Why I Hate “The Washington Post”

By | February 12, 2016

The short answer to the headline: because their (online) newspaper sucks. I’ll use a technical term and call it “dog shit.” You’ve all heard that in journalism schools right?

The Washington Post was once the paper that let Woodward and Bernstein take on President Nixon. They were the most credible source of news in the country by being the only media outlet that ever directly led to the resignation of a United States President. I’d recommend watching the great film “All the President’s Men” to see exactly how ignored the Watergate burglary was until they got ahold of it, use it as a comparison point for just how far the paper has fallen.

Now the paper that once took on powerful Republican establishment figures would be more likely to write editorials defending Nixon and wondering why those pesky journalists won’t leave him alone. They’ve gone from a sterling newspaper with a lionized reputation to a rightwing hit piece machine hellbent on breaking the record for “Hillary Sucks” articles written in a single day.

Last night, Hillary had her best debate performance ever. She managed to finally drive a wedge between Bernie’s lilly-white progressives and Obama’s base, and in her closing statement made the strongest case yet for why she should be president in a “non-single issue” country.

It hit all the points she’s been struggling to make in recent months: that Bernie is too myopically focused, that he isn’t nuanced enough to really even know where to begin taking on the problem, that her experience and broader range will actually do more to fix the issues he’s championing as his own, and that she is not just more aware but more interested in racial and sexual disparities than he is. [Bernie saying black people will be equal when they are economically equal misses the point that they can’t get hired, promoted, into the Ivy League, into the big rooms, etc. to begin with because of racial prejudice. And him saying he would be better for minorities than Obama was a staggering misstep.]

But you wouldn’t know any of that by looking at The Washington Post’s shameful coverage. Headline: “Is Clinton even salvageable as a nominee?” Yeah, considering they’re 1-to-1 in the states that have voted and she’s polling ahead of him in every state but Vermont, I’d say she is. Then there’s a headline wondering why Dems won’t do a debate on Faux News, while quoting Brett Baer asking questions to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz that focused solely on discrediting Hillary after last night’s debate. Gee, I wonder why the Democratic Party wouldn’t want to have a debate hosted that is singularly designed to make their front-runner look terrible?

The Post has done irreparable damage to their brand, and should now be looked at as no better than The Inquirer. And as a fan of what they once stood for, it brings me no joy to say that. The have become the messenger of a machine they used to take to task.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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