It seems the Washington Post likes trying to 1-up the New York Times in hideous antidisestablishmentarianism, and, to quote Les Nessman, "I use that word correctly" -- or at least I think I do.
Right after the Times shat the bed with the gross mismanaging of their out-of-control Lois Lane the Post exhibited their post-Katie Graham stripes when the its editors blew like windsocks in the hot air of right wing windbags complaining about Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing column, and which led Post ombudsperson Deborah Howell to conclude it as being too liberal and consequently should be renamed.
But then the Times did 'em one better again, telling the world the Bush administration had been wiretapping hundreds -- later concluded to be tens of thousands and perhaps millions -- of Americans without obtaining warrants from any court. The pathetic wretchedness of it all is the Times apparently knew about it as far back as before the 2004 presidential election, useful information as it might've been to any who would seek the removal from power a neo-facist administration.
And now the Post again, once again involving this ombudsperson Howell, a Texan (Aw, gee! Really?) with an evident rightward bent (Uh, yah!). In this case she apparently insists on passing along, without any supporting evidence, the assertion that Democrats have also been receiving monies from Jack Abramoff. So far no evidence to-date implicates a one. The backlash in cyperspace has spilled out and into the traditional media.
Admittedly, the degree to which the Post has lowered its standards of journalistic integrity cannot compare to the Times' egregious trashing of the public's right to know, but it's pretty damned disappointing nonetheless.
I summarize here as I thought of my cousin. Unlike old buddy Heavynews, Cuz was never a progressive. In fact, he's the gold standard of a "good ol' boy"; confederate as the day is long. I like the guy very much, because as most fun-loving good ol' boys, he's not without charm. But he always pushes the now-very ignorant assertion that the Washington Post and the New York Times are "liberal" rags. And they decidely are not. What they are are establishment entities with corporate souls. And that, Ladies & Gentleman, is the essence of 21st Century American conservativism.
----------
Update (1/21): R.J. Eskow spells out in detail the nasty turn the Post has taken since Katherine Graham got her titty caught in the big ringer in the sky.
3 comments:
My recollection is that at least one dem has acknowledged receiving, and now returning, Abramoff bucks. I recall that it did not involve large amounts (unless that dem can be bought cheaply).
Fact is, it is common practice for lobbyists to rain bucks on both sides of the aisle, even the "other" side. And remember, taking the bucks (assuming they are properly handled) is not a crime -- actually doing something quid pro quo is.
so far no dem is on record for receiving monies from abramoff, some like durbin & reid have received money from native american tribes, but then reid is from a state whose industry is casino, and durbin has a large sioux constituency who wants to run a casino...
that *they* also gave to abramoff is the only connect...
facts are damnable things...
okay, not the sioux... the tribes were Coushatta and Choctaw...
c'mon naahm, bring it on... !!
Post a Comment