The Bleating Heart of the Mainstream Media

The Bleating Heart of the Mainstream Media


The Washington Post is being tossed into the dustbin of history. Here’s why.

When I was checking the news this morning, I happened across an article in The Washington Post by Joshua Partlow entitled “Guatemala and Honduras sided with Trump on Jerusalem. Here’s why.”

Before proceeding any further about this piece of “journalism”, I must emphasize that this is not about the content of the article. There will be no discussion of the UN vote, nor any argument about the pros and cons of President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

This is about the process of ostensible news reporting in The Washington Post and other esteemed outlets of the dying legacy media. How the news is selected, concocted, shaded, and spun to guide the public to opinions and conclusions that are considered correct by Those Who Know Better.

This is the first paragraph of Mr. Partlow’s article:

MEXICO CITY — Amid the roar of condemnation over the Trump administration’s stance on Jerusalem, there were bleats of support from far-flung corners of the world. [emphasis added]

This is a news story, mind you, not an op-ed. “News analysis” is probably the full description, but it’s not an opinion article. It’s supposed to contain facts, plus logical conclusions drawn directly from those facts. If this were actual journalism, the reporter’s feelings about the facts and conclusions would not be allowed to intrude into the flow of his prose. There would be no tendentious, loaded words inserted into the text to signal to the lumpenreader how he is supposed to feel about the opposing political positions described in the story.

Now let’s suppose The Washington Post were not published by an exquisitely Progressive outfit. Let’s imagine that it held the opposite opinions. And I don’t mean those held by The Washington Times, nor any other publication cranked out by what Matt Bracken calls “Conservative Inc.”, but truly dissenting opinions. Here’s an alternate version of that first paragraph using tendentious words weighted in the opposite direction:

MEXICO CITY — Amid the screeches of condemnation over the Trump administration’s stance on Jerusalem, there were resonant declarations of support from far-flung corners of the world.

This would give Joe Prole an entirely different message about which position he should be supporting.

And, as a refreshing change, here is the paragraph as it should be written, without any weighted vocabulary designed to push the reader in one direction or another. Just the facts, ma’am:

Continue reading

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.