The Washington Post Is Not A Reliable Source Of News

[A'isha]

There are numerous examples all the time. You just don't like them because they are Christian libertarian in their editorial outlook.

No, we don't like them because they have a long track record of deliberate falsehoods and surreptitiously sanitizing their articles after the fact (see, for instance, Farah's lies about the "Obama spent 2 million to hide his records!" claim, as well as the laughable fiasco involving Cashill and the "photoshopped" image of Obama with his grandparents), both of which egregiously violate journalistic ethics.

The few times they may be accidentally correct don't outweigh the willful wrongs.

Yup. It's a matter of crying wolf. WND is wrong so badly and so often that the couple of times they're correct are vastly outweighed by the number of times they've either been wrong or just flat-out lied.

 

[randman]

The few times they may be accidentally correct don't outweigh the willful wrongs.

More like hundreds of times. They were absolutely correct for example on Van Jones, at least his comments and were the first major media breaking that story that I recall. Van Jones had to resign.

There are no "willful wrongs" I am aware of. You likely just don't like them reporting on people you like.

Back to the OP, the Washington Post and media in general cover up for a lot of things. Even after the Enquirer broke the Edwards story, they went slow with it, and they knew all about this stuff when he was a candidate and protected him. They did the same thing for Clinton and generally the lib media does that for their side.

There is Fox but they also are trying to cover the same stories the rest are. They break some things but have a lot of ground to cover.

Alternative media like WND have done a great service reporting on news we wouldn't otherwise hear of.

On the Ron Brown thing, it's absolutely true the MSM media helped cover that up. They didn't want another scandal for the Clintons and though perhaps the WH was not involved, they didn't do their job in investigating the matter to see where the evidence led. They had an agenda and followed that rather than the evidence.

 

[randman]

No, we don't like them because they have a long track record of deliberate falsehoods and surreptitiously sanitizing their articles after the fact (see, for instance, Farah's lies about the "Obama spent 2 million to hide his records!" claim, as well as the laughable fiasco involving Cashill and the "photoshopped" image of Obama with his grandparents), both of which egregiously violate journalistic ethics.



Yup. It's a matter of crying wolf. WND is wrong so badly and so often that the couple of times they're correct are vastly outweighed by the number of times they've either been wrong or just flat-out lied.

More bs from uyou. Obama did spend a lot of money protecting his privacy and they accurately reported that. They reported it was not just protecting his birth certificate but other records. They also did a good job reporting Obama's Rezco connections.

As far as photoshopping something, I suspect you are just being misled and it didn't happen, but wouldn't be the first time the media including the Wash Post, NYTs and TV media did something like that.

I read the NYTs and WND and the NYTs makes far more mistakes and far more egregious ones.

 

[BeAChooser]

The few times they may be accidentally correct don't outweigh the willful wrongs.

And how is the Washington Post any different? One can't call the article they just published on Ron Brown ... his legacy and his death ... anything but deceitful spin ... a rewriting of history designed to help democrats. There is no possible way that reporter was unware that Brown was a criminal. There is no possible way that reporter was unware that Brown's son was a criminal. There is no possible way that reporter was unware that every forensic pathologist who made a public statement about Ron Brown's death except one (who demonstrably lied about facts in the case) said the wound and x-rays suggest a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. And whether you admit it or not, those photos of Brown's wound and head x-rays show features that directly contradict the official government *fiction* and that's a fact that folks like Tricky ... who no doubt got his impression of what happened to Brown from mainstream sources like the WP ... obviously can't deal with because he's not really a skeptic. And, apparently, neither are you. For that matter, there apparently are very few real skeptics on this forum.

 

[randman]

Does anyone believe if these guys were Republicans and involved in so much fraud that the Washington Post would have omitted that fact from it's reporting?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300184.html

 

[The Platypus]

Perhaps God was thinking of you when he created the river DENIAL.

You too, Platypus.

Which god would that be?

How am "in denial" because i don't let some weird guy on the internet, dictate to me what is or isn't a good news source based on his own delusions and conspiracy paranoia?

 

[A'isha]

More bs from uyou. Obama did spend a lot of money protecting his privacy and they accurately reported that.

No, Obama didn't, and they didn't accurately report that. WND founder and editor Joseph Farah explicitly stated "Obama has spent at least $2 million fighting efforts to release his birth certificate." And then Farah lied about his own words, saying "WND never reported that Obama had spent $2 million hiding his birth certificate."

They reported it was not just protecting his birth certificate but other records.

Funny, Farah himself seems to say exactly the opposite.

As far as photoshopping something, I suspect you are just being misled and it didn't happen, but wouldn't be the first time the media including the Wash Post, NYTs and TV media did something like that.

Ah, down to the flat denial of reality, I see. Even Freepers know what you're trying to run away from.

Cashill's article is now scrubbed of the Photoshop claim, with no mention that it's been corrected, nor even a confession that he was totally wrong.

Unfortunately for Cashill (and you), someone took before and after screenshots of the version of that exact article posted on Cashill's own site (where he also doesn't admit to the correction or confess to falling for the badly-'shopped image).

 

[BeAChooser]

So how many of you so-called *skeptics* want to go on record stating that the quoted statements of the forensic pathologists and photographer that I cited above are fraudulent? Hmmmmm?

 

[randman]

No, Obama didn't, and they didn't accurately report that. WND founder and editor Joseph Farah explicitly stated "Obama has spent at least $2 million fighting efforts to release his birth certificate." And then Farah lied about his own words, saying "WND never reported that Obama had spent $2 million hiding his birth certificate."



Funny, Farah himself seems to say exactly the opposite.



Ah, down to the flat denial of reality, I see. Even Freepers know what you're trying to run away from.

Cashill's article is now scrubbed of the Photoshop claim, with no mention that it's been corrected, nor even a confession that he was totally wrong.

Unfortunately for Cashill (and you), someone took before and after screenshots of the version of that exact article posted on Cashill's own site (where he also doesn't admit to the correction or confess to falling for the badly-'shopped image).

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/cashill_before.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/cashill_after.png[/qimg]

Figured. You don't know the difference between "reporting" and editorials and opinion pieces. WND has accurately reported how such "estimates" arose and how the funds were spent on the entirety of Obama's efforts to keep his documents hidden, etc,.....

Looks like Farah slipped up in an opinion piece concerning Obama's lacl of compassion and omitted the full scope and explanations on that one detail.

Big deal.

Chris Matthews said Obama didn't even have a long-form birth certificate.

Oh, and a WND reporter say he "fell for" a badly photo-shopped image?

Is that the best you can come up with?

WND is absolute paragon of virtue compared to other media sources.

Also, they correctly reported on how Snopes and Factcheck or whatever it's called incorrectly reporting Obama was born in Queen's hospital and then how they changed their website without ever mentioning that despite being dedicated reportedly to fact-checking, they had their facts wrong and didn't admit it.

 

[Spindrift]

So how many of you so-called *skeptics* want to go on record stating that the quoted statements of the forensic pathologists and photographer that I cited above are fraudulent? Hmmmmm?

I will. Feel better?

Really don't know if they are fraudulent or not. Don't really care either. Ron Brown died in a plane crash. He wasn't shot in the head.

 

[randman]

This Farah's response on the Cashill opinion piece (wasn't even news reporting):

Jack Cashill is an OPINION columnist. Admittedly, we publish some misinformation by columnists, as does your publication and every other journal that contains opinion. Bill Press seldom gets anything right in his column, but because we believe in providing the broadest spectrum of OPINION anywhere in the news business, we tolerate that kind of thing. Yes, Cashill’s column contained an egregious error, which we corrected almost immediately, which is far more than I expect you to do in what I assume is a NEWS piece you wrote.

I note libs have misrepresented WND here by saying they purposely publish misinformation when in reality they like most media also publish opinion pieces where everything may not be correct due to the columnist making a mistake.

He cites Bill Press, whom I believe they publish, as someone whose "facts" they don't always agree are accurate or put in proper context but they publish him anyway because he represents an important, in this case liberal, perspective.

As usual, libs have gone around pointing fingers at alternative media with a far better track record than the sources they tout as having journalistic integrity.

And to top this off, the photo in question was released by THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN in 2008. So the guy fell for some fabrication of Obama's people. Yea, he should likely assume anything those guys put out is a possible fabrication.

 

[A'isha]

Figured. You don't know the difference between "reporting" and editorials and opinion pieces.

So, WND's own founder and editor has no problem stating as flat-out fact things that he knows haven't been proven?

WND has accurately reported how such "estimates" arose and how the funds were spent on the entirety of Obama's efforts to keep his documents hidden, etc,.....

No, they didn't. Because otherwise they'd know that the money spent was for the entire post-election transition. And Obama hasn't had to use any of his personal lawyers in a single one of the 73 failed birther lawsuits.

Oh, and a WND reporter say he "fell for" a badly photo-shopped image?

Is that the best you can come up with?

You don't think the fact that one of WND's featured "reporters" fell for (and that the editors of WND let pass an article about) an image so poorly and blatantly photoshopped doesn't undercut their standards of evidence and proof for what they report about (to say nothing of their nonexistent editing standards)?

WND is absolute paragon of virtue compared to other media sources.

Also, they correctly reported on how Snopes and Factcheck or whatever it's called incorrectly reporting Obama was born in Queen's hospital and then how they changed their website without ever mentioning that despite being dedicated reportedly to fact-checking, they had their facts wrong and didn't admit it.

Snopes doesn't purport to be doing journalism. WND does.

Nice attempt at a totally false tu quoque so you can try and avoid the issue, though.

 

[A'isha]

And to top this off, the photo in question was released by THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN in 2008. So the guy fell for some fabrication of Obama's people. Yea, he should likely assume anything those guys put out is a possible fabrication.

Uh, no. The original photo that Cashill so idiotically thought was photoshopped came from Obama.

The extremely-poorly-photoshopped image that Cashill even more idiotically thought was the original came from an anonymous YouTube video that Cashill found.

He didn't even bother to check even that much! That's the kind of person WND has as a "featured commentator"!

 

[randman]

So you have the nerve to blame WND for accepting a photo put out by the Obama campaign in 2008 as genuine and not to readily see it was faked?

unbeleivable

There are media organizations that fell for an Onion article now and then.

Why would he question an photograph the president put out as genuine?

It's clear you have no equal standards. You bash WND for an innocent mistake while defending purposeful deception elsewhere.

If this is the best you can come up with as far as their mistakes, then they would be an absolute paragon of virtue compared to others and maybe they are, but I am sure they have made other mistakes. Even the best media sources do.

 

[randman]

Uh, no. The original photo that Cashill so idiotically thought was photoshopped came from Obama.

The extremely-poorly-photoshopped image that Cashill even more idiotically thought was the original came from an anonymous YouTube video that Cashill found.

He didn't even bother to check even that much! That's the kind of person WND has as a "featured commentator"!

Sounds like more utter bs from you but if you think that's the worst mistake any columnist has made, you are sadly mistaken. All columnists and opinion writers make some mistakes sometimes.

If that's the worst mistake he's made, he's really doing an awesome job.

 

[randman]

This is just a small innocent mistake from a highly respected journalist and commentator, David Brooks. Just got this from a quick google. He has made some rather serious errors as well but just to show you something small.

David Brooks in the New York Times: "The bloggers on staff are compelled to produce 12 blog posts a day, and under the old compensation system they were paid the munificent sum of $12 per post. Now it's worse. Owner Nick Denton is going to pay them per page-view. No views, no food."

Neither of these statements is true in the slightest! They are received bits of incorrect information from other people's accounts of reading this website by people who, bless them for it, clearly do not.

http://gawker.com/#!337506/do-heather-havrilesky--david-brooks-regret-the-errors

I suspect you can find errors in today's Washington Post and NYTs and more particularly errors of omission where a false impression has been created.

 

[A'isha]

So you have the nerve to blame WND for accepting a photo put out by the Obama campaign in 2008 as genuine and not to readily see it was faked?

No, I'm blaming them for accepting a fake photo as genuine, and thinking the real photo was the fake.

unbeleivable

Yes, it is.

Why would he question an photograph the president put out as genuine?

Because he's an idiot who will grasp at any straw, no matter how ludicrous, in his crusade against Obama.

And you believe him and the people who publish his crap.

Sounds like more utter bs from you

Here are the images in question.

Read the Free Republic link I gave you above. You'll see that Cashill thought the top photo (the one released by Obama) was the photoshopped fake, and thought the really-badly-photoshopped bottom photo was actually the real one.

 

[randman]

All I can say if that's the best you can come up with, they'd be above world-class in their accuracy. Surely you can come up with something better?

They've been around for years.

 

[A'isha]

All I can say if that's the best you can come up with, they'd be above world-class in their accuracy.

They've been around for years.

Only because people like you so uncritically swallow their lies. Like you keep doing.

 

[randman]

That's the best you can do?

pathetic