Smoking Gun Headline Of The Month: The Washington Post

Smoking-GunThe headline, on a story appearing on page A4 of today’s Washington Post: “Obama’s Critics Have Not Visited The Border Recently.” (Note: the online version headline is a little different.)

How odd, and how revealing. Apparently White House and Democratic talking points will now be published in headline typeface by D.C.’s iconic, once trusted, newspaper. What?

Smoking gun evidence of the mainstream media’s persistent and incorrigible pro-liberal, pro-Democrat, pro-Obama bias is hardly rare; it appears daily, in small doses and large.  It appears in the naked advocacy for gun control, climate change policies, illegal immigration and the nanny state. Smoke issues from the slanted coverage of campaigns, epitomized by the fawning coverage of Barack Obama and the savaging of Sarah Palin in 2008, and Candy Crowley’s tossed lifeline to Obama when Mitt Romney correctly flagged his intentional deception regarding the fatal Benghazi attack during the final and perhaps decisive presidential debate.

The wisps are obvious in the news media’s determination to ignore or bury stories that suggest administration corruption or incompetence, like the I.R.S scandal, and its periodic partisan hit jobs on Republican leaders—the infamous New York Times story about “rumors” of Sen. McCain’s inappropriate relationship with an attractive female lobbyist; the Washington Post smear on Rick Perry based on his occasional use of a hunting lodge that had a racist name; the front page story about Mitt Romney’s bad behavior as a teenager. (Barack Obama’s youthful indiscretions as a pot head somehow went undiscovered until after he was elected.) Then there are the subtle, perhaps unconscious symptoms of bias, like the strange tendency to omit party affiliation when Democratic elected officials engage in corruption and criminal activity

Today’s headline, however, while hardly momentous, is a new low. It is intentionally deceitful (or, in the alternative, mind-blowingly stupid) to suggest any kind of equivalence between the President of the United States refusing to visit ground zero of his administration’s illegal immigration enforcement abdication fiasco, and the fact that his critics have not been there “recently.” Those critics have, correctly, insisted that the President needs to demonstrate his recognition of the seriousness of the crisis, that he understands its importance, and that he accepts responsibility for addressing it, because he is the nation’s elected leader, and that is what leaders do. Obama knows it: that’s why he joined Gov. Christie in New Jersey in the wake of Superstorm Sandy.

His lame excuse in this instance that visiting the Mexican border would be no more than a “photo op” (as he was photographed elsewhere playing pool and cutting in line at a barbecue joint) was an abdication of presidential leadership when such leadership is mandatory. Whether of not the critics go to the border is irrelevant. They are not the President. The visits, or absence of them, are not similar in significance, or comparable in any way. Yet the Washington Post is using its pages and headlines to imply otherwise, and to discredit legitimate criticism of the President’s handling of the child invasion by framing it as hypocritical.

There is no complimentary interpretation of this. The only options are…

1. The Post is taking talking points from Democratic operatives and intentionally promoting them, meaning that the paper is acting as a White House propaganda arm.

2. Confirmation bias is so strong on the Post staff that it no longer can distinguish between real news and partisan spin.

3. The Post staff itself is trying to bolster Obama by confusing its more gullible readers.

4. The staff really thinks this is significant, in which case it is too dumb to be trusted with reporting high school field hockey scores, much less anything more complicated.

My choices, in order of likelihood—2, 4, 1, and 3. I think all of them are very plausible explanations.

 

 

13 thoughts on “Smoking Gun Headline Of The Month: The Washington Post

  1. I think it’s just evidence of the increasing invulnerability, or perception of same, by the left. In the past they had to at least try to appear objective, now there’s no need to do so, since it’s so easy to ignore or simply discredit as being from a biased source.

      • Sorry, it’s a pretty depressing day with about five crises going and the president doing nada. I think he’s gone from arrogant, to incompetent, to outright desertion of his post. Anyone else think that between the border, Israel, Isis, the airline shoot down that killed 23 Americans, and, oh yes, those missing emails that spell out how the IRS was being used to squelch the First Amendment, that the President needs to get the proverbial thumb out and start acting presidential? If your answer is no or that this is no big deal, I don’t want to hear another word about how GWB didn’t move fast enough on 9/11, which you know is BS anyway, had he leaped up and rushed out you would be criticizing him for rushing into action without thinking or having all the facts. Yet your guy shoots pool and poses with babies while everything goes to hell, and it’s no big deal. Just further proof that this nation is at the maturity level of high school, where it’s not what’s being done that matters, but who’s doing it, and while ordinary students get detention and suspension, the football heroes and cheerleaders get away with murder.

        • Wow–that turned into a rant before I even noticed it!

          1. Yes, the Enablers and Bitter Enders are getting panicky, shrill and absurd. A good friend on Facebook actually wrote, “I see the President Bush’s Iraq War is going well, too!” It would be funny if it were not so sad and frightening. This is what Ethics Corrupters do. They rote brains, values, and consciences.

          2. He can’t act Presidential, because he doesn’t know how. I’m sure he would like to.

          3. The irony: he is overwhelmed by crises that have proliferated because of his inattention, warped priorities, poor judgment, terrible subordinates and incompetence, and is less able to deal with the crises for the same set of deficits. Its a downward spiral. As I predicted. I wish I had been wrong.

          4. The hardest thing is to say “The people I detest and don’t respect were right, and the people I admire and believe in betrayed my trust and let me down.” Still, I would expect more people to have the integrity to suck it up and say it.

  2. And yet there have been no front page headlines in the Washington Post about the many hard drive crashes and disappearing emails at the IRS, or about how Hamas hides its weapons among civilian populations, in mosques, hospitals, etc. so that there WILL be collateral damage, or about the culture of shenanigans at the VA, or about….etc etc etc.
    Guess none of them rise to a “Macaca” moment…which was garnered front page coverage for several days during the George Allen campaign.

    • Well, none of Allen’s critics had ever been recorded calling someone “macaca,” so there was nothing to report.

      The “macaca” gaffe was my favorite Pazuzu excuse moment of all time. The word is probably foreign slur, arguably not, but it was obviously not a compliment, and Allen’s explanation—that he didn’t know why he said it or what it meant—was worse than the incident, in my view. Slate had an uncharacteristically even-handed analysis here.

      • Aw c’mon.

        Obviously it was just a shortened nickname for Michael Dukakis.

        …though admittedly that does not disprove your “not a compliment” assertion.

        –Dwayne

  3. Is option 5: “The Washington Post knows its readership and is pandering to the people that buy it, in fact the readership believed that Alien Jesus was gay with Ninja Santa, they’d probably print a story on that.” an option?

  4. “Barack Obama’s youthful indiscretions as a pot head somehow went undiscovered until after he was elected.”

    Didn’t he admit to having used both marijuana AND cocaine in his book “Dreams of My Father” (published in 1995)? I realize additional details came out later, but this is still a far cry from the “I didn’t inhale” rhetoric Clinton employed.

    Am I missing something?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.