Please join me in a big FUCK YOU to the Washington Post

[cali]

I'm reposting this story from kos, because we should all be aware of this, and fight like mad against it. I don't care if you're a Clinton supporter, an Edwards supporter, a Biden supporter or don't have a candidate. This is so scurrilous it defies belief. And this isn't Drudge or the NY Post; it's Washington's paper of record:

Washington Post: The New Drudge?
by BarbinMD
Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:47:36 AM PST

Yesterday, Politico's Ben Smith nailed Rudy Giuliani for nailing his mistress on the taxpayer's dime. And in today's Washington Post, what kind of coverage does this major, investigative piece receive? Three sentences buried in the middle of their debate coverage. So, what is their big story of the day?

Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him
Yes, a front page story about rumors.

Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a "Muslim plant" in a conspiracy against America...
Actually, calling them rumors gives them too much credence. It would be more accurate to call them blatant lies, yet the Washington Post has decided to give them a national platform. The only thing missing from this story is the siren at the top of the page.

But the dishonestly doesn't just rest with the people who spread these stories, the Washington Post is just as guilty. They "report" that:

Another e-mail, on a site called Snopes.com that tracks Internet rumors, starts, "Be careful, be very careful." It notes that "Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim," and that "since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim."
This is immediately followed with a line about a CBS poll that showed, "a huge number of voters said they did not know Obama's faith." What the Washington Post didn't bother to address? What Snopes.com had to say about the story:

Claim: Illinois senator Barack Obama is a, "radical, ideological Muslim."

Status: False.
But to be fair, the Washington Post did provide a named source who was willing to back up his claims:

Bryan Keelin of Charleston, S.C., who works with an organization of churches there, posted on an Internet board his suspicion that Obama is a Muslim. "I assume his father instructed him on the ways of being a Muslim," said Keelin, who described himself in an interview as a conservative Republican who will vote for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
Well, there you go. If Bryan assumes something, it must be newsworthy. Kudos to the Washington Post for their hard-hitting, investigative journalism.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/29/4528/1115

[Perry Logan]

1. I strongly recommend a virtual fast from ALL American news sources. They are all enemy propaganda.

[cali]

3. Sorry, you can't just ignore something like this.

Did you see the headline the WaPo used? It's not libelous in letter, but it sure it in spirit.

I am less tuned in to the MSM than the vast majority here. I don't have TV. I don't read Newsweak or Time or any of that crap. I don't listen to any talk radio, but I think being aware of this through sites like DU or kos, is vital.

[gateley]

2. What happened to the Washington Post -- and when? They used to be the

good guys, didn't they?

[cali]

4. not for years now

they not only veered sharply right, they're a lousy paper aside from that.

[depakid]

7. "they're a lousy paper aside from that."

Yes they are. Their writers and editors can't even put together a science article without slanting the copy.

I don't even bother with them anymore.

[gateley]

8. I've only become interested in politics since the first Dem debate this year -

I was still riding along on the (apparently null and void) belief that the Washington Post was a liberal newspaper. Sigh. Another one bites the dust.

ARE there any "good" newspapers left, do you know?

[cali]

12. Well, the NYT OpEd page is pretty good and they

actually still do some real investigative reporting- though not nearly as much as they once did, but even so you still have to wade through the news section.

[gateley]

15. Thanks! nt

[DangerDave921]

16. NYT?

Some folks on here lump them in with the vast corporatist RW agenda! (even though in 2006 they endorsed every single Dem candidate). Shhh - don't spoil their vision.

:)

[cuke]

36. The Op-Ed page. She said the Op-Ed page

and I disagree with her, but at least I'm disagreeing with what she actually said

[frylock]

31. judy miller's NYT?

no thanks.

[July]

17. LA Times, maybe?

I'm not a regular reader, so I can't swear they're good.

I do read the NY Times every day, and I'm not impressed. They are no longer reliable even on the factual reporting (see Judith Miller, among others), and seem to do selective placement of stories -- back of the A section for stuff that might be unpalatable to Karl Rove and friends.

Then there are op-ed page columnists like Maureen Dowd and David Brooks, who focus on empty snark (Dowd) and turd-polishing, superficial "analysis," and winger propaganda (Brooks).

They do have Krugman and Bob Herbert, though.

[cali]

18. they also have Frank Rich

and they're editorial page has been damned good over the past 3 years.

[July]

23. Jeez, how could I forget Frank Rich?

Their editorials are usually serious, fortunately, and I always enjoy the readers' letters. Not crazy about the paper overall, though.

[Red Zelda]

20. Only 3 in Pa.

The Allentown Morning Call
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Beaver County Times

[Cooley Hurd]

5. The corporate media has chosen its front runners...

...and is obliged to help them any way they can.

The Washington elite is terrified of anyone who might change the status quo in DC.:thumbsdown:

[cali]

6. that's an easy answer. it's also wrong

I posted another piece from kos yesterday proving without doubt, that Obama has received far more favorable coverage in the MSM than any other candidate.

edited to add link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3765672&mesg_id=3765672

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Let me rephrase that...

...the DC media elite has chosen who they would like to see as the next POTUS. Better?;):hi:

[cali]

10. Yeah. A repuke.

They have it in for the dem candidates.

[sufrommich]

14. Agreed, and too many of us play along as long as

the attack is against a Dem candidate we don't support.

[Reno.Muse]

21. these media sources are funded by candidates. too bad we can't see

whose been paying the WAPO the most $$$$.

[sufrommich]

27. Our media sources are funded by advertising revenue.

We don't have a single candidate running who has the cash capable of competing with that. Where are you getting this information from?

[cuke]

37. The voices in his head

[sufrommich]

11. Amazingly bold scare tactic / hit piece from

a so called legitimate news source. I hope the Obama camp comes out full guns on this one. Dems need to start publicly spanking the "liberal" press for the games they play.
On another note,speaking of the way religion is portrayed in the press,Huckabee could claim the world to be flat to lay claim to the ignorant fundie vote and not one of these bastions of free speech would dare mock the sheer wackiness of it.

[cali]

13. I think all dems should be in an uproar about this

it's so offensive, and you're spot on about the kid glove treatment that wackjob Huckster is getting.

[lazyriver]

49. WaPo's tactic is terrible journalism and just plain slimy but

it's also genius in the way it frames the debate. They are not only choosing our candidates for us but also choosing what gets discussed. If the Dem candidates were to start an uproar over this bullshit treatment of Obama, they would fall into what is, perhaps, an even more dangerous trap. They will allow this election to be reduced to the issues the repukes want: faith and fear.

Ignore it, and we allow something just short of (if not actual)criminal behavior to be perpetrated by a mainstream media source still trusted by most Americans. ("Hey, it's in writin' in a big DC paper, so it has to be true".) Challenge it, and we get bogged down in a debate about what should be an irrelevant topic in the first place, especially given all the other topics we should be using to pound on the repukes.

I agree that the Post should be grilled for this kind of treatment but am not sure it should come from the candidates. Unfortunately, it should come from their peers. Just as, in most cases, bad science is weeded out through review from the rest of the scientific community, bad journalism should be trounced by whatever is left of the real journalistic organizations.

Unfortunately, there are too few left to make much of a difference.

[Bitwit1234]

19. And just think 10 years ago the Washington Post

was one of the best fair newspapers in this country. After Katherine Graham's son took over if feel into the republican slime.

[saltpoint]

22. "Blow up your tv; throw away your papers" is John Prine's advice.

He knows what he's talking about.

[cali]

25. I haven't had TV in years. don't read anything but the NYT

Sunday paper (love the crossword puzzle). I don't read the weeklies,and don't listen to talk radio. In other words, I'm proudly MSM free, but I DO like to know what the MSM is up to. We can't just ignore shit like this and pretend it's not happening

[saltpoint]

38. We most certainly can ignore it and with a few notable exceptions like

Jim Lehrer or Bob Herbert or Frank Rich or Christiane Amanpour etc. the majority of the mainstream digestible media is pretty weak, and that's on a good day.

A news black-out, even episodically, is a good thing.

[cali]

46. I don't think you're following me at all.

I'm saying you can't pretend that the MSM doesn't exist and doesn't have a large and unfortunate, if not disastrous impact.

That's why organizations that serve as media watchdogs are so vital. We need to know what they're up to, and they need to be called on the kind of shit the WaPo pulled with this article about Obama.

[1corona4u]

24. Is this the article at the post?

not sure?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802757.html?hpid=topnews

[rucky]

26. Looks like the 700-Club appearance was a necessity for Obama.

Rumors like this will kill him, if he doesn't wear his Christianity on his sleeve like he's been doing.

[1corona4u]

28. I don't think most people will buy it,

but some people will start to think about the picture thing, where he doesn't have his hand over his heart, and he doesn't wear the flag pin, etc., and they will buy into this rumor. But, personally, I think this will fall to the bottom, with no real impact. Not everyone reads the post.

[AtomicKitten]

42. I had not thought of that.

I can't believe I never thought of that. I should have anticipated this potential poo-flinging; at least I never expected it to come from the Washingon Post. Apparently Obama did and now much of what he is doing makes more sense than I realized.

This is one of those D'oh moments for me.

[nealmhughes]

29. I abandoned the US press about 2 years ago for the UK and French papers.

The Guardian/Observer for everyday reading, the Independent for Fisk, and a monthly foray to le Monde Diplomatique. For TV infotainment, I do watch the local news and occassionally CNN for a breaking story, but for "news and analysis," I prefer Democracy Now with Amy and Juan, why both Naomis and Zinn are regular guests - what isn't to like?

[youthere]

30. Kick

[Romulox]

32. WaPo also has a revolting OpEd page

David Broder, George Will, Robert Novak??? :puke:

[Lilith Velkor]

33. Now, this I will gladly do. n/t

[Steely_Dan]

34. I'm A Biden Supporter...

But this cannot stand! It is a slap in the face to all of us.

-Paige

[Supersedeas]

35. the Whorington Post has a reputation to uphold

[spooky3]

39. Mediamatters.org also caught this

http://mediamatters.org/

[illinoisprogressive]

40. Wapo is getting slammed and what they deserve for their rw talking points here.

They have raised the anger of the bloggers and democrats everywhere, whether they support or not Obama. Democrats everywhere are pissed off big time.

[rufus dog]

41. O.K.

A BIG FUCK YOU TO YOU WASHINGTON POST

[asdjrocky]

43. Cali,

It would indeed be my honer to join you.

GO FUCK YOURSELF WP!

[eridani]

44. Robert Parry's take on this--

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/112907.html

Normally when the Washington Post refers to stories on the Internet – even legitimate ones like thinking Al Gore prevailed in the news media’s recount of Florida ballots – the Post’s writing drips with sarcasm as it mocks supposed “conspiracy theorists.”

But a very different – even respectful – tone infused a front-page story on right-wing rumor-mongering about Barack Obama’s alleged adherence to the Muslim faith.
That Nov. 29 article is constructed almost as a justification for spreading these rumors, including the one about Obama’s supposed childhood attendance at a religious madrassah, a slur that was debunked earlier this year.

The Post article by Perry Bacon Jr. begins by essentially blaming Obama for inviting this outbreak of bigotry. “In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama’s biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world,” the story states.

Though noting that Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, the article then veers off into a recitation of right-wing accusations which have circulated on talk radio and the Internet.

The Post, however, treats these slurs seriously, avoiding any direct criticism of their lack of supporting evidence and relying on Obama and his backers to provide the only counter-balance. The Post, in effect, has given its blessing to the legitimacy of the smears.

[cali]

45. Thanks so much for posting that

He really hits the nail on the head.

[leftist_not_liberal]

47. Damn, I am too late to recommend this.

Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.

The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today’s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post’s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence. (8)

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism:

* Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
* William Paley (President, CBS)
* Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
* Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
* Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star)
* Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
* Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
* James Copley (Copley News Services)
* Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
* C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
* Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
* ABC
* NBC
* Associated Press
* United Press International
* Reuters
* Hearst Newspapers
* Scripps-Howard
* Newsweek magazine
* Mutual Broadcasting System
* Miami Herald
* Old Saturday Evening Post
* New York Herald-Tribune

Perhaps no newspaper is more important to the CIA than the Washington Post, one of the nation’s most right-wing dailies. Its location in the nation’s capitol enables the paper to maintain valuable personal contacts with leading intelligence, political and business figures. Unlike other newspapers, the Post operates its own bureaus around the world, rather than relying on AP wire services. Owner Philip Graham was a military intelligence officer in World War II, and later became close friends with CIA figures like Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Desmond FitzGerald and Richard Helms. He inherited the Post by marrying Katherine Graham, whose father owned it.

After Philip’s suicide in 1963, Katharine Graham took over the Post. Seduced by her husband’s world of government and espionage, she expanded her newspaper’s relationship with the CIA. In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, she stated:

We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html

[DCKit]

48. Finally I understand why Ronnie Raygun put the insane out of the asylums...

So they could provide sound bites and source material for the MSM.

[donkeyotay]

50. Wow. I will join you in a shout out to the WaPo to go Cheney themselves.

That headline "Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him" is shameful. It's in the category of "when did you stop beating your wife?"