Like the New York Times, the Washington Post engages in fake news and unethical journalism virtually every day. For a critic to strain to find example of the either paper exhibiting its bias is not only unethical, its unnecessary. Be patient: the Post and Times will be lying if you just wait a minute.
The link bait I fell for was “The Washington Post Can’t and Won’t Stop Lying” from something called Front Page Mag. The Post headline the writer felt was an example of the paper “[churning] out social justice clickbait that it knows to be false” was…
A Nevada library wanted to back Black Lives Matter. The sheriff said he wouldn’t respond to 911 calls there.
Quoth Front Page: “As anyone who can read, a category that probably includes even Washington Post hacks, can see that’s not what Sheriff Coverley said. Sheriff Coverley did not say that he wouldn’t respond to 911 calls, but suggested that the library should live up to its principles by not calling 911.”
I can read, and I rate the Post’s analysis far more accurate than that spin. Who wrote this, Bill Clinton? Here’s what the sheriff communicated to the Douglas County Public Library Board of Trustees:
“Due to your support of Black Lives Matter and the obvious lack of support or trust with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, please do not feel the need to call 911 for help. I wish you good luck with disturbances and lewd behavior, since those are just some of the recent calls my office has assisted you with in the past.”
” I wish you luck” with the problems you have called 911 regarding in the past implies that such calls will not be responded to now. I would take it that way, and that’s how the sheriff wanted it to be taken. Maybe it was a bluff, and maybe he was issuing a threat (“Nice little library you got there! Too bad if something were to happen to it, since you obviously don’t want help from us racists…”), but the message definitely would cause a reasonable recipient to think, “Wait, is he saying we shouldn’t bother calling for police help as long as we support Black Lives Matter?”
The sheriff should be fired for that message.
If a girl friend told me “don’t feel the need to call me again,” I’d interpret that as meaning, “Because if you do, I’m hanging up, Loser.” If a local bank told me, “Good luck finding help when you need a loan,” I would assume that’s a kiss off.
Believe me, I’m sympathetic with the sheriff’s feelings, if not his unprofessional expression of them. Our groveling institutions foolishly think that the phrase “Black Lives Matter” is benign, even though it has been adopted by a racist, Marxist, dishonest and police-demonizing organization. Endorsements like the library’s are based on laziness, cowardice and ignorance, and the police are correct to protest, the right way. Naming their divisive and unethical organization after an ethical-sounding slogan is a clever trick, but it’s not that hard to figure out what’s going on. If the KKK were to rebrand itself ” Kindness to Kids and Kittens,” would people endorse the KKK because really, who doesn’t believe in kindness too kids and kittens? The name would be a cover for racists, just as Black Lives Matter is.
Those who respond to criticism of their alliance with Black Lives Matter by protesting, “How can anyone object to saying black lives matter?” are either lying about their motives, irresponsibly ignorant, so craven that they should be required to wear a chicken suit in public.
None of which justifies the sheriff’s message, which the Washington Post came close enough to representing fairly in its headline. If only it came that close to the truth in all its reporting.