A detailed look at exactly How the Washington Post deceives

A detailed look at exactly How the Washington Post deceives

I was a reporter, editor, publisher and newspaper owner for most of my adult life; it was my vocation and also my passion. I lived by a set of ethical rules, as all journalists did in those days, that were very strict, and centered on three main areas.

The first area concerned the author’s voice, or opinion, or point of view so to speak – this POV was expected to be transparent in the writing or even actually avoided in the mind of the reporter if possible – in other words, the person reading the article should not be able to tell whether the reporter favors or objects to the law, bill, rally theme, interviewees, or their politics. Period, this was rule number one because when you violated it, and it slipped by and got printed — everybody in town could read the violation right in the newspaper and this was an embarrassment to the editors who lived and died by this code. As amazing as what I am about to assert — for observers of today’s media — even subtle transgressions of this line, were harshly punished 30 years ago.

Reporters were taught that inserting their voice, opinion or slant into a story — was a considered a no-no for the following reasons: (a) People (meaning readers) aren’t stupid, they see your bias and this undermines your credibility and therefore your persuasive ability with them, (b) our job specifically is to report both and/or all sides of an issue, not decide which side is right, (c) reporters don’t know which side is right, you only THINK you do, this is a phase, when you become an editor, you’ll realize how little reporters actually know (d) once you take a side, on any issue, people assume you have taken a side on other issues — even if it wasn’t evident in the writing in those other pieces — and again, your credibility with your readership, is damaged.

Today’s media as we will discuss below, while examining a recent Washington Post piece lede, follows NONE of these rules and in fact, seems to flaunt disobeying them. If I were in charge at the Washington Post, I would have to fire almost the entire newsroom.

The second area our ethical guidelines dealt with was attribution. Reporters had strict ethical guidelines covering all sides of this issue.

Conversations with an identified reporter were on the record unless otherwise specified in advance, and we didn’t allow our reporters, other than senior reporters — to go off the record with a source — without involving an editor.

These were not small issues back then because newspapers were held to a much stricter libel standard in court than todays MSM and alternative media sources are. A story with multiple un-identified sources (all the NYT and WaPo stories about Russia and Trump) was unheard of and there was NO way a story would have made it into a major newspaper with nothing but unidentified sources (again the NYT and WaPo Russia stories), because the newspaper itself would have been called into account by the other newspapers.

By these old standards, the fact these newspapers COLLABORATED with Comey and each other on these Russia stories would have been a scandal. They would have had to print a mea culpa story – explaining HOW they were manipulated, and more – the newspaper would have been expected to provide details of the due diligence effort the Editors did on the contaminated stories and sources which turned out to be either erroneous and/or CONFLICTED.

By todays standard, no one even bats an eye over these issues.

The WaPo and NYT news staff have violated so many journalistic cannons by the standards I respect, I could write book about just their violations in the past year. No only would no one read it unfortunately, half the people in the country right now, for some reason relating to mass hysteria, would be rooting for the WaPo politically, and therefore would not be offended by their trashing of these standards.

The other half KNOW they are being lied to, and don’t need to be reminded of it. They voted for Trump, they didn’t tell anyone and they don’t plan to broadcast it, but they plan to vote for him again. The media lies are a big reason why.

Trump was clear with the public about being deceived – and the public also senses these media giants are lying to them; which makes it IMPORTANT to these civil rights vigilantes – that they empower Trump, which they did.

The whole concept of defending the other person’s right to speak, assemble, vote, govern, and hold opinions which vary from the Liberal narrative, is unknown to this AntiFa sympathic demo, so much so, they couldn’t possibly grasp the distinction Trump was clearly making between people who have a legitimate right to protest, regardless of what they were protesting, and those who use violence, and/or non-legal means to force their opinions on others.

The third area, presentation, dealt with rules about where news, opinion, guest opinion, letters, and all other news went, by section, by page, and there were rules for how something had to be labeled as well.

The piece we are discussing below, which ran in the WaPo on August 16th was labeled News Analysis, and was written by Mark Bray, who the WaPo identifies as : A historian of human rights, terrorism and political radicalism in Modern Europe who is currently a lecturer at Dartmouth College. He is the author of the forthcoming book, “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.”

So far so good right, they’ve made it clear this is not a news story and that a news reporter did not write the story.

Unfortunately it did not run below, inside, or in an inferior position to any of their other news coverage on this topic that day — this was their important coverage of this NEWS topic that day. This appears subtle, but is important.

When a newspaper examines an important subject like AntiFa, especially for the first time — and allows a guest writer the top and exclusive position concerning that hot news topic, and does not offer ANY other view, they are either taking a position in support of that view, or are doing such a bad job, they are unaware there is another view – and/or finally DON’T WANT to print anything about the other point of view, essentially renouncing all journalistic ethical standards.

The WaPo falls into the latter category everyday. They would hire a SJW ombudsman and justify it with a story about his journalism pedigree from Northwestern.

Here is Mr. Bray’s lede:

On Monday, President Trump capitulated to the popular demand that he distance himself from his comment that “many sides” were to blame in Charlottesville by explicitly denouncing white nationalism. “Racism is evil,” he appeared to grudgingly concede, “including the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists.”

This is a news format lede, NOT a news analysis lede. Why would Bray and the WaPo do that? His own language is the tell about his personal attitude toward this subject, which is OK in an opinion piece or op-ed, but not OK when wrapped as news analysis and presented as news itself in the lede, Then it is pure deceit and I’m pretty sure the old pros at the WaPo know this, they’re just biting their tongues.

The word “capitulated” is the first tell. It suggests weakness on the part of the President, that he made an error and was retreating from it. The WaPo and Mr. Bray can print this, and even think it, but nobody in America is buying the word “capitulate” when it comes to Trump and this issue, or really any others he has fought for — so far. I read this as an attempt to put down or humiliate the President, not an honest observation of contrition on the President’s part.

This then is a propaganda piece set up at the first possible moment with this initial lie — to better hide other lies behind. The next word is “popular” used in conjunction with “demand he distance himself from his comment that “many sides” were to blame in Charlottesville.”

This part of the lie is where they make the logical fallacy link up but more importantly this is what completely gives the author away before I’ve gotten past the first sentence. Bray is a Never-Trumper, and therefore ethically, is a horrible choice for the WaPo editors to use — to examine and explain AntiFa — while that group is violently opposed to the President and his policies.

What a joke the WaPo has become. This is not going to be an objective, fair, or balanced look at AntiFa, this is a hatchet job against the one guy, Trump, honest enough to point out AntiFa was there in Charlottesville — they were also contributing to the violence — and both sides need to stop this.

Trump defended the Confederate statute protesters, said some of them are “good people” — which they aren’t — according to Bray, so Trump is bad by logical fallacy.

Bray, of course, makes no mention whatsoever of the President’s sworn duty to uphold the Constitution which protects the Confederate statute removal protesters — and does not protect the AntiFa thugs who were un-permitted; masked,(illegal in Virginia, felony) and violent.

The rest of the sentence is also such a huge compound logical fallacy; it has no place in a major newspaper. Trump would just say it was a big fat lie or fake news but we need to go deeper.

The SAME sentence (big giveaway here) implies Trump had never explicitly denounced white nationalism, racism, the KKK, neo-Nazis or white supremacists. This of course is also a HUGE lie, as my blog has detailed, Trump has denounced all of these before in multiple publications, multiple times.

Why is that an ethical violation to imply the opposite? Because this is NOT labeled opinion but News Analysis and all newspapers maintain a “clip” file on “In the news” people they cover — and those editors are ethically bound (normally, not at WaPo and NYT anymore evidently) to consult at least their own files accurately to report what’s called “the record.”

Since Trump has renounced all these groups and racism in general as well as white supremacy and the KKK before IN the WaPo and the NYT, they just skipped over this important ethical cannon so they could print the sentence they wanted to print. Ouch, these people need to be fired.

So, they allow a guest columnist to assert what they factually know to be multiple lies, in a lede, on page one, which ALSO implies the POTUS is lying. WaPo is so far over the line here, it’s humiliating to me as a former journalist.

The “grudgingly concede” line was the icing on the cake. More of this lede, was unethical, untrue, misleading, and in contradiction to their own printed record, than I have even seen in a major newspaper of the Washington Posts reputation. Only the words, “On Monday” were accurate.

I watched the President’s every move on this and “concede” anything is the opposite of what he did. I’ll go further, the DOJ now has the authority to legally investigate this AntiFa group — and the people who hired them, and I predict, rather than “concede” to these people, Sessions will eventually have them arrested.

I call this lede, Bray’s folly:

On Monday, President Trump capitulated to the popular demand that he distance himself from his comment that “many sides” were to blame in Charlottesville by explicitly denouncing white nationalism. “Racism is evil,” he appeared to grudgingly concede, “including the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists.”

Although I initially thought the number of people defending the keeping of the confederate statues, and the right of “good people” to protest on account of this view — would be a minority – that was wrong.

The media screamed about Trump’s remarks, not the public, there was no popular demand he do anything and in fact, most polling indicates, he is even more popular with his base than ever, and his popularity outside of his base is not relevant to Trump, he knows those people are being lied to in articles like this — and that only his actions will eventually speak or not speak to this group.

About karlspain

20 year Newspaperman. Lifelong Inventor. Wrote 2 books so far, working on more. The Revelation, 1st book, about your brain & the universe, and math. Hooked together! God I trust, America I love, 2nd book, is the biography of Aris Mardirossian, a great man. Also owned a software company, an IT integration company, a gas station and a fuzzy logic software title along the way.
This entry was posted in A detailed look at exactly How the Washington Post deceives, ABC, NBC and CBS need to lose their broadcast licenses, AntiFa, CNN Lies, Comey and McCabe to be arrested -- eventually, Debbie Wasserman Shultz Disgraced, Democratic Cover-Up Crashing Down, Democrats Disintegrate, Democrats in Denial, Disinformation is a threat to our Democracy, FBI, Hillary DNC rig election, Hillary violated Hatch Act, Internal Polling Devastates Democrats, Is Obama a traitor?, Jeff Sessions, Jeff Sessions Got it Right, Nancy Pelosi, New York Times, New York Times Lies, Obama was running organized crime syndicate, Obama, Pentagon and Benghazi, Pelosi condemns AntiFa, Rich Higgins, Seymour Hirsch & Seth Rich, Trump, Trump & Civil War Statues, Trump corners the Dims on Voter Fraud, Trump DOJ prosecutes white Supremacists, Trump is telling the Truth, Trump Math, Trump Russia Investigation, Uncategorized, Washington Post, Washington Post and NYT cover for Lynch, Washington Post Lies, Why Trump is worth supporting, Wow! – WSJ finally writes about Trump’s 4D chess moves, Sessions needs to act against Antifa. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to A detailed look at exactly How the Washington Post deceives

  1. agelesmd says:

    excellent analysis…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s