Saturday, December 17, 2005

I was dismayed by ombudsman Deborah Howell's Dec. 11 column, "The Two Washington Posts."

Without providing any examples to make her case, other than to mention the opinion of John F. Harris, The Post's political editor, Howell claims that Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing" column on washingtonpost.com is highly opinionated and liberal. Howell mentioned that Post "political writers" don't like the column, without providing any other sources.

I am a paid subscriber to The Post, meaning that I receive a daily paper at my door. I consult the Post Web site every day to read Froomkin's column and to read Howard Kurtz's column, which isn't always printed in the daily paper. I also browse the most commonly e-mailed articles. I have no problem discerning that Froomkin works for the online Post and that he is not a White House reporter. I know this because he often mentions it in his column; he is very clear about the role of the column and its purpose.

I am a good example of someone who uses both the print paper and the Web site to be an informed citizen. Both versions provide critical information and meet different needs. Froomkin's column provides a vital service to the Washington area. It provides updates that aren't provided by other Post journalists. Froomkin also poses questions that should be asked of the people who work in the White House, regardless of what party is in power.

Howell's column came across as a summary of sniping among editors, and not as a service to Post readers. I used to read Michael Getler's ombudsman column every week, and I miss it. He was always fair and responsible with his opinions and seemed to evaluate concerns from readers carefully, without resorting to easy labels. I didn't always agree with his opinion, but I respected his judgment. Hopefully I can come to expect that from Howell's column.

-- Jill Crouch

Washington

I am deeply concerned about the possibility of The Post "balancing" Dan Froomkin with a conservative blogger. Recently The Post has appeared to be willing to exercise a rhetorical incuriosity about leaked information. In working against this tendency, Froomkin's column helps the paper fulfill its obligation to the public as a check against those in power.

Adding a conservative blogger would not balance Froomkin's work; it would negate it. His stated purpose is to take an adversarial stance toward the executive branch, regardless of who controls it. Inevitably, he risks appearing disposed against whatever party occupies it, but for now this concern is irrelevant.

He is doing his job appropriately.

If a Democrat becomes president, Froomkin's claim will be put to the test. If he fails, then by all means "balance" him right off the Web site. But for now I urge The Post to let his column stand alone and remain an undiluted voice that speaks truth to power.

-- Adam Pelavin

Seattle