The Washington Post is glorifying the man who calls himself “Janet Mock” on the front of the Friday Style section, but it’s a bit puzzling. They noted the recent kerfuffle over Piers Morgan’s CNN show describing Mock as “a boy until 18" as “a ticking time bomb that later exploded on Twitter.”
But wait, Post reporter Dan Zak first wrote, “She had three goals when she was growing up as Charles Mock in Honolulu.” So she grew up as a girl named Charles, apparently. Zak celebrated this “trans woman.” Dan Zak – the smug snarkster who trashed Paul Ryan as a little boy – is now sincerely scolding the “wider world” as “always way behind on trans issues,” as if he were the most sensitive, clued-in reporter on the planet:
Liberals are going to be mad at Dan Zak today. The Washington Post Style section writer who nastily dismissed the Biden-Ryan debate last year as “a man debating a boy” sounded like he went head over heels for Megyn Kelly in a Thursday profile. The Post headline even oozed: “The Essential Megyn Kelly: Her new prime-time show is a swift hit. Buoyed by intelligence and intensity, is she poised to challenge O’Reilly?”
The Post had to pretend that this alleged competition was the controversy since she crushes Piers Morgan and Rachel Maddow in the ratings...combined. “Poor Piers,” she said as she eyed the numbers. Zak was comparing Kelly to classic movie stars:
The Washington Post and reporter Dan Zak returned to bowing before the radical-left “Prophets of Oak Ridge” as their trial began Tuesday. The protesters broke into a nuclear-weapons production facility last July and hammered a wall and vandalized it with human blood. The headline at the top of Wednesday’s Style section was “Protest and protocol vie in anti-nuclear activists’ Tenn. trial.”
Zak began by putting the leftists on the side of “morality and conscience” and the national-security apparatus on the side of “protocol and budgets.” That’s funny, we could have put our nation’s defenders on the side of “morality and conscience,” and these radicals on the side of “vandalism and political exhibitionism” (or just “breaking and entering”):
Washington Post writer Dan Zak penned a "TV Review" of the debates in the A section which bragged "only Vice President Biden acted as though he could sit at the desk in the Oval Office and have his feet touch the ground." In the paper, he began " A pro debated a novice," but on Twitter, Zak previewed he would write "A man debated a boy Thursday night." He also insulted Ryan on Twitter as a pervert/criminal on Law & Order SVU. (See below.)
Zak admired the "firm control" and needling "vigor" of ABC's Martha Raddatz as moderator, but admitted "Fairly or not, she reserved most of her skepticism for Ryan." Even liberals found it obvious:
On Monday morning, Washington Post gossips Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger hailed Michelle Obama the fashion plate with the headline "Fit For a Queen (Truly)." For a reception at Buckingham Palace for heads of state, Mrs. Obama wore a "very fancy" jacket priced at a "princely $6,800." Readers could exhale, the American now fits in.
The very same Washington Post greeted the GOP nominee's wife with a much different spin online, despite a lower price tag. The headline was “Ann Romney's $990 T-shirt is indicative of a tone-deaf campaign” and Suzi Parker began by asking “Does Ann Romney wear her $990 designer shirt while driving one of her two Cadillacs?” At least the Post alerted Washingtonians someone had critized Mrs. Obama for "not dressing up enough" in London:
On Thursday, The Washington Post’s Dan Zak championed the gay-boosting “Rainbow Oreo” – with Kraft on its Oreo Facebook page sounding the liberal note “Proudly support love!” Zak sold this as a great moment for gays, Big Business, and Obama: “Gays are just as susceptible to clever marketing as straights. At long last! Equality under commercialization....A cultural moment — galvanized politically by President Obama’s May endorsement of same-sex marriage — is being validated and exploited economically by big business over and over again."
Zak did not think of asking: If Kraft is such a courageous genius of corporate marketing, why haven’t they ever marketed their classic cookies to America’s Christian majority rather than a tiny gay minority?
The Washington Post Style page, as we at NewsBusters can attest, finds all things liberal or "progressive" stylish. Conservative political and social functions, not as much.
So it was a bit amusing this morning to read Dan Zak's decent coverage of "dueling happy hours on Capitol Hill," one a five-year-old happy hour series called First Friday, the other an upstart hosted by liberals called "First Thursday" -- couldn't they think up something a little more original?:
Washington Post reporter Dan Zak was assigned the story of the rapper Common’s performance at the White House on Wednesday night, and he not only buried the lead – he completely ignored it. I don’t mean that he failed to quote any of the controversial rap/poetry lyrics about “Burn a Bush” or hailing convicted cop-killers Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal. He did fail to do that.
No, the more interesting story is how Common’s performance apparently ended by kissing Obama’s ring, that “God is watching” and that through “One [Martin Luther] King’s dream, he was able to Barack us.” Here’s how the poem unfolded:
But as one reads Zak's article, it becomes clear the nascent "Coffee Party" movement is a decaf brew of mostly liberals whining about how the rabble are roused by the Tea Parties while they, the sophisticates "have real political dialogue with substance and compassion":
Furious at the tempest over the Tea Party -- the scattershot citizen uprising against big government and wild spending -- Annabel Park did what any American does when she feels her voice has been drowned out: She squeezed her anger into a Facebook status update.
let's start a coffee party . . . smoothie party. red bull party. anything but tea. geez. ooh how about cappuccino party? that would really piss 'em off bec it sounds elitist . . . let's get together and drink cappuccino and have real political dialogue with substance and compassion.
On the last day of 2009, The Washington Post revisited the decade from its own narrow liberal persective. Style section writer Dan Zak found "we cheered the inauguration of a black man" and suggested the "we" was appropriate because 93 percent of D.C. voters cast a ballot for Obama. That’s probably a lower percentage than the Washington Post staff. Zak offered Time magazine’s decade-from-Hell mantra as the declaration of Everyone:
Everyone says this decade was the decade from hell, the lost decade [read: Bush], but also the decade of tantalizing evolution [read: Obama]. The capital was the crucible for this paradox. Living the Aughts in the District was like magic realism, like heightened reality, a fever dream the rest of the world was having.
The plane that plowed into the Pentagon carried some of the area's brightest and incinerated some of its bravest, sending our neighbors into battle. In this decade, we built a grand memorial to the Greatest Generation but didn't properly care for the current generation at Walter Reed. We cheered the inauguration of a black man as leader of the free world, even as the capital's HIV rates hovered higher than West Africa's.
After a somber paragraph or two on 9/11 and the Beltway Snipers, there was that dark gash on the globe known as Bush’s war to liberate Iraq:
It all seemed to build toward March 2003, when George W. Bush announced Operation Iraqi Freedom from the Oval Office. His tie was red. Outside the draperied windows, twilight had given way to darkness. Students stopped at TVs in college dorms, nodded or cursed or zoned out, then moved on to their night classes in lieu of joining scattershot protests ("Hey hey, ho ho, we won't kill for Texaco!").
For those of us not connected to the military, what else was there to do those following years except grow numb to the procession of spouses who clutched folded American flags at the edges of graves, to the stream of young soldiers with lost limbs and lost minds?
The city was the engine of war, the repository for its consequences. It bore the symbolic blame for much of the decade's catastrophes (near and far) because whom do we blame if not the government? For the first half of the decade, the city felt industrial, desperate, cold, as clenched as a widow's fist.
That’s a perfect Post summary. There is no noble cause, no battlefield bravery, no tyrant deposed, no democracy born. There is only insanity and death. Earth to the Post: not "Everyone" felt that way. Not "everyone" warmed to the sight and sound of Socialist Workers claiming the war was for Texaco or Halliburton.
Then Zak recalled the supposedly universal joy at the election of Barack Obama:
The scene at 14th and U streets was sensational by anyone's measure. To that point, the decade's mass gatherings had been bilious protests or solemn candlelight vigils for murder victims in the Trinidad neighborhood and for teenage crash victims in the suburbs. If your experience with the District was limited to the Aughts -- if, in fact, 9/11 was your 18th birthday and the start of your first semester of college -- you'd never seen anything like this.
The city exhaled. There was joy in the streets at the epicenter of the 1968 race riots. Something felt completed, tied up in a bow, the polar opposite of the loneliness along Pennsylvania Avenue on 9/11. After all, in this hopelessly Democratic city, 93 percent of voters got their way.
The mobs went to the White House and shouted at it: "Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye." Two months later they shuffled their way onto the Mall for the inauguration. Young boys climbed bare trees to get a look. The mood was jubilant. The air was frigid, like someone had lifted the bell jar off the city.
The economy continued to crumble, and even Washington wasn't immune (scholarships started drying up in this college town, Virginia's unemployment program borrowed $89 million from the federal government). The squabble over health-care legislation dampened Democrats' expectation of change. Hope has only so much patience.
There is no "hope" that The Washington Post would represent itself as something other than the official newspaper of inside-the-Beltway liberalism. They rejoice as the city suddenly escapes a stale trap of Bushism and stand side by side with the "mobs" jeering at Bush to evacuate. But they would present themselves as a force for civility and dignity and nonpartisan independence in national discourse.
Typing in the words "tea party" into a Nexis search of The Washington Post finds nothing about protesters against Obama economic policies in the last six weeks – no coverage of the February 27 rally across from the White House, and no coverage of any other Tea Party across America.
But Tuesday’s Washington Post showed you didn’t need large numbers of protesters to get a prominent feature story. The front of the Style section carried a story (complete with three photos) of a protest of "about 50 people" in front of the White House against....male circumcision. Reporter Dan Zak found some strange people there:
Spend some time with intactivists and you will hear how circumcision is responsible for, among other things, the oppression of women, sexual disharmony, deforestation, militarization, the rise and fall of empires and the invasion of foreign lands for oil.
So why are these protesters more newsworthy than conservatives and libertarians against paying the mortgages of the overextended?
Post editors would say these protests are funnier, or more ribald. Zak began: