Washington Post regrets staying neutral

[Rate This]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

[Graham Wellington]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

It's not impartial when they target one candidate for this scrutiny and give a free pass to the other.

[Rate This]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

It's not impartial when they target one candidate for this scrutiny and give a free pass to the other.

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

[Turkeytop]

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

Have you noticed how, when Trump goes off on his insane rambling, the media tries to explain it for him? He rants about tarrifs and it gets reported that "he gave a speech about international trade."

He talks about the eating of dogs and cats "He was addressing the issue of immigration."

[Rate This]

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

Have you noticed how, when Trump goes off on his insane rambling, the media tries to explain it for him. He rants about tarrifs and it gets reported that "he gave a speech about international trade."

He talks about the eating of dogs and cats "He was addressing the issue of immigration."

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. It’s been termed sane washing. If the media were objectively covering it they would say he’s nuts.

[Graham Wellington]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

It's not impartial when they target one candidate for this scrutiny and give a free pass to the other.

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

[Rate This]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

It's not impartial when they target one candidate for this scrutiny and give a free pass to the other.

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

See TT's comment above. They are completely sane washing everything Trump says.

[Graham Wellington]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

It's not impartial when they target one candidate for this scrutiny and give a free pass to the other.

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

See TT's comment above. They are completely sane washing everything Trump says.

Listen, I've made it clear on here that I am no fan of Trump. But you are cracked if you truly think the majority of mainstream media doesn't fawn over Harris, or any Democrat for that matter. Back to the original point, the Washington Post damn near had a mutiny because they weren't going to endorse Harris.

[Rate This]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

It's not impartial when they target one candidate for this scrutiny and give a free pass to the other.

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

See TT's comment above. They are completely sane washing everything Trump says.

Listen, I've made it clear on here that I am no fan of Trump. But you are cracked if you truly think the majority of mainstream media doesn't fawn over Harris, or any Democrat for that matter. Back to the original point, the Washington Post damn near had a mutiny because they weren't going to endorse Harris.

I wouldn’t exactly say fawning. This isn’t Obama ‘08.

Yes they did nearly have a mutiny. But if you think the point of journalism or the history of journalism confirms your idea they should just be objective recorders of events I have a few dozen scenic bridges for sale. For 90% of the time it hasn’t worked that way. This objectivity thing is born out of World War 2 era propaganda. And even in the “golden era” with your Murrows and Cronkites… would you really say those guys were 100% calling balls and strikes or whatever weird concept you’re trying to pass off?

[Graham Wellington]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

It's not impartial when they target one candidate for this scrutiny and give a free pass to the other.

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

See TT's comment above. They are completely sane washing everything Trump says.

Listen, I've made it clear on here that I am no fan of Trump. But you are cracked if you truly think the majority of mainstream media doesn't fawn over Harris, or any Democrat for that matter. Back to the original point, the Washington Post damn near had a mutiny because they weren't going to endorse Harris.

I wouldn’t exactly say fawning. This isn’t Obama ‘08.

Yes they did nearly have a mutiny. But if you think the point of journalism or the history of journalism confirms your idea they should just be objective recorders of events I have a few dozen scenic bridges for sale. For 90% of the time it hasn’t worked that way. This objectivity thing is born out of World War 2 era propaganda. And even in the “golden era” with your Murrows and Cronkites… would you really say those guys were 100% calling balls and strikes or whatever weird concept you’re trying to pass off?

Even if the Murrows and Cronkites weren't 100% down the middle, they also weren't blatant with their bias. WaPo staff made it clear their priority is to elect Harris, and not attempting to objectively cover the race and let voters decide. That's fine if you're MSNBC, Fox News, or some other quasi news organization. But WaPo still hangs to the idea of being a legit news organization

[Rate This]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

It's not impartial when they target one candidate for this scrutiny and give a free pass to the other.

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

See TT's comment above. They are completely sane washing everything Trump says.

Listen, I've made it clear on here that I am no fan of Trump. But you are cracked if you truly think the majority of mainstream media doesn't fawn over Harris, or any Democrat for that matter. Back to the original point, the Washington Post damn near had a mutiny because they weren't going to endorse Harris.

I wouldn’t exactly say fawning. This isn’t Obama ‘08.

Yes they did nearly have a mutiny. But if you think the point of journalism or the history of journalism confirms your idea they should just be objective recorders of events I have a few dozen scenic bridges for sale. For 90% of the time it hasn’t worked that way. This objectivity thing is born out of World War 2 era propaganda. And even in the “golden era” with your Murrows and Cronkites… would you really say those guys were 100% calling balls and strikes or whatever weird concept you’re trying to pass off?

Even if the Murrows and Cronkites weren't 100% down the middle, they also weren't blatant with their bias. WaPo staff made it clear their priority is to elect Harris, and not attempting to objectively cover the race and let voters decide. That's fine if you're MSNBC, Fox News, or some other quasi news organization. But WaPo still hangs to the idea of being a legit news organization

It’s calling a spade a spade the same way Murrow went after McCarthy. I’m also thinking that the reporters are standing in solidarity with editorial board… the entire point of which is to give opinions.

[MWmetalhead]

To be fair, if the Post isn't going to endorse a candidate in the Presidential election because it wants "to let its readers make up their own mind," then it shouldn't endorse any candidate for any race for public office.

I don't buy the denial of Bezos' involvement. I suspect Bezos through a surrogate asked the publisher to put the kabash on endorsing in the Presidential race.

The fact a paper with a well known left leaning editorial page refused to endorse Harris may be interpreted by some as a tacit rejection of Harris, if those folks are unfamiliar with the backroom circumstances.

[audiophile]

So the staff throws a hissy fit because the paper declined to endorse Harris, but yet they expect everyone to believe they are fair and impartial in their reporting.

Likely they feel the journalistic duty to plainly say who Trump is and what he represents and why he should never have power. Now they don’t get that chance.

That's not being impartial. Those are the angry screaming liberals you mentioned masquerading as reporters.

It’s being factual. You can build a factual case using his words and actions what he would do and be impartial while doing it. Reporters are not simply stenographers.

It's not impartial when they target one candidate for this scrutiny and give a free pass to the other.

You are correct. Trump has received a complete pass on his mental decline and insane statements. Harris by contrast cannot do anything without being questioned about whether she met whatever double standard they’ve set. The media loves Trump… he makes them a ton of cash. And before you call me crazy I am far from the only person to notice the double standard at play here.

Trump is far from mental decline (watch three hours with Joe Rogan):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

Of Course, Harris skipped Rogan altogether, even though she was in Texas. Her CNN town hall was a disaster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yRr0xFZZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L87I-iyon0A

[MWmetalhead]

Harris has fumbled the ball on messaging the past several weeks, there's no arguing that, in my opinion. Walz in the VP debate dropped the ball to a degree, and it's been downhill since then for the Harris campaign from a messaging standpoint.

I don't get why most of the Harris rallies are invitation only. Case in point - Royal Oak last week. She needs to be speaking to broader groups. Speaking of fumbles, the fact a significant percentage of Muslims in Michigan are going to vote for Trump is a tremendous failing on the part of the Harris campaign. Trump loves Netanyahu, and seems to want no limits on Israeli military aggression. Winning the Muslim vote for Harris should be a softball, yet she's squandering it.

In the Detroit market, ads from Trump and from Trump PACs have flooded the airwaves in recent weeks, substantially outnumbering pro-Harris ads. Unlike 2016 and 2020, when Trump's campaign and allies ran few ads, they've run an epic tidal wave of ads this cycle.

[audiophile]

I think the Dearborn/Hamtramck folks think Trump had relative peace and they want that back. IE Trump is more streetwise on an international scale.