Article: The Washington Post Deserves many Pinnochios

[Armstead]

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/30/the_washington_post_just_published_the_most_inaccurate_editorial_on_bernies_campaign_thus_far_partner/

The ugliest Bernie smear yet: Washington Post shows its corporate colors with new Sanders hit piece
Who'd have thought the establishment paper owned by a libertarian multi-billionaire would take issue with Sanders' populism?


EXCEPRT

The Washington Post has been on something of an anti-Sanders kick lately. Its latest editorial, Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign, is somehow worse than its last one, which derided his single-payer plan in tabloid-like terms. It’s entirely predictable that an establishment gatekeeper publication like The Post would not approve of Sanders’ relatively radical policy proposals, but the degree to which it keeps offering up hysterical, and often times totally disingenuous critiques, is surprising even by its standards. Let’s begin with The Post‘s first claim:

Mr. Sanders’s tale starts with the bad guys: Wall Street and corporate money. The existence of large banks and lax campaign finance laws explains why working Americans are not thriving, he says, and why the progressive agenda has not advanced. Here is a reality check: Wall Street has already undergone a round of reform, significantly reducing the risks big banks pose to the financial system.

Nothing here to see, folks! The claim that Wall Street is more or less reformed and “too big to fail” is a progressive fantasy. But wait, that’s not what theWashington Post itself said in 2014. As International Business Times’ Andrew Perez noted, The Post published a contradictory op-ed a year-and-a-half ago in, “The Post’s View: Bank of America faces a hefty fine, but ‘too big to fail’ still threatens”:

Just or not, no one should confuse this pending settlement with a solution to the deeper problem of the U.S. financial system —namely that Bank of America and other institutions remain too big to fail.

So which is it? Is Sanders’ too-big-to-fail rhetoric useful or not? It certainly was to the Washington Post a year and a half ago, but now it’s not “reality.”


That the Post’s sole owner, Jeff Bezos, is an arch-libertarian worth $53.2 billion and has a whole host of investments in private health care, we’ll assume is entirely separate from The Post editorial board’s recent swath of hysterical Sanders criticism, including these two gems from last week; the first an editorial, the latter ostensibly straight reporting:

The Post’s View: Mr. Sanders needs to come clean about the funding for his health-care plan

Most of Bernie Sanders’s big ideas are dead-on-arrival in Congress. Do Democrats care?

Notice the tone is the same throughout: Sanders is insane and his ideas will never work. There’s very little discussion of substance or evidence to support the idea that his plans are untenable. It’s just asserted as true.

The Post’s latest op-ed is just another example of this type of dismissive establishment ideology policing, much of which has animated Sanders anti-establishment appeal. To this extent, perhaps there’s nothing more helpful to the Sanders campaign than an oligarch-owned newspaper bashing your every proposal at every turn.

[Octafish]

1. Bezos is worried his taxes are going up.

Guy can afford to lose millions on his paper. He makes most of his money just by having money.

[Armstead]

2. I think he's looking at a lot of things related to online commerce and wants a voice

And I think he sees the WaPO as his entree to shape policy after the elections

[Octafish]

3. Excellent points. Paper also helps shape market conditions.

A hot stock tip here. A rumor of a bad harvest there. Pretty soon, bargains to be had. Billions to be made, taxed at 15%, of course.