A Blog Apart on Washington Post?

Picture%201.png Friend of Metroblogging DC Ben Domenech has started a new blog for the Washington Post called “Red America“, hoping to counter some of the accusations of bias on the part of Dan Froomkin’s “White House Briefing” which has been accused of severe Left bias by, well, anyone with eyes.

Anyhow, we wish Ben the best of luck with his new blog, and we’re hoping he’ll sneak us an invite to all the cool Post parties and happy hours.

13 Comments so far

  1. Jenn L (unregistered) on March 21st, 2006 @ 10:55 am

    “Red America”?? – that’s so bizarre to me. I mean, I know everyone’s gotten sucked into this “red state blue state” baloney, but doesn’t “Red America” sound like a McCarthyist rant against Communism? “Red Menace” and the like…

  2. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on March 21st, 2006 @ 10:57 am

    It totally does, Jenn, but I think that kind of slaps a nice big ironic label on it. Ben’s first post talks a bit about this, actually:

    During the discussions about the launch of this new blog, the good folks at washingtonpost.com spent far too much time in sessions with markers and whiteboard, trying to settle on a name for the column. The suggestions were all over the map – but one suggestion provided a reminder of the sociopolitical divide in this country. “What about ‘Red Dawn’?” said one helpful editor.

    “Well, only if you want to make people think it was a gun blog,” I said, to puzzled faces.

    “Red Dawn? You must know it – the greatest pro-gun movie ever? I mean, they actually show the jackbooted communist thugs prying the guns from cold dead hands.”

  3. jen m. (unregistered) on March 21st, 2006 @ 1:42 pm

    curious: what’s domenech’s connection to metroblogging dc?

    and as far as the necessity of countering froomkin’s blog: just because you are biased doesn’t mean you aren’t right (to reference one of my favorite sayings)

  4. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on March 21st, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

    Ben is a good friend of mine, Jen. It’s nice of the Post to give blogs with bias to BOTH sides, though.

  5. Jenn L (unregistered) on March 21st, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

    I’m also a bit befuddled as to his “friend” status but I guess I’m out of the loop.

    As for the use of the plural in wishing him well, having just read said blog and finding it the usual dose of aforementioned “red v. blue” hooey, I can’t really concur.

    Using “Red Dawn” as a cultural marker between Left and Right? Please…

  6. Jenn L (unregistered) on March 21st, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

    Ah, just saw your comment about his being a personal friend of yours, Tom. Understood.

    Perhaps I’ll give him a read now and then to give him a chance, but it would be nice to actually see someone with a neutral un-biased perspective as opposed to those trying desperately to keep us all in our little red-blue cages…

  7. Tiff (unregistered) on March 21st, 2006 @ 2:07 pm

    Ben’s a nice guy, don’t get all huffy ’bout it. ;) And Jenn L- I think the reason neutral people don’t get into political blogging is because they find the whole thing just so damn frustrating. (*coughcoughlikemecough*

  8. hb (unregistered) on March 23rd, 2006 @ 6:23 pm

    Sorry to be frustrating in that political blog sort of way, but your readers should be aware that there’s a lot of evidence that your friend played a little fast and loose with the copy and paste function.



  9. jen m. (unregistered) on March 24th, 2006 @ 9:23 am

    there’s an article in the post today about tom’s friend and his troubles with plagarism.

    he called Coretta Scott King a “communist” and said Teresa Heinz Kerry looks like an “oddly shaped egotistical ketchup-colored muppet”… um, he sure doesn’t sound like “a nice guy” to me, Tiffany.

    just for the record, i don’t give a flying fig about his blog or his invites to Post parties, and he ain’t no friend of mine.

  10. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on March 24th, 2006 @ 9:30 am

    From that article:

    “Domenech said he needed to research the examples but that he never used material without attribution and had complained about a college editor improperly adding language to some of his articles.”

    and, from yesterday’s blog entry:

    “My comment questioned the president’s decision to attend the funeral after he had phoned in a message to the March for Life, the largest pro-life rally and a significant annual event. Mrs. King participated in many different political causes, some of which involved associations with questionable people, but referring to her as a Communist was a mistake, hyperbole in the context of a larger debate about President Bush’s political priorities. Mea Culpa.”

  11. jen m. (unregistered) on March 24th, 2006 @ 9:42 am

    gentle ben is also the lead story on salon today.

  12. Jenn L (unregistered) on March 24th, 2006 @ 2:28 pm

    What a curious and potentially explosive situation, both for the Post and the blogger.

    His explanation equating the rally and the funeral defies logic. The President didn’t physically attend the yearly March-for-Life rally, so therefore he shouldn’t attend the funeral of the widow of an undeniably significant civil rights leader? The correlation escapes me.

    But we could go on and on forever about this, no doubt…

  13. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on March 24th, 2006 @ 2:32 pm

    I will certainly admit that the evidence is appearing more and more damning as the day goes on Jenn & Jen. Ben’s still a great guy and I hate to see the personal slurs toward him and his family, but if this is true, and it appears to be, he’s going to have a tough, tough road ahead of him, and that’s unfortunate.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.