According to Raw Story, the Washington Post is now seeking to hire two bloggers for its online edition, one moonbat (us the good people) and one wingnut (the deranged righties):
This time around the Washington Post plans to hire two bloggers for its Web site.
The paper's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, has informed RAW STORY that Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com, is looking for a liberal blogger, along with a conservative one, to replace Ben Domenech who resigned after only three days of blogging, when his earlier writings were discovered by mostly liberal bloggers to be racially insensitive and – in multiple cases – plagiarized.
The paper doesn't plan on making any formal announcement, but the news should be welcome to many critics on the left who felt that it was unfair to hire just a conservative blogger in the first place.
Many felt that the hiring of Domenech had something to do with a column written by Howell last December (The Two Washington Posts) which was critical of one of the more popular bloggers at washingtonpost.com.
"Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal," wrote Howell, and that Brady was thinking of "supplementing it with a conservative blogger."
But Froomkin doesn't consider himself an ideologue. In a post at NYU Professor Jay Rosen's journalism blog, PressThink (Dan Froomkin on Attitude in White House Briefing), Froomkin wrote that those who "see the column as having a political bias" are misreading his "enthusiasm."
"There's been much speculation over whether my column would take the same approach with a Democrat in the White House," wrote Froomkin. "My answer is that the same passion for answers and accountability would inform the column no matter who is president."
This is better than the Post's prior policy of trying to appease wingnuts at any cost but not that much better, really, because the most likely outcome is a wishy-washy middle-of-the-road moderate paired with a fire-breathing righty dragon. That's how it mostly plays out in the traditional media.
The position of the political center has changed in these last years. Now you are a moderate if you don't advocate nuking everything in sight, and you are a rabid lefty if you so much as make one peep to criticize the current administration. Nay, you are guilty of treason!
All this makes it hard to get too excited about the promise of a liberal blogger in one newspaper. And what about the stable of misogynists at the New York Times? When did debates about the role of women start viewing feminists as such extremist whackos that they must be totally excluded from any conversations? Have you noticed that we now discuss racism or sexism by assuming only two positions: either blacks or women or whatever the group we are looking at deserve equal treatment and respect with the groups in power or they don't. This is not really a balanced discussion. The "average" in such a discussion implies that women and blacks are lesser people in some ways. What we need are some people who argue for female and black supremacy, of course. But that is not suitable for the mainstream. Even though the reverse is.