Bravo! American Prospect magazine: the Washington Post's lying, slanted coverage worth BILLIONS $$ to Republican-corporate propaganda machine...
BRAVO! for Greg Sargent of the American Prospect magazine, for his article that CONFRONTS and demolishes the MYTH that the Washington Post is "a liberal" news organization.
While the Post may be *culturally* liberal on issues of living and style in daily life (e.g. reporting on arts, theater, movies, etc. which may have provocative, social-boundaries stretching themes), this is more a function of big-city tolerance than editorial outlook or professional agenda. That is, mores and attitudes in big cities are often more permissive than those found in small towns and rural communities, if only because a more hectic pace of life restricts the ability to supervise conduct, and increases the opportunities for socializing. (see "Sex in the City" and other glamorous media/arts portrayals of fast-paced city social living.)
But on issues of power, politics, business, and especially WAR, the Washington Post is FAR from a "liberal" leaning organization.
Here we have neither the space nor the time to detail the serial frauds and atrocious reporting coming from the editors, publisher, and writers of the Post over the past dozen years, but fortunately Greg Sargent does an expert job in a short but powerful article, exposing the Washington Post's COMPLICITY with the Republican SMEAR, FEAR, BULLY, DISTRACTION, DISTORTION, DISENFRANCHISEMENT, and WAR agenda.
Simply put, the Washington Post's editors had THE POWER to amplify minor or even trivial issues in the Clinton administration into "SCANDALS," while they now take MAJOR SCANDALS of the Bush White House, Republican congress, and Republican-dominated courts, and BURY those scandals deep in the back-pages of the paper, WHERE THEY KNOW DAMN WELL that the vast majority of Americans WILL NOT READ or even hear of them.
In short, the Republican Party is like a pig in slop, WALLOWING in their ability to DOMINATE THE NEWS CYCLE with misleading, diversionary, and even entirely FAKE "news' articles attacking Democrats and the opposition, KNOWING that the Washington Post will BE COMPLICIT in those "SMEAR and FEAR" attacks.
As proof we need only mention FIVE words: "Lincoln Bedroom" and "White House trashing." In the former (LONG before anyone ever heard of Monica Lewinsky), the WASHINGTON POST *JOINED* Republican party senators and congressmen in MAKING AN ISSUE of President and Mrs. Clinton's overnight guests. This is SMALL folly indeed compared to President George W. Bush's REHABILITATION of CONVICTED FELONS to positions of HIGH RANK in the US government, or compared to the ceaseless and endless use of SECRECY and war-on-terror to shield the administration from further scrutiny on truly important issues such as torture, lies-to-war, crony-CORRUPTION in war contracts and FEMA disaster contracts, etc., etc., etc., ad naseum.
Worse, in the case of the "White House Trashing" "scandal" whereby the incoming Bush administration SMEARED the outgoing Clinton-Gore staffers as "trashing" the White House offices WITHOUT ONE PHOTO OF EVIDENCE, the cowardly editors of the Post JOINED IN the Republican LYNCH-MOB SMEARING of Democrats, WITHOUT ONE SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH of evidence!
This was an APPALLING dereliction of journalistic duty and reprehensible moral conduct that we hope to document in full at a future date; but what is important is that the Washington Post JOINING IN the Republican smear-mongering JIHAD against outgoing Democrats CONTRIBUTED to the Republican election nomination and confirmation process, and 'wins' for control of the US Senate as well, and thereby ONE PARTY RULE over the ENTIRE US government.
In short, the Washington Post's MISLEADING, DISTORTING, and often even ENTIRELY MANUFACTURED "reporting" has given the bush-cheney White House, and the Republican Party, MONOPOLY CONTROL over the ENTIRE US government BUDGET - BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars of federal spending and taxation powers.
The cowardly, lying editors of the POST put "LINCOLN BEDROOM SCANDAL!" on the FRONT PAGE, and then, a few years later, BURY the true story of Karl Rove's role in OUTING an ENTIRE CIA UNDERCOVER OPERATION wa-ay deep in the back pages of their paper.
The cowardly editors of the Washington Post HELP George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice CONFLATE "IRAQ!" and "9-11!" on the FRONT PAGES, then BURY the story of America's new stalinesque TORTURE gulag deep in their paper, and/or join in the Stalinesque KANGAROO COURT coverage of a few sacrificial victims - low ranking noncoms and privates - to take the blame for Secretary of War Rumsfeld's murderous torture program.
And, last but not least, the cowardly, lying editors of the WASHINGTON POST **BURY** the story of serial, chronic Republican VOTE FRAUD, because they are corrupt and complicit.
The crimes of the Washington Post in the past dozen years can barely be documented in a well-researched book (although Conason and Lyons' "The Hunting of the President" is a good foundation to the story of serial Post mis-reporting), but this fine article demonstrates how the Post WHITEWASHES Bush-GOP propaganda-meister Karl Rove's role in undermining the US "war on terror" - something that the Post would happily trumpet "TREASON!" were Mr. Rove to allege a similar scandal against a Democrat White House official.
WASHINGTON POST EDITORS HELP KARL ROVE BURNISH HIS REPUTATION.
Greg Sargent
The American Prospect magazine online
June 17, 2006
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/06/post_127.html
The political media is utterly incapable of acknowledging its own role in shaping voter perceptions of our political figures. This blind spot borders on pathological.
Case in point: In today's Washington Post, there's a front page story about Karl Rove and the coming 2006 elections. The story says:
White House political strategist Karl Rove emerges from the CIA leak case with his reputation scuffed, his power slightly diminished...
Most Republicans and Democrats interviewed for this article said Rove's White House stature has been diminished only slightly, and perhaps only temporarily, by Bush's political problems and the leak probe. (Emphasis added.)
What do you suppose is the reason Rove's rep is only "scuffed" and "only slightly" diminished? Here's a thought: Maybe it has a little something to do with the editorial choices that are made day in and day out by editors at the Post and other news orgs. Incredibly, this Post story on Rove's post-Plame rep doesn't contain a single word about the very Plame-related things that should have damaged his reputation: The fact that he played a role in outing her and the fact that the White House repeatedly lied about it. That's a glaring omission. You'd think Post editors might have seen fit to include such crucial context.
Now go back to the story that was done by the Post a couple of days ago on the lingering questions about Rove's role in the Plame case. The piece was buried on page A4, ran under the headline "Bush Reaffirms His Confidence in Rove," and described those still raising questions about him as "partisans."
So the stories about Rove being cleared and about how his rep has barely been touched run on A1. The story reminding readers about the lingering questions are buried. With editors at the Post and other big news orgs making constant choices like this, Is it any wonder that his reputation is "only slightly" diminished?
--Greg Sargent
While the Post may be *culturally* liberal on issues of living and style in daily life (e.g. reporting on arts, theater, movies, etc. which may have provocative, social-boundaries stretching themes), this is more a function of big-city tolerance than editorial outlook or professional agenda. That is, mores and attitudes in big cities are often more permissive than those found in small towns and rural communities, if only because a more hectic pace of life restricts the ability to supervise conduct, and increases the opportunities for socializing. (see "Sex in the City" and other glamorous media/arts portrayals of fast-paced city social living.)
But on issues of power, politics, business, and especially WAR, the Washington Post is FAR from a "liberal" leaning organization.
Here we have neither the space nor the time to detail the serial frauds and atrocious reporting coming from the editors, publisher, and writers of the Post over the past dozen years, but fortunately Greg Sargent does an expert job in a short but powerful article, exposing the Washington Post's COMPLICITY with the Republican SMEAR, FEAR, BULLY, DISTRACTION, DISTORTION, DISENFRANCHISEMENT, and WAR agenda.
Simply put, the Washington Post's editors had THE POWER to amplify minor or even trivial issues in the Clinton administration into "SCANDALS," while they now take MAJOR SCANDALS of the Bush White House, Republican congress, and Republican-dominated courts, and BURY those scandals deep in the back-pages of the paper, WHERE THEY KNOW DAMN WELL that the vast majority of Americans WILL NOT READ or even hear of them.
In short, the Republican Party is like a pig in slop, WALLOWING in their ability to DOMINATE THE NEWS CYCLE with misleading, diversionary, and even entirely FAKE "news' articles attacking Democrats and the opposition, KNOWING that the Washington Post will BE COMPLICIT in those "SMEAR and FEAR" attacks.
As proof we need only mention FIVE words: "Lincoln Bedroom" and "White House trashing." In the former (LONG before anyone ever heard of Monica Lewinsky), the WASHINGTON POST *JOINED* Republican party senators and congressmen in MAKING AN ISSUE of President and Mrs. Clinton's overnight guests. This is SMALL folly indeed compared to President George W. Bush's REHABILITATION of CONVICTED FELONS to positions of HIGH RANK in the US government, or compared to the ceaseless and endless use of SECRECY and war-on-terror to shield the administration from further scrutiny on truly important issues such as torture, lies-to-war, crony-CORRUPTION in war contracts and FEMA disaster contracts, etc., etc., etc., ad naseum.
Worse, in the case of the "White House Trashing" "scandal" whereby the incoming Bush administration SMEARED the outgoing Clinton-Gore staffers as "trashing" the White House offices WITHOUT ONE PHOTO OF EVIDENCE, the cowardly editors of the Post JOINED IN the Republican LYNCH-MOB SMEARING of Democrats, WITHOUT ONE SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH of evidence!
This was an APPALLING dereliction of journalistic duty and reprehensible moral conduct that we hope to document in full at a future date; but what is important is that the Washington Post JOINING IN the Republican smear-mongering JIHAD against outgoing Democrats CONTRIBUTED to the Republican election nomination and confirmation process, and 'wins' for control of the US Senate as well, and thereby ONE PARTY RULE over the ENTIRE US government.
In short, the Washington Post's MISLEADING, DISTORTING, and often even ENTIRELY MANUFACTURED "reporting" has given the bush-cheney White House, and the Republican Party, MONOPOLY CONTROL over the ENTIRE US government BUDGET - BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars of federal spending and taxation powers.
The cowardly, lying editors of the POST put "LINCOLN BEDROOM SCANDAL!" on the FRONT PAGE, and then, a few years later, BURY the true story of Karl Rove's role in OUTING an ENTIRE CIA UNDERCOVER OPERATION wa-ay deep in the back pages of their paper.
The cowardly editors of the Washington Post HELP George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice CONFLATE "IRAQ!" and "9-11!" on the FRONT PAGES, then BURY the story of America's new stalinesque TORTURE gulag deep in their paper, and/or join in the Stalinesque KANGAROO COURT coverage of a few sacrificial victims - low ranking noncoms and privates - to take the blame for Secretary of War Rumsfeld's murderous torture program.
And, last but not least, the cowardly, lying editors of the WASHINGTON POST **BURY** the story of serial, chronic Republican VOTE FRAUD, because they are corrupt and complicit.
The crimes of the Washington Post in the past dozen years can barely be documented in a well-researched book (although Conason and Lyons' "The Hunting of the President" is a good foundation to the story of serial Post mis-reporting), but this fine article demonstrates how the Post WHITEWASHES Bush-GOP propaganda-meister Karl Rove's role in undermining the US "war on terror" - something that the Post would happily trumpet "TREASON!" were Mr. Rove to allege a similar scandal against a Democrat White House official.
WASHINGTON POST EDITORS HELP KARL ROVE BURNISH HIS REPUTATION.
Greg Sargent
The American Prospect magazine online
June 17, 2006
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/06/post_127.html
The political media is utterly incapable of acknowledging its own role in shaping voter perceptions of our political figures. This blind spot borders on pathological.
Case in point: In today's Washington Post, there's a front page story about Karl Rove and the coming 2006 elections. The story says:
White House political strategist Karl Rove emerges from the CIA leak case with his reputation scuffed, his power slightly diminished...
Most Republicans and Democrats interviewed for this article said Rove's White House stature has been diminished only slightly, and perhaps only temporarily, by Bush's political problems and the leak probe. (Emphasis added.)
What do you suppose is the reason Rove's rep is only "scuffed" and "only slightly" diminished? Here's a thought: Maybe it has a little something to do with the editorial choices that are made day in and day out by editors at the Post and other news orgs. Incredibly, this Post story on Rove's post-Plame rep doesn't contain a single word about the very Plame-related things that should have damaged his reputation: The fact that he played a role in outing her and the fact that the White House repeatedly lied about it. That's a glaring omission. You'd think Post editors might have seen fit to include such crucial context.
Now go back to the story that was done by the Post a couple of days ago on the lingering questions about Rove's role in the Plame case. The piece was buried on page A4, ran under the headline "Bush Reaffirms His Confidence in Rove," and described those still raising questions about him as "partisans."
So the stories about Rove being cleared and about how his rep has barely been touched run on A1. The story reminding readers about the lingering questions are buried. With editors at the Post and other big news orgs making constant choices like this, Is it any wonder that his reputation is "only slightly" diminished?
--Greg Sargent
posted by verifi at 7:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home