Ethics Observations On The Washington Post Herschel Walker Attack Piece

The Washington Post has published a full-on attack piece against Herschel Walker, the former college football star and pro player who has been endorsed by Donald Trump in his effort to become a Republican Senator in Georgia. Walker is running against Democrat Raphael Warnock, who probably only won his seat in the January 2021 special election because Trump wouldn’t shut up about how he really won the 2020 election, and then a mob of idiots triggered by those claims stormed the Capitol. The Post’s anti-Walker piece is unusually tough, but Walker is an unusually inviting target. I would be more charitable to the Post’s motives if I had ever seen the paper be similarly critical of a black Democrat.

There is a rebuttable presumption that the Post’s anti-Walker fervor is at least partially a product of Trump Derangement: if Trump has endorsed him, Walker must be…well, cue the Birds Lady:

However, as Ethics Alarms has already noted, Walker does show the signs of an untrustworthy candidate, Trump notwithstanding. Thus the Post’s examination of other disturbing aspects of his character, background and statements would be just good journalism—if it devoted similar efforts to Democrats and progressives. It doesn’t. The Post looked the other way when Warnock was running for the Senate and his wife made credible accusations of spousal abuse, for example. That doesn’t mean the the Post should ignore Walker’s unsavory side, but playing favorites is unethical journalism.

One of the Walker statements quoted by the Post is enough for me: I wouldn’t need more to decide to write in the Easter Bunny rather than vote for him. At a Sugar Hill, Georgia church Walker said in March, “At one time, science said man came from apes. Did it not? Well, this is what’s interesting, though. If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it.”

Yikes. I have thought about it, and anyone who would say or think something like that has the critical thinking skills of a sea sponge and is brick-ignorant to boot. That’s signature significance for a candidate who shouldn’t get into the Senate without a ticket. Everything else the Post reveals, including disturbing stories about Walker’s emotional stability, is piling on after that.

Additional Observations:

1. A hit piece of similar vociferousness against a dim bulb Democrat of color–say, Kamala Harris, would be immediately condemned as racist. The Post simply doesn’t dare to risk it. A Trump-endorsed Republican conservative, however, isn’t really black, according to President Biden.

2. That said, the article isn’t racist at all. Yet conservative blog Instapundit contributing blogger Stephen Green calls it “RACISM, STRAIGHT UP.” Tit for Tat, I guess. The Post quotes a progressive professor at Berkeley calling Walker “a useful fool.” The description seems fair.

3. The Post’s bias is still neon and throbbing. Reporter John Rosengren tries to impugn Walker by revealing that he is called the leaders of Black Lives Matter “trained Marxists” who don’t believe in American values, mocked the defund police movement as the brainchild of a drunk and testified at a congressional hearing in 2021 against reparations for slavery. Hmmmm. I don’t know how trained they are, but the BLM leaders are openly Marxist as well as scan artists and racist. The defund the police movment should be mocked, though I don’t know what the involvement of a drunk has to do with anything. The Dunkirk rescue was the brainchild of a drunk named Winston Churchill. And if Walker testified against reparations, he can’t be too big a fool.

4 thoughts on “Ethics Observations On The Washington Post Herschel Walker Attack Piece

  1. Patrice Cullors self describes as a trained Marxist.
    On the issue of human genomic lineage why do we begin with idea of that we evolved from apes when a bifurcation of the family order split between Hominids Australopithecus from whic Homo sapiens developed and Pongids such as chimpanzees and other great apes evolved. Somewhere before this split we had a large degree of diversity among the Hominoids. We say we evolved from the great apes but all modern primates originated from a far more primitive group of quadrupedal primates. We say we are related to the great apes simply because we share 98.4% of the hominoid genome. It seems to me that modern man as well as the great apes such as chimps gorillas and Orangutans evolved from something that is none of the above so we could just as easily state that pongids evolved from man but that would no be so just as saying man evolved from apes. The distribution of early hominids do not suggest migratory distributions which led to adaptive genetic response but rather each developed their unique characteristics due to interbreeding at the margins.
    Based on my understanding of Darwinian theory of natural selection, genetics, and general science the idea we developed from apes is dubious. It can be said that Homo sapiens developed concurrently but independently as did all other forms of primates.
    Further, shared genome simply indicates relative basic form and function which suggest common lineage. But, all mammals share significant amounts of the genome. Pigs for example share 98% while gorillas 98.4. The most human like apes Orangutans only share 96.9% and cats share an astounding 90%. Our closest relative is the Neanderthal at 99.7 and chimps at 98.8%.
    All life evolved from something else but one’s evolutionary lineage depends on how far back you want to go and the evolution of taxonomic definitions which until the 21st century narrowly defined hominids as man while hominoids which included hominids and pongids (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) both of whom developed independently from anthropoids and other early primates. We need to keep in mind that images on google which attempt to suggest ape like features on early man are artistic ideas based on skull shape. By including larger volumes of facial hair on these skull shapes we can create a false time lapse pictorial of human evolution. We can just as easily say man evolved from lemurs ( prosimians) as easily as say we evolved from apes; and both statements are equally misleading

  2. “If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it.” He’s telling us to think about it? Five minutes on the internet would have answered that question for him.

    I believe the standard rejoinder to this question, which also serves as an intuition pump to illustrate evolution for those ignorant of the theory, is as follows: “If the United States grew out of British colonies, why does Britain still exist?”

      • Yeah, there’s only a few basic concepts of biological evolution:
        1. Heredity
        2. Mutation
        3. Natural selection
        4. Speciation

        Back in college some friends and I successfully explained ring species to another friend who was a creationist and who was skeptical of the speciation part. The point wasn’t so much for him to believe evolution was true as it was to demonstrate that the theory was consistent and made sense as a possibility.

        I think most people get hung up on how bizarre and complex biochemistry is, and have a hard time seeing how mutation and natural selection could result in chemical systems that mesh together so tightly. Of course, it does take hundreds of millions of years.

        I’d be very interested to have a conversation with Flat-Earthers about gravity and the atmosphere (atmodisk?) to see what happens when someone probes the consistency of their assumptions about the laws of physics.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.