It wasn’t an inaccurate headline from The Washington Post. President Donald Trump delivered his State of the union address last night, where he gave a shout out to House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), who was shot last summer by a crazed Bernie Sanders supporter named James Hodgkinson. Scalise and four others were injured while practicing for the annual congressional baseball game in Alexandria, Virginia. Hodgkinson was shot and killed by police. The president gave him a warm welcome back to Congress. He later said:
In the aftermath of that terrible shooting, we came together, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as representatives of the people. But it is not enough to come together only in times of tragedy. Tonight, I call upon all of us to set aside our differences, to seek out common ground, and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people we were elected to serve.
Here's the front page of tomorrow's Washington Post: pic.twitter.com/5HQmDNoa4r— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 31, 2018
This page was updated after the first edition. Here is the final front page. pic.twitter.com/nfR7p2wEPB— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 31, 2018
The Post’s original front page read, “a call for bipartisanship,” but liberals torched the publication because the headline was not being anti-Trump enough. So, the paper surrendered, and updated the front page to read “a new American moment” (via the Federalist):
With only 670 retweets and more than 3.7k replies, the tweet got ratio’ed pretty hard. Here’s some of the shade liberals threw at the Post.
Kevin M. Kruse, who wrote a book about “how corporate America invented Christian America” suggested the newspaper would “regret” its headline.
“Technologist” Tom Coates fact-checked the headline, saying that while Trump talked about bipartisanship, he is not happy that the president hasn’t reached across the aisle more frequently during his first year in office.
Adam Parkhomenko, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton, photoshopped the president’s picture out and replaced it with the signature of Hillary Clinton, a two-time presidential loser, under the new Washington Post headline tweeting, “fix it for you.”
HAHAHAHAHA, WaPo changed its front page after people complained. Losers. https://t.co/MdxDy6pQaY— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) January 31, 2018
Are you actually kidding? His mouth said he wanted to work together but the policies he presented, the framing of the policies - it was all designed to be actively appalling to Democrats. There was nothing bipartisan about it at all.— Tom Coates (@tomcoates) January 31, 2018
Congrats on a headline you absolutely, positively won't regret tomorrow.— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) January 31, 2018
Trash headline.— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) January 31, 2018
Alternative: White supremacist announces bigoted immigration plan that will tear families apart https://t.co/8IaMCkIinC
fixed it for you pic.twitter.com/kY0QN2huGp— Adam Parkhomenko (@AdamParkhomenko) January 31, 2018
try again— Daisy Alioto (@daisandconfused) January 31, 2018
I guess WTF was too pithy?— Bronco Bama (@BronckoBamma) January 31, 2018
it would be nice if— Avi (@AviAhvee) January 31, 2018
a) you didn't need to be scolded into fixing a ridiculous headline
b) you actually fixed it
Liberals are still steaming, but for everyone else—literally—the president delivered a tremendous speech, clinching a 75 percent positive reception. Oh, and eight in ten who watched the speech felt the president was trying to unite the country.
8 in 10 Americans who watched Pres. Trump's #SOTU address felt he was trying to unite the country, rather than divide it. Two-thirds said the speech made them feel proud, though just a third said it made them feel safer, CBS News poll finds https://t.co/SRoN9NzmKE pic.twitter.com/bvyG3myhgt— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 31, 2018
That "how dare the Washington Post call Trump's speech bipartisan" outrage is hard to square with the CBS poll showing 80% of viewers thought it was unifying.— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) January 31, 2018
It's also telling how criticism from the 19% managed to usurp what was actually a fairly conventional view, simply because of who the critics were, and the fact that they were using a platform most WaPo reporters seek validation on.— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) January 31, 2018
I joked earlier that conservatives could just ratio WaPo to get whatever headlines we want, but somehow I doubt our vocal minority would recieve the same deference, idk.— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) January 31, 2018