Washington Post

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
A once great paper, now a liberal fake news rag that looks more like Bezos Blog than a Newspaper. Here a very small partial list of falsehoods, embarrassments, and mistakes.

Examples of bias

Whether you agree with the WaPo or not, if we start seeing a pattern of bias and errors, then they're not a fair and balanced media outlet. And if you don't see a pattern of bias and errors, then you're just uninformed on the topic. With WaPo there's not a lot of middle ground.

Obama visit: Staffers cheer

Staffers cheered when Obama visited. That's used to be considered undignified to show your fawning favoritism for a candidate. Show me articles about how they cheered or greeted any Republicans, ever. That hints strongly at unprofessional partisans. [1]

Trump, Russian Leaks story

  • The staffers also broke protocol and cheered when they broke a highly questionable (and later discredited) "Russia Leak" story to attack Trump [2].
  • The WaPo version of events are often contested by many significant people in the room (like National Security Advisor McMaster and SecState Tillerson). [3]
  • What the smartest minds in WaPo never disclosed to their readers is that the President has the ability to declassify whatever he wants on a whim, so if Trump did "leak", unlike SecState Clinton, Trump can't be held legally accountable if he did declassify something he shouldn't have.
  • Of course even if it was illegal (it isn't), Clinton and Comey set the precedent (that WaPo defended), that if there was no INTENT to do something bad, declassification is not a crime. So measured by the same standard, Trump is far less in the wrong than she was. But they didn't report that either.

Fake vs. Real News

Burying the lede is an old time propaganda trick. Having a healing that says one thing, then buried in the article is some plausible deniability that gives them legal coverage for the obviously fake headline. Especially for WaPo, HuffPo and Times readers that like to stop at the headline.

For example:

If I had trust in WaPo subscribers skepticism, it wouldn't be a problem. But that they have subscriptions still makes me wonder if they even can read the headlines without their lips moving. (Otherwise they would have cancelled long ago).

This series had gone on to opine that Kushner (thus Trump) was having 'inappropriate clandestine meetings with the Russians before inauguration, and it put the Russians aback'. Shocking stuff.

But then NYT and others mumble the rest of the details, buried in A-15 or something, that says 'he appears to have offered a channel on Islamic Terrorism (something completely appropriate to talk to the Russians about), that used Russian embassy's communication -- because in late December the Trump administration had figured out that the CIA/FBI were committing crimes by leaking information that endangered assets'. (That context is omitted to give their readers the worst impression as to what was going on).

Great insight on the problem (on the administrations part), and good effort at thinking outside the box, to try to work around it. Kudos. Sharing completely appropriate information through Russian channels, instead of American ones, because THEY didn't have the felonious leaking going on that we had. Explain where any of that was wrong?

The Russians weren't taken aback by the offer, but that solution would mean allowing Americans into secure communication rooms/facilities. (The communications wasn't the problem, just being in the room part). And it never went further than a high level mention as a potential way to get around a problem in the future (if leaks kept happening). No crime, no suggestion of a crime, and nothing was actually done that was wrong or hinted at it. Yawner turned into whiffs of a big scandal, for readers who didn't get the full story.

I listed to multiple NPR reports on 05/27 (well after enough details were out) that flat out lied (lies of omission and commission) about what was going on. "The Russians were taken back by the offer", not detailing what was offered, or why. And so on. They made it sound scary to their gullible listeners.

The same paper screamed about the non-leak of top-secret information a few weeks ago (about the Trump admin talking to the Russians about the one thing we agree on: the threat of Islamic Terrorism). WaPo's position was that Trump had leaked some big secret -- by ignoring that the President has the legal authority to declassify anything, thus he CAN'T break the law on national secrets. That big secret was that Islamic Terrorists might be planning to use laptops to make bombs for airplanes -- something the WaPo and other papers had printed multiple articles about weeks earlier. (Yeah, that's a secret). Or that maybe which city one of the many assets that got us that information was in.

So the paper that was mad about not enough security, is mad about the administration trying to get too much? Which is it, are you mad about leaks that endanger ours (or allies) assets, or that they the Trump admin tried to stop them? Pick a standard.

Trump and the Disabled Reporter

Tucker Slamming them for Hypocrisy

Video where he calls out WaPo for criticizing Trump administration over "Russia" ties, while they are running "native advertising", which is code for Russia writes and distributes their own propaganda pamphlets inside WaPo. This being done while WaPo media editor is slamming competitors (Mike Allen / Politico) for doing similar stuff. Then he goes on to demonstrate many mistakes the paper made and their own media reporter didn't cover.

Video he shreds a token Republican (RINO: Republican In Name Only) over her fake report that Trump won because of old White Males. The truth, if you look at the exit poll data, is that he won because Women and Minorities turned out for him more than Romney or McCaine. Then nails her on claims made about their motives was anti-immigrant, and not about dozens of other issues (like jobs, taxes, security and things that poll much higher than immigration).

Hallmark of Dishonesty

Headline: "The feel-good Hallmark Channel is booming in the age of Trump" Subtitle: "More and more americans are turning to the Hallmark Channel for relief from the daily news cycle" Quotes, "Hallmark is the complete opposite of the divisiveness that so many families felt during the election and President Trump's penchant for courting controversy"

Damn that Trump ruining everything, so in 2017 what are poor viewers to do but shelter themselves from his madness, as seen by a 9 percent increase this year in the "Age of Trump". And if you stopped reading and thinking there, you'd be a good progressive WaPo reader that think Trump is the great spoiler.

If you keep thinking, you might consider that the reason they're seeking escapism, isn't because of Trump, but because of the constant negativity and whining of the #nevertrump media, and trash stories like this in WaPo. Everything is still about them having a tantrum over Hillary losing.

Then if you did research, that wouldn't make you a WaPo fan. And you'd quickly discover that Hallmark had a 46 percent increase in 2016 over 2015 -- during the Obama era, or at least when you were being told regularly how Hillary was going to beat Trump. So more accurate headlines might be:

  • "Fear of Hillary Presidency Drives Huge Spike in Hallmark Ratings!"
  • "Since Hillary's loss, the rate of escapism to the Hallmark Channel is decreasing YoY".

But that would take informed and honest writers, with the intent of informing their audience, instead of regurgitating their hate and Trump bashing. And that was in a feel good fluff-piece. Their deep news is even more skewed.

Faking Voter ID / Voter Fraud issue

There's a ton of evidence of significant problems in America's elections. You can read about it here: VoterID and Voter Fraud or the specific evidence here: Examples of Voter Fraud. But the reason the public or at least the gullible left-leaning public (the WaPo base, and people who don't research) think otherwise, os mostly because a horrible disinformation campaign by a polemic liberal "researcher" at NYU: Justin Levitt, who did a "Study" that found only 31 convictions of voter fraud, thus he argues it doesn't exist. (While ignoring many hundreds of examples I detail in the articles above).

Which Newspaper published this FakeNews, and is linked to it as if that is a credible argument? Washington Post... of course. Given the choice between strong evidence or the DNC position (or the RNC position versus weak evidence), and WaPo will be on the side of the latter, every time.