SMACKDOWN. It's nice to see the Washington Post's readers react with such warranted fury to the paper's proposal to heighten tensions with Iran. " We have seen this show; it 'bombed,'" writes one, "and it does not bear repeating. To its everlasting shame, The Post was in the forefront of the cheerleading that helped give us the Iraq disaster. Regarding Iran, you appear poised to reprise your disgraceful advocacy." The interesting question is whether this sentiment has teeth. When there were fewer alternatives and more comforting circulation trends, papers like the Post could sacrifice readers for influence, reasoning that they were better served by staying in the center of the Washington consensus than taking a stand against it. That calculation may no longer be so safe. Readers have easily accessible alternatives now, and if the Post's cheerleading for blind hawkery grows into a pattern rather than a mistake, the consequences in a marketplace with so many alternatives, particularly as the Left appears ascendant, may be dire. Washington is already served by a growing rightwing paper in The Washington Times. It's not a stretch to imagine a similar niche opening on the left... --Ezra Klein
