Dean,

Re:
Okay, it's probably not deliberate

Hey, why does Verizon get a pass when you presume any journalist whose reporting/commentary deviates from your talking points to be part of the evil right-wing conspiracy to scare the public unnecessarily in order to to steal from needy elderly to further enrich the wealthy?

I can just imagine the memos zipping back and forth between Verizon management and the robber baron industrialists (with all the reporters and editorial writers of the Washington Post, NYT and USA Today somewhere in the mix), each more adamant that you must not be allowed to get the truth to the people!

Well, while you wait for Verizon, I'll do one:

Washington Post silences one of its high quality voices:

Mr Fromkin was a great reporter: he told you what was being said accurately and briefly.

A typical sample:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/obama-slayer-of-the-gop.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

and yet the Post shuts him down???

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/18/froomkin/index.html

Maybe there is something in what Dean is saying.

Andrew,

In that Salon column to which you link, Greenwald writes:
What makes this firing so bizarre and worthy of inquiry is that, as Gavin notes, Froomkin was easily one of the most linked-to and cited Post columnists. At a time when newspapers are relying more and more on online traffic, the Post just fired the person who, in 2007, wrote 3 out of the top 10 most-trafficked columns.

What I find "bizarre" is that argument -- the argument that it is necessarily "bizarre" for a publication to fire a columnist if that columnist was generating a lot of online traffic, regardless of any other factors, such as any journalistic standards that the columnist may have been failing to meet.

I am not commenting on Froomkin, as I'm insufficiently familiar with his work, but needless to say, a columnist who can generate a lot of online traffic is not necessarily one that meets a high standard of journalism, and indeed I'd say that in many cases the two are inversely correlated, since someone who serves red meat to one "side" while provoking the other "side" can often draw a lot of attention and response.

That said, obviously it's also possible that journalistic standards had nothing to do with it, and that it resulted from some battle among personalities or any of many other possible reasons, including even the possibility that some ideological differences played a role. I have no idea. But I think Greenwald's argument is conveniently simple-minded.

I would think it likely that we'll hear both/several sides of the reason for his firing (assuming it's true), which may be enlightening in some way.

3 miles from the white house, hey? Walking distance to...work...?

Re: Froomkin, if anyone has links to explanations for WaPo's decision written by Froomkin or WaPo or quoting either, please share. I've Googled a bit and haven't seen anything yet from either other than a boilerplate statement from WaPo and Froomkin simply saying he is disappointed.

For what it's worth, from WaPo Ombudsman Andrew Alexander:
Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, whose stable of contributors includes Froomkin, said late Thursday: "With the end of the Bush administration, interest in the blog also diminished. His political orientation was not a factor in our decision." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2009/06/post_axes_froomkins_white_hous.html

I hate Verizon.

Waiting 3 weeks for Verizon? That seems longish. How many choices for internet access do you have? If you only have one, that would explain why you're waiting so long.

Call the Verizon Fiber Solutions Center and ask for a supervisor.

Tell them your problem and the degree to which it is disrupting your ability to work.

It worked for me.

My parents live outside of DC and recently switched to Verizon. They wish they never made the switch.

Try Comcast. Then you'll really be grinding your teeth.

You could just blame Chavez.

I use Hughes.net. Reasonably priced, fairly reliable, and PROMPT. I REALLY do live in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming.

FWIW, Verizon has decided that all outgoing email from my university's domain is spam and has blacklisted it. Netzero, maybe?

If you VPN then Hughes.Net is no go!

Yet another sad instance where you get better service from the Post Office or the DMV than from Corporate America.

Why, Oh Guy in a Cube, should that be sad? For a long time now I have seen the fabled efficiency of the private sector as just that - a fable. Govt. organisations are no worse and often better. And I don't see anything sad about it, unless pricking a misconception is in itself sad.

gordon wrote, For a long time now I have seen the fabled efficiency of the private sector as just that - a fable.

It really depends on the market.

Residential internet is usually pretty oligopolistic. Not much competition there.

Having said that, I have Verizon FiOS and my experience has been positive. Moreoever, I can't see how they're not losing money in the short run. Must have some biz model about building up a huge infrastructure and then cashing in in the outyears, or something.

Ha! Verizon troubles are a mere piffle compared to ATT. They are the masters of screwup.

Verizon stinks.

Are you still renting, or does this move mean that you have jumped back into the real estate market? That would be news.

I switched to ATT! They actually got back to me in 24 hours on a questions I had. Maybe they are not the OLD ATT!