Redstate

Posted at 9:00am on Jun. 20, 2008 Let's get this Friday started: WaPo spanks Obama.

It ain't Glenn Miller, but it should get you in the mood.

By Moe Lane

I do believe that the the Washington Post is a little annoyed at the junior Senator from Illinois:

The Politics of Spare Change
Even $85 million wasn't enough to get Barack Obama to keep his promise.

BARACK OBAMA isn't abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it's in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn't about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he'd get if he stuck to his promise -- and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. Really, it hurts him more than it hurts Fred Wertheimer.

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama's earlier pledge to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters.

It goes on from there: as Ed Morrissey himself notes, the WaPo isn't buying this as being anything except a typical politician facing a situation where he has to choose between keeping his word and seeking an advantage (I would recommend this article from the Center for Responsive Politics for those wishing to protest that statement). Which, when you think of it, is one of the more damning things that you can say about the man.

Oh, well. No doubt Obama will attempt to redeem himself with his base by aggressively opposing the passage of the FISA bill today.

Moe Lane

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | campaign finance reform | Washington Post — Comments (11)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:11pm on May 16, 2008 Washington Post Lies, Video Doesn't

Demand a Retraction

By absentee

All day today the MSM and left blogs have been on the warpath about Hamas. The Golden Child feels he was slighted by the hated Bush and the enemy McCain, and the media acolytes will have none of it.

Jamie Rubin took point on their attack. In an article for the Washington Post titled "Hypocrisy on Hamas" and cutely subtitled "McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It," Rubin contended that Senator McCain has flip-flopped his position. News outlets and bloggers have been playing his edited clip from an old interview with similar degrees of delight.

As Soren Dayton noted earlier the story is a lot of hogwash, which the editors of the Washington Post let squeak right onto the page, either with no oversight, or worse, with oversight. Obviously Senator McCain's position remains now as it was then, no unconditional meetings with Hamas.

Well now the full video is available and Rubin's creative editing exposed. Watch the whole thing, you know, now that you can.

The editors have failed in their job. They've allowed this deliberate, lying hack job onto the page and demeaned the paper. Write to them now, and demand a retraction. Public, and with lots of mea culpa goodness.

FRED HIATT | hiattf@washpost.com

Patrick Hynes invited Hiatt on his radio show tomorrow. The secretary hung up on him. Nice.

Considering the reach this lie had, the backlash ought to reach as far. The Post Ombudsman should explain how something so completely, transparently opposite from the truth made it through their process. Maybe you ought to suggest that to her:

Deborah Howell | ombudsman@washpost.com

While you're at it, you might point out they are still promoting the article all over the site.

Posted in Breaking News | Jamie Rubins | Treason Media | Washington Post — Comments (73)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:46pm on Apr. 25, 2008 The Book the Washington Post Doesn't Want You To Read

Because you can't handle the truth

By Erick

The Washington Post has declined to review Doug Feith's War and Decision. On the grounds that Tom Ricks and Karen DeYoung wrote about book on March 9th, the paper feels it has been given sufficient coverage in its august pages. The Post is apparently not concerned that Ricks and DeYoung had their unedited manuscript of an embargoed book of some 528 pages (excluding notes and appendices) by their own admission for less than six hours before they went to press, and that in the course of these six hours they conducted interviews with Feith and Bremer and wrote their article as well as quickly flipping through it for the juicy bits--a hectic schedule that explains why their piece ignores large segments of the book and does not mention any of the material Feith publishes for the first time (they condemn the book as including "surprisingly little new" information). This is no matter to the editor of the Post's Book World. That article is good enough for the likes of War and Decision. It counts as their formal review and there is simply no room for further consideration--it would be too repetitious. After all, the Post has its standards.

Or does it?

Read on . . .

Posted in Dana Milbank | Doug Feith | Iraq | War | War and Decision | Washington Post — Comments (3)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:30pm on Apr. 21, 2008 Does WaPo fact-check front page stories?

An update on a non-news front page story

By Soren Dayton

Yesterday, I criticized WaPo's front page story about John McCain's temper.

I have several quick updates. First, Matt Lewis notes that it is odd that "bitter-gate" was A4 and a week-long story that will be a dominant theme of the campaign.

Second, I noted that the stories seemed old. Well, Jake Tapper notes that he first broke the story in the lede in ... 1999.

Third, the Corner reports Salter's criticism of the report.

But the tastiest is that Michael Leahy and his editors didn't actually fact-check the story. Check out what Fox's Carl Cameron found out:

Bogus facts. Clearly biased editorial decisions. Selective quotation. Old stories. Not a story. Michael Leahy and his editors should know better and be ashamed of themselves.

Posted in 2008 | Media Bias | Michael Leahy | Washington Post — Comments (9)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:31pm on Apr. 20, 2008 WaPo: A question of newsiness

Wishing it so; Trying to make it so

By Soren Dayton

The Washington Post's Michael Leahy ran a front-page story about John McCain's temper that they thought was about his temperament. In fact, they called it "A Question of Temperament".

But shouldn't Leahy and his editors asked "A Question of Newsiness?" Is there really a story here, much less a front page story? And if not, what does it tell us about the Washington Post? So let's review the facts in the story.

First, there is an argument with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) from 1992! Wow. That one was racing to get out.

Then there's a story from McCain's high school years. 1954, 1989, "the early 90s", 1982, and a couple more from early on.

Oh, and there were two widely reported stories from 2006 and 2007.

Perhaps tellingly, Leahy says, "According to aides, McCain's frequent comments about his temperament reflect a recognition that the issue persists for some voters and the media." The media wants to tell a story about John McCain... But there's not news to tell.

Read on.

Posted in Archived | John McCain | Media Bias | Michael Leahy | Washington Post — Comments (9)/ Email this page » / Read More »