Mr. Harris, of the Washington Post, explains in greater detail why he has a problem with Mr. Froomkin's column

Q: You also said, “I perceive a good bit of his commentary on the news as coming through a liberal prism—or at least not trying very hard to avoid such perceptions.” But you don’t give any examples or links to past columns, and Deborah Howell, who also made this point, doesn’t give any examples, so it’s hard for readers to judge what these observations are based on. Could you help me out here? What issues does WHB tend to view through a liberal prism? Can you point to columns that you had in mind? You also say that it may be true that Froomkin would do the column the same way if Kerry had won the ‘04 election; but if that’s so, doesn’t that undercut the notion of a liberal prism?

John Harris: How Dan would be writing about a Kerry administration is obviously an imponderable. Does Dan present a liberal worldview? Not always, but cumulatively I think a great many people would say yes—enough that I don’t want them thinking he works for the news side of the Post.

Without agreeing with the views of this conservative blogger who took on Froomkin, I would say his argument does not seem far-fetched to me.

In the interest of the non-partisan full-disclosure news coverage that's so very, very important to Mr. Harris, perhaps it would help you to understand the scope of the problem if I identified "this blogger" as a gentleman named Patrick Ruffini.

Mr. Ruffini is, in fact, a conservative blogger (if you accept the current debased definition of the word "conservative")

Mr. Ruffini is also the former webmaster of the '04 Bush-Cheney campaign website.

Whatever. At least they still have that rigorously non-partisan Mr. Woodward on tap.

As long as the White House says it's OK, and he doesn't need it for a book.