Washington Post News

He Said, She Said, Washington Post On Exxon Edition

11:57 pm EST May 11th, 2011 | Business, Media | 1 Comment

This story by the Washington Post‘s Steven Mufson is embarassing in the way in bends backwards to present a he said/she said portrayal of what exactly the tax paid by ExxonMobil is. Mufson explains “Exxon Mobil says it pays plenty” but “Not so, say critics of the oil industry.” What’s the answer?

Personally, I’m inclined to agree with CAP (Center for American Progress) on the way they determine Exxon’s taxes — but it would have been nice if the newspaper even tried to get to the truth. Instead they took the lazy way out and presented two arbitrary sides to an issue.

The mainstream media is often very, very afraid to render a verdict because someone will be upset with them, so they prefer to serve up bowls of mush instead. This does not serve the readers well.

Topic: ExxonMobil, Washington Post

Jennifer Rubin “Seems To Be Mistaking The Facts She Wants For The Ones She Has”

12:42 pm EST January 4th, 2011 | Conservative, Media | Comments Off

Adam Serwer methodically and calmly dismantles the deceptions of Jennifer Rubin, the latest craptacular conservative hired by the Washington Post to shill for the right.

Topic: Washington Post

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin & Lack Of Conservative Honesty

1:53 pm EST December 30th, 2010 | Conservative, Media | 52 Comments

Sarah Palin, Tina Fey

Washington Post conservative blogger (which is separate from the Post’s endless cheerleading in favor of the Iraq War and its employment of former Bush administration speechwriters) Jennifer Rubin is very upset that Ezra Klein made note of conservative support for Sarah Palin. Rubin argues that the people really boosting Palin are liberals. According to her, serious conservatives aren’t on board.

Except Jonathan Chait catches this person named “Jennifer Rubin” singing the praises of… Sarah Palin.

Why, exactly, are conservatives this systematically dishonest? Is it that they think nobody will actually check, or that they are so hermetically sealed in their echo chamber that they know nobody within the circle of trust will challenge the orthodoxy? Either way, it’s a problem for their movement, and a problem for the country on the unfortunate instances where they’re able to obtain political power.

Topic: Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post

Washington Post Covers Up For GOP On Middle Class Taxes

3:13 am EST December 5th, 2010 | Media, Republicans | 83 Comments

washington post building On Saturday, Republicans in the Senate blocked two votes on taxes, particularly one that would have followed the House and cut taxes for the middle class. On Sunday, the Washington Post aided the Republican party by utilizing this headline: “Senate blocks legislation to extend Bush-era tax cuts.”

That headline makes it appear as if the entire Senate, or even a majority of the Senate, made this decision. In fact the vote was 58-36 in favor of proceeding with the legislation, 2 GOP votes shy of what’s needed to move forward. It was not the “Senate” who blocked a tax cut for middle class voters. It was the Senate Republicans who followed in the footsteps of House Republicans in opposing tax cuts for middle class Americans.

For decades now we’ve heard about this liberal media, but it mostly seems concerned about doing Republican’s dirty work for them.

(The writer in question here is one Shailagh Murray, who has carried the water for Senate Republicans before, also see here, here, and here)

Topic: Taxes, U.S. Senate, Washington Post

David Broder Gets Excited At The Idea Of A War With Iran

10:03 am EST October 31st, 2010 | Media | 6 Comments

I keep looking for this liberal media, but I can’t find it.

Topic: David Broder, Washington Post

Richard Cohen Is Trying Mighty Hard To Be The Dumbest Columnist In America

7:57 am EST October 19th, 2010 | Media | 4 Comments

richard cohen This latest column is something of an achievement, coming right off of a day in which he defended trust fund pundit Meghan Mccain as the new voice of a right wing generation (reality: nobody cares what Meghan McCain thinks beyond some talk show bookers who desperately want to host someone they think is the political equivalent of Snooki). Cohen barks, apparently from the porch overseeing his yard that hate crime laws are bad, m’kay?

The standard rationale for hate-crime laws is that hate crimes, to quote the proclamation Quinn and the police commissioner issued that day, ‘tear at the very fabric of our free society.’ To wit, if one gay man is mugged, other gays are intimidated. A whole class of people is affected. Maybe so. But if there is a rape in the park, women will stay away. And there are whole areas of town — any town — where I wouldn’t go in an armored car on account of a fear of crime. Crime affects everyone.

As someone who isn’t wild about hate crime laws, this is a pretty stupid reason to oppose them. Society has more or less agreed to consider crimes against women far out of bounds – within my life time we’ve seen the effective demise of the “she was asking for it” defense, for instance.

But we still live in a time where entire ideological movements consider gay Americans to be subhuman, and possibly would not take seriously violations of their rights without the threat of hate crimes.

Topic: Richard Cohen, Washington Post

Stupid David Broder

10:58 am EST August 2nd, 2010 | Republicans | 1 Comment

There are no grown up Republicans interested in leading the country. It’s like the last two decades never happened for our elite media friends. The GOP isn’t serious about anything other than looting the government.

Topic: David Broder, Washington Post

Washington Post’s Top Secret America

7:10 am EST July 19th, 2010 | Media | 3 Comments

Pretty extensive reporting here, and while the scale is troubling I frankly dunno whether the concept that the government is spending a lot of unaccountable money on intelligence is earth shattering. I have to delve into this some more, but so often this kind of thing concerns itself more with looking good for awards juries (Pulitzer) than providing actionable reporting (eg. Dana Priest’s expose of Walter Reed).

Net positive for journalism overall, however.

Topic: Washington Post

No, We Don’t Need The Government To Be More Involved In Journalism

12:18 am EST July 15th, 2010 | Media | 4 Comments

There has been some increased talk lately, particularly based on this Wall Street Journal op-ed by Lee Bollinger, about increased government involvement in journalism. Let me state up front that some of the best journalism produced today comes from the partially-government backed NPR and PBS (I particularly love Frontline). That being said, the answer to what ails modern journalism is most decidedly not further government involvement.

We have a very long tradition in America of privately operated journalistic institutions. In fact, some of the best examples of journalistic work in US history were made on behalf of outlets pursuing larger audiences and the almighty buck.

With the move to digital, we are seeing an industry in transition, with some outlets making the jump and others turning out the lights. This has led to some panic about the future of journalism, and the prescription that the government has to get involved. For many practical reasons this is unlikely to happen (on the national list of priorities “hiring journalists” doesn’t make the top 10,000 for any taxpayer, left or right), but it’s just a bad prescription anyway.

Journalism produced under the non-profit model already faces the same kind of pressures associated with for-profit journalism, as there will no doubt be real and imagined pressures to satisfy benefactors. PBS and NPR already regularly face accusations of bias (largely from the right, but occasionally from the left) and that’s only more likely to increase if we were to up the government’s role in the production of journalism. By comparison to an advertiser pulling sponsorship over the type of journalism produced, the government would be an even more onerous benefactor.

From a personal standpoint, I’d far rather my tax dollars work toward defending the country, keeping vital human services running, and going towards the general welfare of the nation than to keep the presses humming.

The cure for what ails modern journalism is a transition to the digital world and a break from legacy group think (no, pay walls won’t work, nor will pay-for-play iPad apps) and most importantly the death of the omniscient voice of God that is afraid to make a call, instead bending over for nonsense. The journalism of the future, if it wants to survive, will have a very clear editorial voice clashing with other voices in the marketplace. We’ve seen it before in American journalism, and this period of the soulless corporate voice will be historically seen as the aberration it is.

Topic: NPR, NY Times, PBS, Washington Post