OPINION
Premium

Washington Post Staff Emotional Breaks Inspired Mass Cancelations and They Now Are in a Panic

Brad Slager
Brad Slager  |  Oct 28, 2024
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Get access to Brad Slager's "Riffed From the Headlines," a daily VIP feature where he looks to bring accountability to the mainstream media. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.

Demo-lition Project – WASHINGTON POST

  • So you say you trashed your own publication but did not see this as a potential result?

After the announcement that the Washington Post was not officially endorsing a candidate (though we can glean its pick based on the flood of positive "Kamala Koverage"), there was an all-out revolt from the staff. Some writers and editors quit, and many are mewling on social media about what this affrontery to journalism means for the sake of our country or some other blather.

What is hilarious is they never realized that their emotional breakdown on social media would provoke a reader revolt, and now many are realizing what they have caused, and it is stark. Well done, you self-involved prigs.

Reporting on the Mirror – WASHINGTON POST

Recommended

Here's the Final Tally on How Much Money Trump Raised for Hurricane Victims Katie Pavlich
Here's the Latest on That University of Oregon Employee Who Said Trump Supporters Should Kill Themselves Matt Vespa

  • When this is the response from your biggest fan...

The ongoing meltdown at the Washington Post, as a result of the paper not endorsing a candidate for the practice of not being partisan, has been the cause of shrieking from the WaPo staff for days. There have been resignations and all manner of criticism leveled at their employer – and this has led to unforeseen circumstances. 

Readers have been canceling their subscriptions as a response, and note these same reporters are now waving their arms, begging the people not to do so as it harms their condition. The most oblivious example is from Caroline Kitchener, who came to learn of the folly of their outrage when she learned her own mother canceled her subscription.

Pre-Written Field Reports – WASHINGTON POST

As a fix for the refusal of WaPo's endorsement, one brave soul at the paper came forward to put out a column in full-throated support of Kamala Harris. Given the ridiculousness of the Kamala Harris campaign, it seems fitting that most appropriately this endorsement comes from the humor columnist.

Presentation Paradox – THE NEW YORK TIMES

  • Why won't these toxic monsters vote for someone who…calls them toxic monsters?!

Maureen Dowd looked at some internal polling metrics and made a discovery: 60% of women are voting for Kamala Harris, and 60% of men are voting for Trump. Then Dowd made a humorous conclusion: Those men not voting for Harris are toxic animals.

It is always amusing to see the media spend years demonizing a group and then later act angry when said group does not enthusiastically support a cause. Whites are inherently racist but are unwilling to cough up money for reparations, they badger Christians for years but cannot grasp opposition to abortion, they tell women to zip it and support men in women's sports, and on it goes. Now, those sexist men won't (surprisingly) support a Democrat after that party has spent a generation attacking masculinity.

In trying to determine the best course forward here for Kamala's challenge, we note that Dowd does not see a problem with the way women are voting, but these men voting for their own kind in identical fashion are a problem. So what is her best method of swaying guys to the K-Hive? By insulting them!

Cartoonish macho posturing / Trump's swaggering, bullying and insulting / shrinking male primacy / Trump is exploiting the crisis among Gen Z men, a crisis driven by loneliness, Covid isolation, economic insecurity, a lack of purpose / Trump is phallocentric

Yeah…you can just picture the guys now rushing to cast a ballot for Kamala!

Pre-Written Field Reports – CNN

  • It is pretty intolerant the way he threw your work history at you in that fashion!

Things became somewhat contentious on CNN when Jake Tapper brought on J.D. Vance, and his guest did not play by Jake's rules of absorbing all criticisms without question!

Instead, Vance had the temerity to – instead of swallowing Tapper's accusatory rants – actually come back with CNN's past record of pushing false claims of Russian collusion and the Hunter Biden laptop. But then Vance delivered the blow that really upset Tapper. 

As the host insisted that they have to cover Trump's controversial comments because he does not discuss topics like the economy, Vance set him straight, explaining that both Trump and himself discuss the economy on a near-daily basis. Watch as Tapper is confronted with hard truths and becomes rather imbalanced as a result.

Legalized Press-titution – CBS NEWS

  • "Okay, so that thing we did weeks ago that still has everyone angry? We're going to do it again, and we want everyone to watch."

Three weeks ago, "60 Minutes" became embroiled in a controversy of its own making by editing down the Kamala Harris interview and exposing how it is working to help her image. Last week, Norah O'Donnell displayed rampant partisanship on multiple nights as she opened with coverage of the campaign by saying Harris was doing great things for her cause, but leaned critically into Trump about his appearances and comments. Then Norah went to Houston to broadcast live from Kamala's rally with Beyoncé.

After all of this, the network had the stones to promote the fact O'Donnell would conduct an interview with Harris, as if by this point anyone but the already converted would be interested. Few actually were interested it seems, as there has not been much in the way of media coverage of anything spoken during this interview.

Body Checking the Fact-Checkers – POLITIFACT

So Kamala dared mention immigration on the campaign trail, and this one is rather amazing. She is boasting that they have curbed immigration by more than 50%! Annnnnd, here comes PolitiFact right behind her to give a glowing all-green TRUE rating.

One thing not given: The usual trademarked use of "needs more context," or "lacking in certain details," as so commonly used to contort a factual statement by a conservative into HALF TRUE, or lower. So allow us to engage in the practice!

Here, we don't see mention of how this "accurate" number is achieved when measured against the alarming number of encounters at the border this administration has allowed into the country. Last year saw record amounts of these arrivals, so, yes – when you begin at those unacceptable levels, today is "lower":

In September, the latest month with available data and the end of fiscal year 2024, there were about 54,000 encounters. That’s a 78% drop, or more than half, U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows.