« Strange Scoop | Main | High Finance » Congratulations09 Dec 2007 11:52 am Garance Franke-Ruta, a colleague for many years at The American Prospect, is now moving on to a new position with the Washington Post and Washington Post Online. Congratulations on the new job. She also seems to have coined a term, "MSB" or "mainstream blogosphere," for those of us doing this professionally for established media organizations. Comments (54)
Garance Franke-Ruta,... is now moving on to a new position with the Washington Post Just about the perfect place for her, given the state of the WaPo these days. 
Spend enough time bashing the left, and the WaPo is your oyster.
Did she get a lobotomy? Because with very few exceptions (I'm looking at you Walter Pincus), you pretty much have to leave your brain and ethics at the door to work for the WaPo (I'm looking at you John Solomon). Look at the op-ed page of that librul rag the other day - Robert Novak, Samuelson, Will, Gerson and a special appearance from that walrus-looking motherfucker, John Bolton, throwing a tantrum because reality is demonstrating it's well-known librul bias. Bonus - Ninety nine percent of the time, Fred Hiatt's page is directly contradicted by something in the news section. And usually that contradiction is found on about page A99 million because that fact is inconvenient to the Georgetown dinner party set. Extra Bonus - When there is some sort of accuracy or ethical controversy at the WaPo, like, say, repeating stupid right wing rumors concerning a Democratic Presidential Candidate on page A1, Deborah Howell will always be there to tell us how mean the bloggers are. Does Debby Howell smoke crack when she writes her ombudsman columns sometimes? Some on Teh Internets say yes. I haven't seen her address that rumor yet though. Good luck to her. I doubt she lasts until 2009 at that shithole. And if she does, something is wrong with her.
Interesting. Garance's heart is in the right place, but there are few liberal bloggers that have been wrong as often as her over the years. My impression is that she doesn't quite get it. No wonder WaPo wants her. If they wanted to hire someone respected on the liberal side, why not Digby?
Good riddance. And why am I not surprised in the slightest? The first time I paid any attention to Garance was when I watched her infamous televised "confrontation" with the unhinged Althouse who was attacking one liberal blogger after another, and I was shocked at how completely ineffectual Garance was. It's as if she was auditioning for a spot as a faux liberal on Fox News. Now I see it was an audition for the WP.
I admit, I haven't read Franke-Ruta much, and what I have read of her, I haven't always agreed with. (I don't remember what I specifically disagreed about -- I just vaguely remember disagreeing with her about something.) I'm surprised by the pile-on in this comments section, though. What's the basic case against her? (I'm not asking for a detailed dossier here -- just a basic rationale for the anti-Franke-Ruta sentiment, and maybe a link or two to what you regard as some of her more egregiously wrongheaded writings.) Until then, though, Congrats.* *Subject to change if anyone convinces me that she's really all that bad.
She'll fit in perfectly there, and I'm glad to see her leave a site that I read every day. GFR is thoroughly shallow and unpleasant, with a lack of intellectual firepower or any real progressive principles. Good riddance.
"I'm surprised by the pile-on in this comments section, though. What's the basic case against her?" She's spent her time in the lefty blogosphere continually attacking the left. It's been apparent for quite a while that she's been auditioning for something exactly like a job with the WaPo. "Until then, though, Congrats. Subject to change if anyone convinces me that she's really all that bad." She's really all that bad. And congrats to her. She got exactly what she wanted. Lousy humans deserve congratulations for achieving their ambitions too. And anti-congrats to The Prospect for giving her the platform. Current management there seems really fucked up to me.
The basic case against her is she is a woman and doesn't hate HRC.
Julian, I think you have already sort of figured out the problem with Franke-Ruta: It's not that she's egregiously wrong all the time, or that she's a closet conservative. It's just that when you read something of hers, anything, you consistently get the vague, uneasy feeling that something's wrong. What I think comes through is this general deference she has for conservatives and her lack of support for anyone who's truly liberal or for any truly liberal positions. For instance, watch the talk she had with Ann Althouse to get a sense of what I mean: At best, she's merely incompetent and ineffective as a liberal voice; at worse, she's an enabler of conservative positions and conservative personalities. And therefore she's exactly the sort of non-assertive, mushy-headed liberal poseur the mainstream press loves. Any surprise the WP hire her and not a strong liberal like Digby or Lindsay Beyerstein or any other liberal who's outraged at conservative crimes? To put it simply, Franke-Ruta not only does not represent my liberal views, but by her very prominence as a "liberal" voice she dilutes real liberal voices.
Kanenas: Thanks for the video link... I'd always had a vague impression that Franke-Ruta was pretty incompetent, but boy! what an utter, utter moron! Where in the world do they find total nitwits like her?! I had to stop watching the video-clip half-way through lest I start tearing my hair out. And I must agree with the other commenters. I think she's ideally suited for today's WashPost...
Petey:
I haven't read Franke-Ruta much....I'm surprised by the pile-on in this comments section, though. Wah..?! There's a difference between someone who is contrarian for the sake of mental hygene - however successful - and someone who tends toward contrarianism because of some kind of personality hitch. I'd put MY mostly in the first catagory, and GFR (and Hitchens, BTW) mostly in the second. There's a certain odd rigidity which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'd never call her a 'lousy human' because I don't know her and never will, but said personality problem definitely affects thought processes. I first became aware of this in her case when she inveighed against the use of pseudonyms in the blogosphere - just plain weird. I don't know where her original post is, but emptywheel had a good retort here.
"At least they've hired Ezra Klein full time to blog. It's a trade I'd make and glad TAP did." A fair enough point. I'm a fan of Scott Lemieux too. But I'll reiterate that management there seems badly screwed up to me since Tomasky left.
"I'd never call her a 'lousy human' because I don't know her and never will, but said personality problem definitely affects thought processes. I first became aware of this in her case when she inveighed against the use of pseudonyms in the blogosphere - just plain weird. I don't know where her original post is, but emptywheel had a good retort here." I call her a lousy human because of an email she sent me threatening to find my identity by using the Prospect's IP logs and publicly de-pseudonyming me. I find her politics, careerism, and brand of "journalism" sorta reprehensible, but it was that one interaction that led me to think her a lousy human.
I call her a lousy human because of an email she sent me threatening to find my identity by using the Prospect's IP logs and publicly de-pseudonyming me. That is lousy. I do, however, congratulate her on the magnitude of her success however much she deserves it.
I call her a lousy human because of an email she sent me threatening to find my identity by using the Prospect's IP logs and publicly de-pseudonyming me. Wow.
"I call her a lousy human because of an email she sent me threatening to find my identity by using the Prospect's IP logs and publicly de-pseudonyming me." Wow, that's just not right. What happened that pissed her off that much? I can't say I've ever been a fan of Garance. I always thought of her as the Jamie Kirchick of the tapped blog.
What I want to know is: a few weekends ago one of Ezra's weekend writers, Neil whatever-he-calls-himself, put up an anti-Garance screed and I thought: "wow! Ezra's going to have an interesting Monday morning." When I checked back to see that particular comment thread, the whole post was gone. Does anyone have the backstory??
I'm pleased GFR has moved to the WaPO, though a little surprised that her destination wasn't the Clinton campaign, tbh. In any event, it means I'll no longer be confronted with the tendentious swill she posts at TAPPED.
I'm pleased GFR has moved to the WaPO, though a little surprised that her destination wasn't the Clinton campaign, tbh. In any event, it means I'll no longer be confronted with the tendentious swill she posts at TAPPED.
Yeah, from what I've seen of her work, she'll fit right in at the WaPo. And hey, now she's got a bigger platform for advocating that inspired "we must protect 18-year-olds from appearing in porn vids" platform.
GFR's just another one of these kiddies who went straight from the college cloister to the Beltway cloister, with **zero** adult experience in between. Pretty much like the most of the "progressive" blog-o-world, as far as I can see.
While I'm certainly to the left of GFR on almost all issues, I've always thought she was courteous, if a bit naive. I do think producing stuff instead of writing it, if this is what the job entails, might be more her forte. Also, I think she handled Althouse perfectly. It is a visual medium, and her look of genuine shock as Althouse started doing her Tourette's act was, I thought, a perfect 10. Does anybody think Althouse 'won' that conversation? In fact, just the idea that AA is going to have to drown herself in two bottles of wine tonight to get it out of her system - that odious girl going major media! - makes me happy. It is a bad happy, schadenfreude, I know. Still, congrats to GFR.
Being against net pseudonyms has nothing to do with liberal v conservative.
Shouldn't it be MSBS?
Sweet. Another Cohen or Broder in the making.
When's Matt moving over to WaPO? This "Atlantic" thing can't go on forever. It's too lame.
Marshall: I saw that post, too. He kept repeating the term "GFR-bage". I think the most unfair pile-on has been from Edwards' supporters strongly suspecting she's an HRC fan.
I think the most unfair pile-on has been from Edwards' supporters strongly suspecting she's an HRC fan. By strongly suspecting you mean absolutely convinced right? Because she has been a Clinton shill all along in ways big and small.
There was no way that GFR could or should have tried to out-crazy Althouse. In not so doing she did not slow the tide of progressive progress, despite what some say. And, really, "shill?" So if someone leans towards Clinton they are a "shill?" Is Matt Y. an "Obama shill?" I think that there are some lefties who have Chris Matthews-type misogyny issues that are being exposed here. The idea that a woman, especially one who supports HRC, should be taken seriously is too much for some. The fact that they can couch this in leftier-than-thou posturing doesn't change what it is. Beyond that, if people are jealous of GFR for being a young Harvard grad who rose quickly in the MSM, then they need to stop reading the male Atlantic bloggers, most of whom fit that description. Stop Hating!
Garance is a perfect example of what Bob Somerby frequently talks about. She never was able to take the gloves off and say it like it is because she was always angling for a job at a place like the now-disgraced Washington Post. Who would want to work at that shipwreck that is fast becoming a mid-Atlantic version of the Wall Street Journal? Garance would. That's all you ned to know about Garance AND the Washington Post.
Garance is a perfect example of what Bob Somerby frequently talks about. She never was able to take the gloves off and say it like it is because she was always angling for a job at a place like the now-disgraced Washington Post. Who would want to work at that shipwreck that is fast becoming a mid-Atlantic version of the Wall Street Journal? Garance would. That's all you need to know about Garance AND the Washington Post.
Garance is a perfect example of what Bob Somerby frequently talks about. She never was able to take the gloves off and say it like it is because she was always angling for a job at a place like the now-disgraced Washington Post. Who would want to work at that shipwreck that is fast becoming a mid-Atlantic version of the Wall Street Journal? Garance would. That's all you need to know about Garance AND the Washington Post.
Vito, has it ever occurred to you that people have legitimate problems with Garance's writing? For one thing, she doesn't just lean towards Clinton, she attacks the other candidates in a deliberately obtuse and dishonest way. Neil's post on Ezra's blog, which Ezra had taken down because he thought it was inappropriate given they were colleagues, was really spot on.
And, really, "shill?" So if someone leans towards Clinton they are a "shill?" Is Matt Y. an "Obama shill?" I think that there are some lefties who have Chris Matthews-type misogyny issues that are being exposed here. The idea that a woman, especially one who supports HRC, should be taken seriously is too much for some. The fact that they can couch this in leftier-than-thou posturing doesn't change what it is. Really, what a load of bollocks. GFR was a shill because she shilled, and she was, as far as I could tell, the only writer on TAPPED who did so. I don't have any problem with her preferring Clinton; I do have a problem with her series of biased and deliberately obtuse posts directed at other candidates. As for misogyny, get real. TAPPED has any number of female posters and they're all accorded the respect they deserve. The reason many posters singled GFR out has zero to do with her gender.
The reason many posters singled GFR out has zero to do with her gender. Vito's comment wasn't to be taken seriously. Vito doesn't understand the concept of misogyny. One of THE best things about the blogosphere is the fact that you get to read all kinds of intelligent, reality-based women nowadays who also write well, instead of the three or four we were allowed to read in the old MSM monopoly days. Despite women still being in the minority in the blogosphere, this innovation has already greatly improved the overall tone and just sanity-level of political discourse, AFAIC (I'm picky about who I read). The problem with GFR is her intellectual dishonesty, something which might be rationalized via gender, but which really has nothing to do with it, since it can be rationalized via *any* gender.
I see that people are talking about the Garance post from Ezra's blog. I guess nothing can ever get taken down in the age of RSS feeds :) If you click my name link, you can see the softened version of it on my own site. Ezra wanted me to take the inflammatory language (GFRbage) out, and I did so because I felt bad about getting him in trouble with Garance. Otherwise, it's basically everything I posted at his site, and people might want to take a look. I don't know whether Ezra took it down before or after Garance went ballistic about it. I didn't see any of her comments -- she just went straight after Ezra -- but apparently she was furious. That she had a WaPo job coming may have been a factor. I didn't expect things to go that way with the post. I thought she'd write some kind of devastating attack on me in response, which I can deal with, and I didn't think that Ezra would be the target of her wrath (nobody had held Ezra accountable for my writing in 2+ years of blogging). And I didn't even know that she worked in the same building -- some of the TAPPED folks work remotely, as I understand, and she occasionally posts from the field. While I thought a lot of her 2008 coverage on TAPPED was absolute garbage (hence GFRbage, see the post for examples), I think she can be pretty good when she isn't in full-on hack mode. Her personal blog, for example, is fine. And the end of my post is just about how I'd much rather see her come out and give good-faith arguments for Hillary rather than try to cook up phony scandals about the other candidates. I'm not overjoyed about her move to WaPo, but if Hillary wins the nomination, I may learn to appreciate her in September or so. I am worried about what kinds of trumped-up scandals might come out of the WaPo over the next two months, though.
Yes, and in Garance's attack on Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," she claimed that blacks are much more homicidal than whites are: "Nor are Moore's suburban white gun owners, no matter how ridiculous their fears, the reason that black Americans were six times more likely to be murdered than whites in 1999, and seven times more likely to commit homicides." http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=moores_the_pity -- "Moore's the Pity: Bowling for Columbine and Michael Moore's urban phobia." Garance Franke-Ruta, The American Prospect, November 22, 2002.
It's not that I hate Garance Franke-Ruta personally or anything, it's just that I think she's a bad liberal and a terrible journalist. She's the very caricature of the establishmentarian, careerist DC Democrat: habitually friendly to the right and antagonistic to the left, obsessed with the horserace and bored by policy, either oblivious to or unconcerned with anyone who doesn't come from an upper-middle-class background. Her flimsy, disingenuous arguments and transparent biases are just the icing on the cake.
Thanks for the info, everyone. I had forgotten a lot of what I had read from her (like her anti-pseudonym jihad), and now that I've been reminded, I can see where this is coming from more clearly.
Interesting. I've only read five or six articles by Franke-Ruta, but I thought all of them were illiberal trolls. I had no idea so many other readers had the same opinion.
I would point out that some of the criticism here is coming from people who treat any criticism of Edwards or praise of other candidates as shilling, and relentlessly drive that point home, Petey.
"I would point out that some of the criticism here is coming from people who treat any criticism of Edwards or praise of other candidates as shilling, and relentlessly drive that point home, Petey." Y'know, there are plenty of figures in the lefty blogosphere who aren't in the Edwards camp who yet somehow have managed to avoid the kind of intellectual dishonesty that is the hallmark of Garance's work. And Garance's left-bashing predates the '08 campaign, of course.
Matt Weiner: "I would point out that some of the criticism here is coming from people who treat any criticism of Edwards or praise of other candidates as shilling, and relentlessly drive that point home, Petey." Another non-sequitur from a GFRbage troll. Post after post clearly articulates our problems with Garance's work, and trolls come along not to defend her writing, but to accuse critics as being misogynistic or supporters of Edwards. I must say that at least I now understand why some people do like Garance's writings: obviously these are people who can't produce coherent thoughts.
"trolls come along not to defend her writing, but to accuse critics as being ... supporters of Edwards." It's also worth noting that most 2007 supporters of Edwards tend to be strong ideological lefties. As stated, the problems with Garance pre-date the '08 campaign and have to do with her reflexive left-bashing, which is the precise reason the WaPo hired her...
"trolls come along not to defend her writing, but to accuse critics as being ... supporters of Edwards" To contrast and compare, it's worth considering the example of John Judis, who has been a harsh critic of the Edwards campaign. But yet Judis doesn't get the criticism that Franke-Ruta gets, perhaps because his Edwards criticism seems rooted in bad analysis, rather than reflexive left-bashing and intellectual dishonesty.
yet Judis doesn't get the criticism that Franke-Ruta gets, perhaps because his Edwards criticism seems rooted in bad analysis, rather than reflexive left-bashing and intellectual dishonesty. No, no; GFR gets criticized because of misogyny, don't you see? An unusually specific - laser like, almost, in its focus - misogyny that doesn't have anything against all women or even most women or even any other woman. Those who criticize GFR are not motivated by her raw hackery, heavens no. It's their hatred of the female gender, when and only when that gender is manifested in the person of GFR.
I'm happy for GFR. I've become a big fan. First off, she was nominated for Hottest DC Print Journalist (while I bet most of the bitter haters here in the MY comment section are butt-ugly). Two: She went to Harvard. Credentials don't mean everything, but Harvard ain't easy to get into. Plus she graduated with honors. I liked her blog, it was very informative and cheery. Her curiousity was omnivorous. In her Vblog with Althouse, she exuded almost an Zen-like sense of calm and well-being, while Althouse was all agitated. GFR just seemed happy and confident, which is what he Left needs sometimes. The WaPo made a smart play and I wish her the best of luck.
Peterk, I really can't tell if you're being serious or not. You like Garance because you think she's pretty, she went to harvard, and she's cheery? Talk about low expectations. I guess those reasons would only be slightly shallow if you were talking about a coworker you've come to like, but a professional political writer?
Peterk, I really can't tell if you're being serious or not. Sadly, I'd bet he's quite serious. The funniest part of that comment is that he thought she 'exuded almost an Zen-like sense of calm and well-being, while Althouse was all agitated.' I guess if you're Hott, being befuddled and dumbfounded looks 'zen-like' (or almost zen-like, anyway). I don't envy GFR her fans or anything else, and I certainly don't hate her. I just think she's a careerist hack - not really 'what the left needs sometimes', but..whatever. She is a good fit for WaPo.
I don't envy the misanthropic cynicism on display here. I'll admit bringing up her good looks and Harvard was a way to bait the obnoxious prolier-than-thou lefties here. You're just jealous. Her blog was usually interesting, and plus she links to Ehrenreich, Krugman, etc. Quelle Horreur! I'll admit she was surprised by Althouse, but who wouldn't be? She recovered well, and even gracefully and generously brought Althouse back down to earth. (I was talking about the rest of the time.) Before this move, she blogged (for free) and worked for The American Prospect. What a careerist hack! Come on people...
"If they wanted to hire someone respected on the liberal side, why not Digby?" Posted by Ben Brackley Because they don't want to hire somebody respected on the liberal side.
Comments closed December 23, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Good for her, I guess, but is it good in general? I don't read her often because I rarely learn anything from her. Does she bring any skills other than being a "reporter"? I, at least, would really like to see more people hired who have specialized skill sets. Does she have any? I certainly haven't noticed any. Given that I don't see why we should expect her to be any better than they not so great people they have already.
Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | December 9, 2007 12:16 PM