FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
Copy-and-pasting a corporation’s claims for its own economic impact—when it has every incentive to hype these numbers—is sloppy enough, but doing so for a corporation whose CEO is also your CEO is a clear conflict of interest.
Opinionated talk radio, which was always dominated by right-wing personalities, was born in 1960, and flourished in local markets under the Fairness Doctrine, which wasn’t jettisoned until 1987. By taking callers with contrasting views, talk radio was actually seen as comporting with the Fairness Doctrine.
The vaunted Washington Post factchecking team is once again applying its microscope to Sen. Bernie Sanders. The awkward thing is that the fact in question involves the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, the world’s second-wealthiest person.
Ed Rogers’ boilerplate Republican talking points could be better written by any number of Heritage fellows, and he is an actual paid lobbyist for an assortment of sleazy industry interests, via his lobbying firm BGR Group. So why does a major paper feel the need to continue to give him column inches?
A Washington Post op-ed argues, in a wholly incoherent fashion, that Donald Trump’s failures can be chalked up to a cultural difference between New York City and Washington, DC.
A review of 190 articles about Amazon.com from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Bezos-owned Washington Post over the past year paints a picture of almost uniformly positive–ofttimes boosterish–coverage.
In a fawning editorial, pillar of the national security establishment Washington Post fell over itself to commend a John McCain that never existed, instead lavishing praise on a well-curated PR facsimile developed over decades.
President Trump’s Plans for Planet Not of Interest to Major Media…Covering Trump’s Nominees Through GOP Eyes…To Simplify Factchecking, NYT Inserts Its Own Errors…USA Today Sees Bright Side of Massive Loss of Health Insurance
Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl took a massive, human rights-violating catastrophe—the US-assisted Saudi bombing of Yemen for the past two-and-a-half years, and the massive famine it’s caused—and somehow turned it into a write-up on how good and noble the United States is.
“Through this anecdote-driven journalism, devoid of key facts and context, we see this damning portrait of disability benefits that really risks tremendous consequences.”
If you like bad data along with mean-spirited anecdotes, the Washington Post’s ongoing series on disability insurance has you covered.
The conflicts of interest posed by think tank funding are an endemic problem in establishment journalism, which often presents industry-funded institutes as neutral experts.
At a time when an ever larger share of national income is going to the richest one percent, and large segments of the working class population are seeing rising mortality rates, the Washington Post naturally turns to the country’s most pressing problem: the number of people receiving disability payments from the government.
For Richard Cohen, the Middlebury protestors are the real fascists. Not the person who’s dedicated his life to normalizing eugenics; he is a mere “conservative,” posing “controversial” questions.
Last week, in “A Young Prince Is Reimagining Saudi Arabia. Can He Make His Vision Come True?,” Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius (4/20/17) wrote what read like a press release for the Saudi regime. What’s more, he’s written the same article several times before.
There are no major ideological differences between White House strategist Steve Bannon and French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen. But in the Washington Post, Bannon and his backers are “conservatives,” while Le Pen and her National Front are “far right.”
It is difficult to share the concern of Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, that we will see increasingly dishonest public debates. Hiatt and his team at the editorial page have no qualms at all about making up nonsense when pushing their positions.
The problem was not that Sessions “did not disclose” his meetings with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it’s that he lied about them under oath.
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian envoy story, is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. The problem is not that Sessions “did not disclose” his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it’s that he lied about them under oath.
Please contact the Washington Post and urge it to stop allowing corporations to sponsor events when they have a direct financial interest in the subject.
