Print vs. Online Battle at 'Wash Post' with Froomkin in Middle

By: Jay DeFoore A debate is raging at The Washington Post, pitting the newspaper's traditional print staff (and newly appointed ombudsman) against a representative of a new generation of journalists who work for the company's Web site. The Post's Politics Editor, John Harris, fanned the flames with a post Monday evening, in which he suggested some in the newsroom wish to spike the Web column in question, although he does not.

Newly appointed Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell kicked off the debate Sunday in a column titled "The Two Washington Posts." In it, Howell looked to distinguish between the Washington Post's print newspaper, with its weekday circulation of 671,322, and washingtonpost.com, with its 8 million unique visitors a month. In the process, Howell took particular aim at washingtonpost.com's popular "White House Briefing" columnist Dan Froomkin, who tracks the key stories on the Bush administration and links to them, often adding pointed commentary and context.

"Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's 'White House Briefing,' which is highly opinionated and liberal," Howell declared flatly. "They're afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter."

UPDATE 'Wash Post' Editor and Others Want Froomkin Column Renamed -- But Online Chief Says No

Before ending her column with a recommendation that "the Web site should remove the 'White House Briefing' label from Froomkin's column," Howell quoted John Harris, a national political editor at the print Post, who complained that the title of Froomkin's column "invites confusion" and "dilutes our only asset -- our credibility" as objective news reporters.

In his regular Monday column, Froomkin alerted readers to his response, which he posted at post.blog, washingtonpost.com's blog about the Web site's features and news decisions. By 3:30 p.m., his post had attracted nearly 100 comments, most in his defense.

"My agenda, such as it is, is accountability and transparency," Froomkin wrote. "I believe that the president of the United States, no matter what his party, should be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable. And he should be able to easily withstand that scrutiny. I was prepared to take the same approach with John Kerry, had he become president."

Froomkin, who does some original reporting himself, is like a blogger in the way he points to other sources of news, offers context to the day's political reporting and points out themes in the mainstream media's reporting. "Regular readers know that my column is first and foremost a daily anthology of works by other journalists and bloggers," Froomkin wrote on post.blog. "The omnipresent links make it easy for readers to assess my credibility.

Late Monday, the Post's Politics Editor, John Harris, replied to the many pro-Froomkin comments on the site.

Harris's response follows:

"The first issue is whether many readers believe Dan's column is written by one of the Washington Post's three White House reporters," he wrote. "It seems to me--based on many, many examples--beyond any doubt that a large share of readers do believe that. No doubt there are some who enjoy the column for precisely this reason. If I worked outside the paper, I might presume myself that a feature titled 'White House Briefing' was written by one of the newspaper's White House reporters.

"Given that there is such confusion, the question is whether this is a problem. For me it is a problem. I perceive a good bit of his commentary on the news as coming through a liberal prism--or at least not trying very hard to avoid such perceptions. Dan, as I understand his position, says that his commentary is not ideologically based, but he acknowledges it is written with a certain irreverence and adversarial purpose. Dan does not address the main question in his comments. He should. If he were a White House reporter for a major news organization, would it be okay for him to write in the fashion he does?

"If the answer is yes, we have a legitimate disagreement. If the answer is no, there is not really a debate: washingtonpost.com should change the name of his column to more accurately present the fact that this is Dan Froomkin's take on the news, not the observations of someone who is assigned by the paper to cover the news.

"People in the newsroom want to end this confusion. We do not want to spike his column--or at least I don't. It might be the case that he would be writing similarly about John Kerry if he were president. But I guarantee that many people who posted here would not be Froomkin enthusiasts--or be so indifferent to the concerns I raise--in that case.

"In his comments, Dan pleads with reporters to stop complaining about him and start doing more to hold the White House accountable. The reporters on the Post's White House and political teams every day push through many obstacles and frustrations to do precisely this kind of accountability reporting--as I'm sure Dan would agree. But these are the very same reporters who are raising objections to 'White House Briefing.' The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work."

Howell's column had summarized another gripe from the old-media reporters: "Some Post reporters don't appreciate that links are put on the Web site to what bloggers are saying about this or that story -- especially when the bloggers are highly negative."

Many new media analysts -- the controversial but always provocative Jeff Jarvis comes to mind -- argue that this prevailing attitude is exactly why users are turning away from "fortress" journalism in favor of blogs and Web sites which offer more of a "conversation" between readers and journalists. People like to be in on the conversation, the thinking goes, rather than be talked down to.

Another concern of the Post's print reporters working on its Metro section is that the Web site gives short shrift to their hard work. Earlier this year, washingtonpost.com installed technology to "split" its homepage, meaning local Web visitors would see big stories on local politics and entertainment while national or international readers would see more general interest news.

So what to make of the "cultural differences between the two newsrooms"?

For his part, Washington Post chairman Don Graham seemed to address this very problem when speaking to investors at last week's Global Media Conference in New York. "Our Web competitors, Google in particular, are coming up with clever new products which are designed to make our life harder," Graham said. "Young readers are less inclined to read us than I would have guessed." His conclusion: "I have come to believe that we will be able to tell you about certain subjects better on the Internet than we will be able to in print."