Nielsen Numbers Back Froomkin: Suggest He Wasn't Only One at Wash Post to Lose Audience

Since the axing of Washington Post "White House Watch" blogger Dan Froomkin last month, the Post has claimed that most of the reason was the drop in page views for his column with Obama in office, not Bush. This line was emphasized again today in a New York Times report, which also warned that judging Web writers by page views was a slippery slope.

But Froomkin took issue with it today in an email to Atlantic blog star Andrew Sullivan, claiming the page view drop was real but not the main reason for his firing. He has alleged that others at the Post lost a lot of audience in recent months. So why was he singled out?

Indeed, the traffic seems to bear this out.

Here are the Nielsen numbers for washingtonpost.com since last September obtained by my magazine, Editor & Publisher (Nielsen is our parent). Back then, traffic really picked up at the Post (and a lot of other sites) during the election campaign -- and then has declined quite a bit since.

So Froomkin (since hired by Huff Post as Washington chief), indeed, did have a lot of company: Uniques off nearly 4 million since September. Traffic during one month this year actually was down 12% from one year previous. It was up 9% in May, so obviously some parts of the site are doing very well but surely a lot of other areas lost readers. Were his numbers compared to peak months? Like most papers, the Post refuses to release numbers on individual columns or blogs. It would be fascinating to see numbers for others.

Sept. 08: 12.9 million unique visitors, up 43% over previous year
Oct. 08: 12.3 million, 43%
Nov. 08: 11.1 million, 17%
Dec. 08: 11.4 million, 15%
Jan. 09: 11.1 million, 13%
Feb. 09: 9.2 million, (-12%)
March 09: 9.3 million, 5%
April 09: 10.2 million, 8%
May 09: 10.0 million, 9%

Greg Mitchell's latest book is "Why Obama Won." He is editor of Editor & Publisher.

Comments

[HalfBakedSushi]

09:15 AM on 07/17/2009

Mr. Mitchell,

Thank you for spelling "lose" correctly in your title.

That's all.

[jazzman]

11:55 AM on 07/16/2009

So audience trumps ability. Truth is at the mercy of ratings. News is for sale to the highest bidder.

Given this logic why would I ever buy an edition of the Washington Post if I wanted the news and to learn about what is going on?

[Gitmo]

05:19 AM on 07/15/2009

WaPo has turned into a complete right-wing tool.

[bascombe]

07:17 AM on 07/16/2009

always have been.

[jazzman]

11:56 AM on 07/16/2009

And now its for sale to lobbyists.

[marignymitch]

02:42 PM on 07/14/2009

WaPo, which I stopped reading a long time ago, has been a right-wing rag for years now. Froomkin isn't a winger; he was fired. Dunno why they hang on to Eugene Robinson, whom I love, but I'm glad they do.

[Hart]

11:06 PM on 07/14/2009

I imagine TPTB over there find value in Robinson, if you get my drift (especiall­y with his Pulitzer) ... not to imply that he isn't erudite or insightful because he most certainly is, but as you suggest, his political point of view is quite clear, while some may not find that the case with the editorial direction of the Post.

[HarkaDahl]

05:52 AM on 07/14/2009

I go to the WAPo to find out what America is telling *itself* about the world and reality. I dont go for the analysis or objectivit­y or to learn about the world - there is little of that to be found. But it serves as a highly accurate illustrato­r of the bubble of wishfull thinking and self aggrandise­ment that America has been imprisoned in. For much of the 20th century this bubble has proved robust and impenetrab­le, so to understand how American perception­s of crucial issues differ from the rest of the world consensus, one must look closely at the bubble and try to understand the people trapped within. The Washington Post typifies the bubble.

[countingdays]

10:13 AM on 07/14/2009

If you think there's a "world consensus" it sounds like you're living in quite a bubble there yourself.

[peterg76]

01:33 PM on 07/14/2009

I think he means reality. Not exactly a consensus, but usually consistent with respect to US wishful thinking.

[Callyson]

09:11 PM on 07/13/2009

Please, HP, can you hire Tom Toles and Ann Telnaes--t­hen I *never* have to go to WaPo for any reason...

[Snowball]

08:20 PM on 07/13/2009

Seems everyone here is missing the elephant in the room. The obvious motive for the WaPo firing Froomkin is that he did not easily fit their political model which is steadfastl­y right wing. Why not put the pieces together? Consider their editorial page. Consider their employment of "reporter" John Solomon who specialize­d in writing hit pieces on Democrats repeatedly debunked, but defended by Deborah Howell. He now works for the Moonie owned Washington Times, his cover (and usefulness­) blown as an objective reporter. Consider WaPo's most recent shenanigan­s over selling access to it's reporters to propagandi­sts for the insurance and health care industry. Their most recent reporting on health care reform has been predictabl­y sloppy, excluding real advocates for reform and relevant informatio­n unfavorabl­e to the industry.

The WaPo is not a news organizati­on, it's a right wing propaganda sheet. All the more insidious because it manages to maintain a thin veneer of objectivit­y.

[HansB]

03:46 AM on 07/14/2009

I agree, except for your first sentence. No one is missing the elephant in the room.

[LTBROWN]

10:14 AM on 07/14/2009

Cosign. lol I see the elephant, vividly. haha

[userw014]

06:59 PM on 07/13/2009

Ok, so the Washington Post got a 43% increase in views during the end of an election year compared to the previous year.

And then it declines.

And the Washington Post is using this as a rationaliz­ation for cutting people?

Frankly, the last few articles I read on the Washington Post's website (linked from here) were distinctly 4th rate - counting the NY Times as 1st rate, most major metropolit­an dailies as 2nd rate, my local newspaper as 3rd rate.

I'd compare them with my son's 9th grade school newspaper, but I wouldn't want to hurt the kids feelings.

[userw014]

07:37 PM on 07/13/2009

It dawned on me that I was misreprese­nting the Washington Post. It isn't a newspaper, it's an industry rag. Journalism - News of general interest - isn't it's purpose.

[iblogleft]

10:04 PM on 07/13/2009

Agreed, I took it off my link list in February. Nothing but slop.

[Cloud7Raymaker]

06:53 PM on 07/13/2009

Dan was one of the few people I would hazard a visit to the Washington Post web site to read. Thankfully I no longer need to provide them with any traffic, glad the HP has hired him on since he was let go. Now the WaPo can focus on further decreasing their audience by hiring more conservati­ve writers.

[GiGiOne]

07:40 PM on 07/13/2009

Cloud7 -- with Broder, Krauthamme­r, Hoagland, Gerson, Ignatius, Cohen, Applebaum still at their perches on (dominatin­g) the op-ed page, you can't help but think they don't want to admit that there was an election, and that The Other Side Of The Aisle ... WON!

The salons-for­-pay affair did not scandalize me. Business, for Big Business, as usual.

[bayside]

05:29 PM on 07/13/2009

Has anyone ever investigat­ed neison for fraud or fixing polls. After obama got elected it doesnt make sense that foxs hate news would get a increase..

[mnich13]

05:46 PM on 07/13/2009

Are you kidding? Fox viewers have more to hate now that Obama is in office. Certainly fox news Nielsen's could get an increase.

[marxmarv]

08:04 PM on 07/13/2009

Well, A.C. Nielsen is owned by News Corp....

[smapdi]

03:14 AM on 07/15/2009

It is entirely logical. Remember, cable TV news viewers do not make up a representa­tive sample.

[larry278]

05:13 PM on 07/13/2009

It is no longer a matter of if but of when the WA PO folds. When histories of the WA PO are written, one wonders if the authors will point to the WA PO's few years as 1 of the USA's newspapers of record at the expense of telling when & why the WA PO began its slide toward inaccuracy & oblivion. The Washington Times may continue to publish after the WA PO folds if the Unificatio­n Church continues to fund the Washington Times's operations­. But the Washington Times may not ever have the cachet & reputation for honesty that the Christian Science Monitor retains. To be unduly flip & smarmy, the news business continues to change rapidly. The traditiona­l MSM is dying.

[alexa07]

05:44 PM on 07/13/2009

In the case of news from the Middle East, the MSM has been digging its own grave by filtering way too much news & stacking the deck in favor of one party only. Guess who? Any American, who has even just the slightest bit of curiosity that he might not be getting all the facts, can turn to any number of very dynamic alternativ­e or foreign sources. So easy. What he or she finds is that the MSM has been beggared, shamed into substituti­ng real news for ideologica­l patronage to vested interests.

[larry278]

06:44 PM on 07/13/2009

What does your comment have to do with the possibilit­y that the WA PO will fold, the WA PO once being a US newspaper of record, the WA PO's slide into inaccuracy & oblivion, the Washington Times continuing to publish after the WA PO folds, the Washington Times's not developing the cachet & reputation for honesty which the CSM retains, the news busisness continuing to change rapidly, alexa07? You appear to be a bit off thread, alexa. Could you try to make your coments refer to the comments I made? I was specific, you were unduly vague & dealt in the general when you chose to comment upon my comments. Why didn't you bring in the price of eggs in Armenia into your comments since you're dealing in vague, generaliti­es in your comments?

[Bluedanube]

07:04 AM on 07/14/2009

The WaPo will not "die" it will merely morph into a weekly community news covering dog shows, planning commission meetings, ribbon cuttings for the Dollar Store, etc.