There can be no doubt : the main-stream media is so ideologically biased that it can’t recognize obvious bias anymore, even when it undermines its credibility. That is the only conclusion one can reach from the amazing story of David Weigel, who was awarded a Post website blog to write about “inside the conservative movement.” David Weigel, as his recently leaked e-mails to a mailing list shows, detests conservatives, conservatives views, positions, commentators and leaders. He does so not in a possibly manageable “there are evident problems with the extremists in this movement and some of its underlying philosophy” fashion, but it a “I hate these morons and wish they’d all die” way, which is exactly the sentiment many of his messages convey.
Giving someone like Weigel the role of reporting on conservatives is exactly as responsible and fair as letting Michelle Malkin cover the progressive movement, asking Senator Inhofe to cover climate change developments, asking Gloria Allred to keep us up-to-date on the life of Tiger Woods, or giving Helen Thomas the assignment of covering Israel. And yet that is exactly what the Washington Post did.
Oh, Weigel apologized once his comments were published, and he has since resigned, but how could he possibly accept that job in good faith? “I’ve always been of the belief that you could have opinions and could report anyway,” he told the Daily Caller. Sure you can…if your opinions are fair and moderate, if you have an open mind, and if you are capable of respecting those with whom you disagree. The leaked e-mails show that Weigel’s opinions and mindset embodied none of these qualities. The result? He defended Bob Etheridge’s assault on a young man who asked him a question on the street, because the student might have been pursuing a conservative agenda. That is what virulent bias can do.
Andrew Alexander, the Post’s ombudsman, on his blog, manages to demonstrate the Post’s astounding lack of self-awareness of its own biases even while criticizing the paper for hiring Weigel for a job he was obviously (well. it should have been obvious, except that those who hired him are probably as biased as he is)unable to do fairly or well. He writes, ” Given the disdainful comments in his e-mails, there is the separate question of whether he was miscast from the outset when he was hired earlier this year.” Question? QUESTION??? What’s the question? The Post hired a far-left hater of all that is conservative to report on conservatives. Alexander thinks there’s a question whether this is the fair and objective thing to do, and he’s supposed to be the Post’s ethics watchdog.
Alexander concludes with this damning jaw-dropper:
“In the meantime, Post managers would be wise to remind all staffers that personal opinions, expressed privately on listservs or through social media, can prove damaging if made public.”
That’s right. That’s the conclusion of the Washington Post ombudsman. If you are biased, make sure nobody finds out about it.
That is the mainstream news media’s interpretation of “objectivity.”