Joshua Treviño

Plow through the quotes. There’s payoff at the end.

The dKos mob didn’t know it:

It starts this weekend when ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that, “Political reporters at The Post don’t like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin’s ”White House Briefing,“ which is highly opinionated and liberal.” But no supporting evidence for her “opinionated and liberal” comment.

Duncan Black didn’t know it:

I have no idea what Froomkin’s politics are, but I also have no doubt that if Kerry had won the election administration his column would pretty much be the same as it is now….

Brad DeLong didn’t know it:

I look at what Dan Froomkin has done today and I find John Harris’s complaints incomprehensible. Liberal bias? There is a bias, but it is toward the snarky, not the liberal.

Media Matters — which is to say, the hive-mind of David Brock, Duncan Black, and Oliver Willis, among others — really didn’t know it:

Hume claimed that the Post hired Domenech “to quiet grumbling about liberal [Post] columnist Dan Froomkin.” But in characterizing complaints about Froomkin — whom he labeled a “liberal” without citing support for the assertion — as “grumbling,” Hume ignored Domenech’s own criticisms of Froomkin.

Indeed, the Post’s decision to launch Red America and hire Domenech presumably grew out of criticism of Froomkin’s “liberal” column, a label obviously endorsed by Howell.

Rosen noted that neither Harris nor Post ombudsman Deborah Howell — who in her December 11 Post column wrote that “[p]olitical reporters at The Post don’t like” Froomkin’s column, “which is highly opinionated and liberal” — had offered a single example to support their contention that Froomkin, in Harris’s words, presents commentary through a “liberal prism”….

As evidence of Froomkin’s supposed partisanship, Ruffini offers examples like this seemingly innocuous March 25 Froomkin headline: “Bush’s Approval Takes a Tumble.”

But even if one were to accept the idea that Froomkin is a “liberal,” the fact remains that Froomkin is a journalist and has been for 18 years, with the Winston-Salem Journal, the Miami Herald and the Orange County Register in addition to nearly a decade with the Post.

But even if one were to grant the debatable premise that Froomkin is, indeed, a liberal, he is also a journalist by background and training, having spent 18 years in journalism, working for the Winston-Salem Journal, the Miami Herald and the Orange County Register in addition to nearly a decade with the Post.

Not even Dan Froomkin knew the truth about himself:

“….I do not advocate policy, liberal or otherwise.”

I’ll cop to being skeptical, but not partisan!

Froomkin, hanging with the Firedoglake crowd and other Plameologists at YearlyKos. But he’s not a liberal. Original photo here.

But truth, as they say, will out.

First:

YearlyKos Convention Announces Panel Including Former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson….[who] will join a panel discussion of the Bush Administration’s alleged role in the disclosure of the identity of his wife, the former Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA officer. The panel, which includes Dan Froomkin, Jane Hamsher, Larry Johnson, Christy Smith and Marcy Wheeler….

Second:

Ambassador Joe Wilson headed up a panel on the CIA leak investigation that included Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post (.com)….

Washingtonpost.com blogger Dan Froomkin is more blunt about it: the media has failed to conduct basic research into the Plame case. If not for a few bloggers who didn’t drop the story with the news cycle, it’s quite possible that we wouldn’t be hearing a peep about Valerie Plame today. His case in point: Judith Miller is a “discredited shill”….

Third:

WaPo guy Dan Froomkin credits Murray Waas’s research with leaving Judy Miller a “discredited shill”. All these guys on this panel are anti-“Mainstream Media”; even Froomkin referred to the “MSM” and explained how since he worked online he was almost one of you [Kossacks]. Interesting: he says the White House Press Corps isn’t conservative. There’s something to be said to the critique that the press is liberal and is bending over backwards from being perceived as liberal. But he added that maybe now after Plamegate they’ll fear the left-wing blogosphere as well.

More Froomkin, slumming it at YearlyKos. But he’s not a liberal. Original photo here.

Fourth:

I was on a panel about the CIA leak investigation Friday at the Yearlykos progressive bloggers convention in Las Vegas. My main point was that the traditional media has not done a bang-up job of investigative reporting on this story.

Fifth:

Nearly all members of the [YearlyKos Plame] panel railed against press coverage of the CIA leak affair. A blogger for the Washington Post, Daniel Froomkin, said journalists became so preoccupied with the jailing of one of their own, Judith Miller of the New York Times, on a contempt citation stemming from the probe, that they lost sight of the broader story….Mr. Froomkin called Ms. Miller “a humiliated and discredited shill.”

Questions:

With Froomkin’s partisan leftism glaringly obvious to all, why were only partisan leftists unable to see or acknowledge it?

Why is Froomkin himself dishonest about his own work and ideological self-identification?

Are partisan leftists ashamed of the partisan leftist label? Do they see it as a liability?

Will Media Matters issue a correction of its prior assertions?

Will the reality-based community embrace reality?

Et cetera. Indeed, showing Dan Froomkin a partisan is sort of like proving the ocean mostly water. But given the chance to remind of the left-blogs’ willful dishonesty on almost any topic, we would be remiss to not seize it.

Popularity: 12% [?]