Washington Post film critic Ann Hornaday authored an op-ed on April 12 declaring herself a Christian. However, the journalist made sure to stress that she would keep her religion out of Post reviews. She also reiterated her dislike for movies such as The Passion, Son of God and Noah.
According to Hornaday, the reason for removing open expressions of faith from her work is "the journalistic habit of not allowing my personal biases to surface, thereby inappropriately using my work as a religious platform and alienating those readers who don’t share my faith or have no faith at all." She lectured, "Those individuals have every right to read a movie review or essay without feeling sermonized, excluded or disrespected." Yet Hornaday has repeatedly let her political biases slip through.
“Washington Gadfly” blogger Evan Gahr caught Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman in an ethical dance over accepting a “civil liberties” award from the ACLU at their “Bill of Rights Award Dinner.” Gellman recently shared the Pulitzer Prize with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras for revealing Edward Snowden's leaks about U.S. anti-terrorist surveillance programs. Four years ago, TIME sent Gellman on the road for six months to report a cover story on the "Secret World of Extreme Militias" a month before the midterm elections.
Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi wrote a big Style section front-pager for Monday on how NBC's Meet the Press, "Sunday's most venerable news show has stumbled in the ratings."
The shocking paragraph that will get discussed around Washington today is that NBC commissioned a psychological consultant to figure how who MTP host David Gregory is, and what makes him tick. Or maybe, why people just don't like him very much:
In his first epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul made it perfectly clear that a belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ as the sine qua non of Christianity. If Christ was not raised from the dead, that the whole of the Christian faith is an utter sham, the apostolic witness fraudulent, the basis of Christian hope nonexistent, and the poor saps who go on attempting to live a life guided by the teachings of Christ are "of all people most to be pitied."
But the editors of the Washington Post's On Faith section apparently didn't get that memo, choosing to run for their Holy Saturday edition a Religion News Service article which hyped the beliefs of liberal religious scholars like the former Episcopal Bishop of Newark, John Shelby Spong, who not only denies that Jesus was physically raised from the dead but that the Bible really, truly teaches the same if you just interpret it the way he prefers to.
On the Saturday, April 19, Disrupt, as MSNBC's Karen Finney hosted a discussion of ObamaCare noting that President Obama has started encouraging Democrats to brag about the program, guest Dana Milbank of the Washington Post blamed Republican governors for hurting Democratic Senators in red states as he charged that in some states "ObamaCare isn't going very well because of those Republican governors."
A bit later, Zerlina Maxwell of The Grio asserted that 10,000 people a year will die because of Republican governors who have refused to expand Medicare.
After Finney played a clip of President Obama boasting about ObamaCare, Milbank responded:
Washington Post culture-and-politics blogger Alyssa Rosenberg is crediting Fox News with a “stroke of evil genius” for creating a new show called “Outnumbered” with a panel of four women and one man.
“I thought it was smart when Fox News promoted Megyn Kelly, an anchor with the singular ability to generate juicy cable news moments that appeal to the left and the right, to an evening slot. Ratings-wise, that seems to have been a good call for the network.” Rosengberg added “And the show the network dreamed up to replace Kelly’s in daytime has a flair of evil genius.” It’s an audacious act of trolling:
On the Wednesday, April 16, PoliticsNation on MSNBC, far-left host Al Sharpton berated what he viewed as "extremism" and "intolerant radical views" of Republican candidates for U.S. Senate in Mississippi and North Carolina as he highlighted comments that he considered "offensive," "ugly," and "vile."
Guest Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post went so far as to hyperbolically suggest that the GOP is "going to cease to exist" unless Republican Party leaders who are "aghast at the far-right extremists" do not react against these candidates.
There's a gut-wrenching dilemma facing gay Democrats in the District of Columbia and the Washington Post was determined that we read about it, placing staff writer Mike DeBonis's story, "Catania perplexes gay D.C. Democrats"* on the front page of the April 16 paper.
You see, David Catania, an openly gay white man who is a registered independent, is facing off against Muriel Bowser -- a straight African-American woman -- this November in the mayoral contest in predominantly Democratic Washignton, D.C. This, has prompted some soul-searching among otherwise staunchly partisan gay Democrats, DeBonis noted, devoting 29 paragraphs to the existential crisis. Deep in the article, DeBonis noted how Catania's former party affiliation, a decade ago as a Republican, might be a deal-breaker for yellow-dog gay Democrats (emphasis mine):
On Tuesday the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit against the IRS for that agency’s “illegal stonewalling” of the RNC’s request of documents related to the targeting of conservative groups.
So far there hasn’t been one second of airtime on ABC, CBS, NBC’s Tuesday evening shows or Wednesday morning shows. The New York Times and Washington Post also have yet to devote even a sentence to RNC’s lawsuit in their print editions.
In a Tuesday story which appears to have been handed to it on a silver platter, and which the rest of the establishment press seems uninterested in spreading (given that searches at 11:45 p.m. Tuesday at the Associated Press and at Politico returned nothing relevant), the New York Times has reported that the Census Bureau "is changing its annual survey so thoroughly that it will be difficult to measure the effects of President Obama’s health care law in the next report, due this fall."
It took Times reporter Robert Pear 15 paragraphs to tell readers that measurement and reporting under the new survey design will be so supposedly difficult that "the agency was not planning to release coverage data from early this year in its next report." That statement indicates that the government will not disclose anything about how the rollout of Obamacare really affected the number of uninsured Americans — even under the new methodology — before this fall's elections. Everyone together now, say "How convenient."
On Friday, Erik Wemple -- a blogger for the Washington Post -- announced that the “renowned investigative reporter” Michael Isikoff was leaving the “Peacock Network” that day because “it was increasingly clear" that the news division “was moving in directions in which there were going to be fewer opportunities for my work,” Isikoff told the New York Times.
After 33 years, NBC investigative reporter Lisa Myers left the network in January. In a statement later on Friday, Richard Esposito -- the senior executive producer of the shrinking NBC News investigative unit -- praised Isikoff by asserting:
At the end of Maryland’s legislative session in Annapolis, The Washington Post and reporter Fredrick Kunkle slowly realized outnumbered Republicans are outraged with “a slew of what they call well-intentioned but annoying attempts to micromanage people’s lives with bans, prohibitions and regulations, these critics say the state’s latest attempt to boldly embrace the future felt more like the smothering clasp of Mary Poppins.”
“Where’s this going? Are we going to ban dark chocolate bars now?” wondered Jeff Zellmer, a lobbyist with the Maryland Retailers Association who testified against a bill that would have criminalized the sale of energy drinks to minors. “Criminalizing energy drinks! And down in Judiciary they’re [decriminalizing] pot ! What the hell is going on? Next you’re going to have to check IDs at Starbucks.”
On Thursday, Washington Post reporter Ed O’Keefe blogged: “An incredible thing happened this week: A bill written by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has passed Congress.” It was a bill designed to block entry into the country for Iran’s new ambassador to the United Nations, who aided the radical Iranians who held Americans hostage for 444 days in 1979 and 1980.
On Saturday, the Post put the controversy on page one and played “Hide the Ted.” There was no mention of Cruz anywhere in the 946-word article. The only proud politician quoted was liberal Chucky Schumer. Reporter Anne Gearan began:
Liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank did his best to spin the extramarital affair of Congressman Vance McAllister (R-La.) by declaring “Republicans make their ‘war on women’ worse.” In a piece published April 8, Milbank professed that the McAllister affair was “Not the way Republican leaders had planned to observe Equal Pay Day” before laying into the GOP’s supposed problems with female voters.
After spending three paragraphs detailing the affair itself, the Post columnist asserted that “Republicans aren’t responsible for McAllister any more than Democrats are to blame for Anthony Weiner’s weirdness. But for Republicans, who have a big disadvantage among unmarried women, this reinforces a perception.
The Sunday Washington Post Magazine has a new, larger design, which allows for a bigger picture of Obama favorite Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The first sign that Post writer Manuel Roig-Franzia’s going to play it soft: he never mentions that Power called Hillary Clinton a “monster” in 2008.
Or the first sign might be the goopy copy about how she is “one of her generation’s most dazzling diagnosticians” of government failings. (Here again, Manuel leaves out that she's attacking Clinton failings.) To be precise, our government’s failures includes a failure to pass woolly-headed treaties like a ban on land mines. Power is learning that doesn’t exactly work:
Friday’s Washington Post published an essay by its own arts writer Soraya Nadia McDonald hailing the new leftist documentary on Anita Hill. It doubles down on the alleged sainthood of Anita Hill and her still-unsubstantiated charges of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas. Nobody ever mentions that this paragon of taking sexual harassment seriously.... wrote in Bill Clinton’s defense in The New York Times during the Lewinsky scandal seven years after her 1991 testimony. She comically pretended not to know that Lewinsky came up in a sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones. It was in that sexual harassment case that Clinton lied under oath about having sex with Lewinsky.
Instead, McDonald openly channeled The Nation magazine and radical feminist blogs and boasts that there’s no way senators of both parties would ever dare to challenge Hill’s motives (or lack of proof) as they did in 1991:
Thursday’s Washington Post promoted the forthcoming HBO news-satire show starring “The Daily Show” correspondent John Oliver, run by a former head writer for “The Daily Show.” But reporter Paul Farhi passes along claims that it won’t be like “The Daily Show.” Right. By story's end, it's clear he doesn't believe that, either.
But in classic Comedy Central fashion Oliver’s team previewed their tilt by releasing two YouTube videos mocking the Republican National Committee’s “latest outreach ad to young voters.” It suggests that young Republicans wear stupid clothes (too-small leather jackets), ride tricycles, and engage in “non-vaginal intercourse with girls they met at Christian summer camp" (video below):
Matea Gold and Robert Barnes utterly failed this morning as ostensibly objective journalists. In their front-page stories covering yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Washington Post staffers front-loaded their stories with melodramatic political language suitable for a left-wing "campaign finance reform" group's press release rather than objective news copy.
The Washington Post published an online piece in its “The Fix” blog on Wednesday highlighting its own polling which found that veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars prefer President Bush to Barack Obama as commander and chief. According to a recent Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation poll, sixty-five percent of post-9/11 veterans found Bush to be a good commander in chief whereas just 42 percent said the same about President Obama.
The piece, written by Scott Clement of Capital Insight, also pointed out that Democrats are more than twice as likely to say Bush was a good commander in chief as Republicans are to say Obama is (46 percent vs. 17 percent). As of now, this piece only exists on the Washington Post website, but given that the findings are a product of the Post itself, one wonders if the Post will include the article in its print newspaper despite it showing bad news for President Obama. [EDITOR'S UPDATE: The poll did not appear in Thursday's newspaper. A 3,100-word front page story on vets used four questions from the poll, but the story never even had the name "Bush" in it.]
"When 99 percent of women used birth control in their lifetime and 60 percent use it for something other than family planning, it's outrageous and I think the Supreme Court will suggest that their case is ridiculous." - Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC's The Ed Show, March 25
Debbie Wasserman Schultz may have gotten two Pinocchios from Washington Post "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler Monday for that statement above, but she got off easy.
The ObamaCare health care exchange website that Maryland designed is such a monstrous failure that the state government is pulling its plug tomorrow and replacing it with a website which essentially mimics the architecture of the actually-functional Connecticut state exchange. In the process, Maryland taxpayers have seen $125.5 million of their hard-earned tax dollars flushed down the drain by 2016 president hopeful Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and his protege, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, whom O'Malley tapped as his ObamaCare point man, and who is pursuing the Democratic nomination for governor this June.
Antony Shugaar targeted Maryland's "sexist" state motto in a Sunday opinion piece for The Washington Post, which was took up the bulk of a full page of the Outlook section of the liberal paper's print edition that day (and teased above the fold of the section by trumpeting how "the state has glossed over its motto's sexism"). Shugaar led by favorably spotlighting Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Maryland roots, as he went after the state's "embarrassing" slogan.
The translator also took the state government to task for its apparently "willfully misleading" translation of the motto "Fatti maschii, parole femine," which is the only one that appears in Italian:
It’s the bland leading the bland as Obamacare enrollment (sort of) ends. The front page of Monday’s Washington Post carries the headline “New fronts in health battle: Challenges after sign-up milestone.” (Yawn.) The pull quote inside on A-2 is “The unresolved issues mean it is far too soon to know how President Obama’s signature domestic achievement will turn out.”
In that case, why use the word “achievement”? Did they describe the Iraq War as Bush's "signature achievement"? In doing so, the Post sounds just like Obama adviser David Plouffe, whom they quoted from ABC saying “The law’s working” and it’s a “seminal achievement.” The Post account left out Bill Kristol’s response on ABC that Democrats aren’t saying “the law’s working” on the campaign trail.
Dalton Conley is a professor at New York University and author of the book “Parentology: Everything You Wanted to Know About the Science of Raising Children but Were Too Exhausted to Ask.” With his son – Yo Jeremijenko-Conley, a high school student – he has written a piece for the Sunday Outlook section on punishing good parents if they’re rich.
Imagine it's March 2006, some eight months before the midterm elections in an unpopular President Bush's second term, and the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has this nasty habit of running afoul of the Federal Election Commission over pricey gifts for campaign donors. The media would most certainly have a field day with the revelations.
But alas, it's March 2014 and it's Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and President Obama's Senate majority on the line. Here's Rebecca Shabad of TheHill.com with details (emphasis mine):
Rather than dismissing his contrary views as sour grapes, the media simply ignore César Chávez’s opinions that stray from liberal orthodoxy.
Chávez was a 1960s and 70s union leader who promoted unionization and Californian farm workers’ strikes. The farm workers of the time were predominantly Latino. He is particularly famous for the Delano grape strike: a five-year strike and boycott against Californian grapes. Liberals seized on this boycott, as well as several high profile hunger strikes, to promote Chávez as a symbol of immigrant and Latino rights.