The Washington Post’s Sleazy Tactics
For those who are new around here, I spent 42 years in newspapers. I may not know much about many topics, but I have a clear, first-hand understanding of daily journalism.
Until rather recently newspapers did a pretty good job of breaking news stories on deadline, while reliably getting it right. Not easy.
But for the past 15 years or so, as newspapers circled the drain, they offloaded experienced editors with skills and standards and replaced them with young, agenda-driven propagandists.
The result? Stories filled with mistakes, half-truths and the occasional lie.
It’s gotten to the point that I can barely get through an entire newspaper without wanting to hurl it at a wall. Many of my former colleagues feel the same way.
Which brings us to The Washington Post’s newest controversy: Its “outing” of the woman behind the enormously popular “Libs of TikTok” on Twitter.
This Twitter account is genius. The anonymous person running it simply Tweets out bizarre TikTok videos produced by far-left freaks. The videos are public. She doesn’t tamper with them.
These jaw-droppingly weird videos include oddballs who believe they’re cats and non-binary teachers who like to tell their little charges all about trans life.
In recent weeks, with Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill in the news, the account featured a number of TikToks made by woke teachers bragging about how they groom very young children to question their gender or explore their sexuality in the classroom.
Ordinary decent people were horrified.
The Washington Post wasn’t.
Instead, this newspaper that once brought down a corrupt president decided to go after the person who simply gave these repulsive videos a wider audience.
On Tuesday the Post proudly ran, “Meet The Woman Behind Libs of TikTok, Secretly fueling The Right’s Outrage Machine.”
In preparation for this magnificent “expose,” Post reporter Taylor Lorenz sent the following email to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ press secretary, Christina Pushaw:
(After the story was written, of course.)
Sleazy.
Giving someone exactly ONE HOUR to respond - as if there’s something urgent and time-sensitive about the story - is a cheap trick.
This is how that works: If the recipient of the email misses the message or is unable to respond, the reporter feels free to write that the subject “refused to comment.”
Pathetic.
And the corporate media wonders why we loathe them.
