Wacky Wednesday: Washington Post Journolists Put Story About Obamakare Increasing the Deficit on 3rd Page So It Wouldnâ€™t Attract Attention
Those darned journolists! Â And they wonder why their readership is dropping.
If youÂ had passed a majorÂ piece of legislation affecting 30% of the economyÂ advertisedÂ as able to lower theÂ deficitÂ but in fact is raised itÂ wouldn’t that warrant front page coverage?
Not if you work for the Washington Post:
Washington Post columnist Patrick Pexton made a rather startling admission in the paperâ€™s Sunday edition: The Post never meant for their recent story about how President Obamaâ€™s health care law expands the budget deficit to become a viral Internet sensation. In fact, they deliberately tried to bury the story.
The Washington Post’s Ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton wrote about this and said:
So why does a modest and short PostÂ storyÂ about the health reform law become a blockbuster online? And what does that say about our reactive, partisan, hyperventilating media culture?
Putting the story on A3 was the right judgment for a print publication. [Author Lori] Montgomery urged her editors, correctly, not to put it on the front page: it wasnâ€™t worth that.
Most of my e-mails last week were from left-leaning readers snarking at The Post for running the story. The most amusing was this critic who accused Montgomery of being a â€śKoch teabagger shill; miserably lying IDJIT.â€ť Yes, that was the spelling. You gotta laugh.
Lest we state the obvious… there are no front pages on the Internet. Â Anything can be a front page.
But I’d say that media bias definitely plays a role in this situation considering President Obama’s signature piece of legislation is going to do exactly what detractors said it would and the opposite of how it was sold.
Nancy Pelosi’s statement thatÂ â€śWe have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in itâ€ť comes to mind here.
Let’s not forget what Washington Post reporterÂ Deborah HowellÂ wrote in that paper days after Barack Obama was elected president:
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
I don’t at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our ownÂ David Broder describedÂ as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion.”
The Washington Post is not the arbiter of fairness… they are slanted, tilted, biased.