FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
In “Trump Is a Much Worse Threat Than Brexit” (Washington Post, 6/6/16), Bill Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned that a Trump presidency could “lead to a recession in 18 months.” The only problem is Summers, by many accounts, was instrumental in creating the last recession—an essential piece of context that’s left out of his latest warning and its subsequent coverage.
It’s naturally worth listening to a range of Native American people, but that happens so rarely in media that a Washington Post poll merits some scrutiny. For some, the word to describe its results would not be the one the Post chose—”unambiguous.”
Ruth Marcus used her Washington Post column today to present the speech that House Speaker Paul Ryan should give to Republicans in order to disassociate himself from Donald Trump. She has Paul Ryan being somewhat less than honest.
Why would so much ink be spilled on a candidate who, by the Post’s estimation, can’t possibly win? The objective is, of course, to further stigmatize Sanders’ ideas and platform goals—all of which are deeply antithetical to the editorial and financial bottom line of the paper.
The fascinating part of all this concern with “stealing from future generations” is it almost never includes military spending or the trillions in offshore tax shelters. Even if one accepts the claim that Social Security and Medicare are urgent issues “bankrupting” our country, it’s curious why other things that also cost trillions don’t appear as part of that conversation.
A recent online dust-up started by Washington Post columnist Philip Bump made something clear: When you factor in actual impact, big media pundits troll just as much as—if not more than—any random egg avatar on Twitter.
The Washington Post apparently thinks great things about a candidate who seems to have zero understanding of economics and has no ideas on how to address a potentially catastrophic environmental problem.
When the Washington Post and New York Times are making the same corporate-friendly point, it’s safe to assume that some PR agency somewhere is earning its substantial fees. In this case, the subject is the need for nuclear power.
In Dana Milbank’s worldview, which is widely shared in Washington policy circles, it doesn’t matter what you do to the country as long as you keep the deficit down.
A Washington Post op-ed by John Bellamy Foster, editor of Monthly Review, cites FAIR’s critique of the Post’s anti-Bernie Sanders bias.
The Washington Post responded to our criticism of a remarkable run of negative articles about Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
In what has to be some kind of record, the Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours—a window that includes the crucial Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, and the next morning’s spin.
While the advocates of a policy certainly have the right to assign whatever name they like to the policy, it seems a bit extreme to criticize its opponents for using the term that advocates themselves had used in the recent past.
On CNN, Bob Woodward offered a unique understanding of the term “balance,” meaning a court with a conservative majority. He explained how most undecideds and independents would view the appointment of anyone but a conservative as a “radical” move.
The day before the New Hampshire primary, the Washington Post ran a column headlined “Bernie Sanders Is No Revolutionary”—written by Dana Milbank, that noted expert on revolutionary movements.
Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel offered an investigation (“the surprising truth”) about the food movement—without speaking to anyone in the food movement—concluding that there isn’t much of a food movement after all.
Even in a piece that charts Sanders’ success in galvanizing new voters, political reporter Karen Tumulty still manages to side-eye the candidate with the observation that “Republicans are not the only voters looking for qualities beyond experience and electability.”
Many of the outlets pushing back on single payer are owned by large media corporations with sizable investments in private healthcare and its current neoliberal iteration, the Affordable Care Act. They have not just a political and ideological incentive to maintain private healthcare, but a tremendous financial one as well.
It’s not surprising that the Washington Post (owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos) would be unhappy with a presidential candidate running on a platform of taking back the country from the millionaires and billionaires.
The Washington Post hypes the “MASSIVE” turnout for Trump a month before the primary, though it’s not even half the size of the crowd Bernie Sanders attracted in the same general area three months ago.
