Wacky Wednesday: Washington Post Journolists Put Story About Obamakare Increasing the Deficit on 3rd Page So It Wouldn’t Attract Attention
Those darned journolists! And they wonder why their readership is dropping.
If you had passed a major piece of legislation affecting 30% of the economy advertised as able to lower the deficit but in fact it raised it wouldn’t that warrant front page coverage?
Not if you work for the Washington Post:
Washington Post columnist Patrick Pexton made a rather startling admission in the paper’s Sunday edition: The Post never meant for their recent story about how President Obama’s health care law expands the budget deficit to become a viral Internet sensation. In fact, they deliberately tried to bury the story.
The Washington Post’s Ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton wrote about this and said:
So why does a modest and short Post story about the health reform law become a blockbuster online? And what does that say about our reactive, partisan, hyperventilating media culture?
Putting the story on A3 was the right judgment for a print publication. [Author Lori] Montgomery urged her editors, correctly, not to put it on the front page: it wasn’t worth that.
Most of my e-mails last week were from left-leaning readers snarking at The Post for running the story. The most amusing was this critic who accused Montgomery of being a “Koch teabagger shill; miserably lying IDJIT.” Yes, that was the spelling. You gotta laugh.
Lest we state the obvious… there are no front pages on the Internet. Anything can be a front page.
But I’d say that media bias definitely plays a role in this situation considering President Obama’s signature piece of legislation is going to do exactly what detractors said it would and the opposite of how it was sold.
Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” comes to mind here.
Let’s not forget what Washington Post reporter Deborah Howell wrote in that paper days after Barack Obama was elected president:
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
I don’t at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion.”
The Washington Post is not the arbiter of fairness… they are slanted, tilted, biased.