uhh, WaPo hasn't had my trust in many years. The only people who trust it are their target market, upper-middle-class PMCs. Everyone else knows it's a farce. (ETA: maybe not as much of a farce as NYT, but its biases are identical)
“I had an off the record conversation with him..."
I once had an interview with a reporter where he opened his notebook (this was LONG time ago) and said, "Everything you say to me is on the record, unless I specifically tell you it isn't."
In other words, guy about to take over one of the most powerful papers in the country pretends not to understand what "off the record" means.
It feels like a race to see whether the New York Times or the Washington Post can lose all credibility first. Entertainment factor aside, that's bad for the news consumer.
I don't suppose we need to worry that the Post having as its Editor a guy who likes to catch and kill unfavorable stories will in any way affect their coverage of a Presidential candidate who also likes to catch and kill unfavorable stories? When Trump's defenders were saying, "Come on, who among us hasn't done this once or twice, huh?" this guy was nodding along in agreement.
1) That he's taken the Donald J Trump / Nixon approach to attempting a coverup that's both worse than the allegations and makes them seem incredibly likely to be true.
2) That he was so ham-fisted in his attempts because what he did would have worked just fine in the UK, where we only really have client journalists left in our almost entirely right-wing popular media.
Congratulations to the journalists involved who showed that it's still possible to do good work even with right-wing corporate bastard bosses. Our mainstream media folks could learn something if they weren't all so busy furiously noshing each other off.
uhh, WaPo hasn't had my trust in many years. The only people who trust it are their target market, upper-middle-class PMCs. Everyone else knows it's a farce. (ETA: maybe not as much of a farce as NYT, but its biases are identical)
Fair
“I had an off the record conversation with him..."
I once had an interview with a reporter where he opened his notebook (this was LONG time ago) and said, "Everything you say to me is on the record, unless I specifically tell you it isn't."
In other words, guy about to take over one of the most powerful papers in the country pretends not to understand what "off the record" means.
It feels like a race to see whether the New York Times or the Washington Post can lose all credibility first. Entertainment factor aside, that's bad for the news consumer.
I don't suppose we need to worry that the Post having as its Editor a guy who likes to catch and kill unfavorable stories will in any way affect their coverage of a Presidential candidate who also likes to catch and kill unfavorable stories? When Trump's defenders were saying, "Come on, who among us hasn't done this once or twice, huh?" this guy was nodding along in agreement.
I found two things about this darkly amusing:
1) That he's taken the Donald J Trump / Nixon approach to attempting a coverup that's both worse than the allegations and makes them seem incredibly likely to be true.
2) That he was so ham-fisted in his attempts because what he did would have worked just fine in the UK, where we only really have client journalists left in our almost entirely right-wing popular media.
Congratulations to the journalists involved who showed that it's still possible to do good work even with right-wing corporate bastard bosses. Our mainstream media folks could learn something if they weren't all so busy furiously noshing each other off.