about it in the paper? Oh but it was just casual conversation that Hadly and Rove had, Jim reports. I guess he's the next one into Downie's office.

Luckily for Jim, Downie has no control over his staff these days. He actually makes Bill Keller look effective.

As for the other whiners, it is clear that the Post has become an establishment paper, the anti-Watergate paper and a dinosaur in the age of information. The only thing worth reading anymore is the White House Briefing (great title by the way!) and the Boswell/Wilbon/Kornheiser trio on the sports pages. As for the so-called offended white house reporters and the editorial page, I'll pass.

Greg Klein
New York. N.Y.

***

What's Wrong With Froomkin's Hair?

(Yeah yeah, second letter, blahblah. This story is driving me crazy.) Ed's Note: The writer first weighed in on the Froomkin dispute in yesterday's letters column.

Now we come to the heart of the matter at the Washington Post.

WP Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. reveals, "We want to make sure people in the [Bush] administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin's column because it contains opinion," Downie told E&P."

Never mind all that earlier stuff from WP Politics Editor John Harris the about wanting to make sure that we unsuspecting consumers of the Washington Post don't confuse Dan Froomkin with Real Live White House cub reporters.

This is like a never-ending episode of 24.

So the Bush administration is leaning on the Post WH reporters to muzzle Froomkin? Froomkin is obviously a menace. You can tell by his hair.

Bottom line is that WP readers want to respect the reporters who cover politics. They should really be above this sort of thing.

Martha Sterling-Golden
Still in Maine

***

Is Belief in God Linked to Intelligence?

Re: Gallup Poll Finds Americans' Belief in God Remains Strong

Your findings don't sound accurate to me. I have two questions:

1. Did you take your poll on Sundays just outside churches as they completed services?

2. Did you ask your polltakers to shy away from professional offices and universities? Another poll I recently saw indicated generally more intelligent people tend to lack belief in gods. In my experience of some 50 plus years of life, I would say the people I know who are more intelligent generally lack belief in gods.

David T. Richelderfer
Hermiston, Ore.

***

Speaking as one who would be in the 6% if asked, may I plead for such stories to say, "Some 94% say they think God exists." The same thing for church attendance surveys.

There is so much pressure to be a believer that I suspect many respondents to such surveys don't answer honestly.

Bill Dunlap
Lake Oswego, Ore.

***

More on the Existence of God

I am not surprised at the percentage of people expressing a belief in god. I think you have to be careful how you define "god." Any reasonable person has to acknowledge that the universe is exquisite. Our understanding of its origin and continuation is infinitesimal.

As a young man I professed atheism. The more I thought about the complexity of the universe the less sure I became of my conviction. I don't think of god's existence as defined by any religion. I think more in terms of the inescapable fact that the universe exists and that we are part of it. I don't think you need to bow down to it to acknowledge its existence.

My position today is agnosticism. My father used to jokingly say that, "An agnostic freely admits he isn't sure how we got here, but is equally sure he knows as much as anyone else."

Don Ross
Huntington Beach, Calif.