Democracy strugles at the Washington Post

They had it right the first time.

The Washington Post changed the headline on its Al-Baghdadi obituary from “Islamic State’s terrorist-in-Chief” to “austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State.” pic.twitter.com/cs243EVz7W

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 27, 2019 

They gave it another try...

There's a power struggle at the @washingtonpost
for control of the #alBaghdadi obituary. pic.twitter.com/Bb3fR0qrM3

— Lem (@Lemang01) October 27, 2019 

Final analysis...

How papers like The Washington Post run into trouble with headline-writing is overly sophisticated editors overthinking what their urban-bourgeois readers expect: “It would be just too crude and vulgar to call Baghdadi a terror mastermind! What would @CJR say!”

— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) October 27, 2019

Who do you Anti-Trust?

So Trump is not the kind of guy who takes things lying down. The Washington Post has announced that they have assigned 20 reporters to search every aspect of his life. They are using a full court press that I am sure they are not doing to Hillary. Now as you know the Post is owned by Jeff Bozo who owns Amazon. Trump was ruminating. “Hmmmm he must be worried that I am going to look into the tax collection issues with Amazon. Or better yet what about anti-trust. Amazon is starting to dominate everything. Please tell me why the monopoly of the Telephone Company was no good but Amazon can dominate every aspect of on-line sales. The Justice department just stopped the Office Depot and Staples merger because they control too much of the market. Is Amazon a good prospect for an anti-trust investigation?”

Washington Post Cartoonist Depicts Cruz Children as Toy Monkeys... Later Retracts

Cruz makes an ad...

Washington Post cartoonist mocks it...

To which I reply... Where was the Obamas cartoon? 

.@tedcruz @TrucksHorsesDog @washingtonpost the Obamas used their daughters... Where is the Obamas cartoon? https://t.co/9mYLgosy9T

— Lem (@Lemang01) December 23, 2015

The Washington Post has retracted the cartoon with this statement posted at the original link:

 Editor’s note from Fred Hiatt: It’s generally been the policy of our editorial section to leave children out of it. I failed to look at this cartoon before it was

published. I understand why Ann thought an exception to the policy was warranted in this case, but I do not agree.

Edit by Chip:

Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State

The Clinton Foundation accepted money from seven foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. This is actual corruption and not merely the perception of a conflict of interests.

This is a Washington Post story, one of many bastions of right wing conspiracy. </snark>

It causes problems. One such is with Algeria. A 2010 State Department report on human rights in Algeria cited several serious problems with Algerian government including restrictions on freedom of association and assembly, arbitrary killings, lack of transparency and widespread corruption, along with restrictions on labor and women's rights.

Following the Haiti earthquake the Algerian government donated half million dollars to the foundation. The foundation admits they should have sought State Department approval.

At the time the Algerian government was lobbying Washington heavily in an attempt to build a better relationship with Washington regarding the human rights issues.

The Washington Post story goes into the number of meetings between Hillary at the State Department and members of the Algerian government during this time of the Haiti earthquake. They note a steady history of donations directly to State with a bump in Algerian donation to the foundation coinciding with a bump in the number of meetings between Hillary and Algerian lobbyists.

It doesn't look good because it isn't good. My little portion of the twitterverse is calling this 'open air corruption.' Their point of view is, if you and your husband and your family foundation don't give a shit about what people might think, and reporters really don't care to cover it, then we've reached the point where corruption is expected from the Clintons. There is really nothing there to discuss because all that is already accepted.

Defending the foundation, a spokesperson said that all the donations went to work around the world. Some foreign government donations are part of multiyear grants awarded before Clinton's appointment. These pay for efforts to lower cost of HIV and AIDs drugs and to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The spokesperson was doing so well up to that last part. Nothing says 'fraud shop' quite like handing out global climate change religious indulgences.

The spokesperson continued talking about how they rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations, and governments who share the goal of addressing critical global challenges in meaningful ways.

When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.

Wow. In that case, carry on.

Some of the donations come from countries with complicated diplomatic, military and financial relationships with the U.S., including Kuwait, Qatar and Oman.

Foreign individuals and governments are prohibited from giving money to presidential candidates for a very good reasons having to do with influence peddling. The Clinton Foundation has provided foreign individuals and governments a means to gain favor with the Clintons apart from the legal limitations.

The Washington Post report goes into greater detail about all the trouble this holds for Hillary Clinton as candidate and how Republicans might exploit it. So far the Clinton team's response is all these things happened before Hillary became Secretary of State.

In the progressive liberal line of thinking there is no conflict of interest legal or otherwise.

Secretary of State = save the world (from the United States, from hunger, from Republicans, from overpopulation, from environmental destruction, from CO2, from asteroids, from what have you)

Clinton Foundation = save the world (from the United States, from hunger, from Republicans, from overpopulation, from environmental destruction, from CO2, from asteroids, from what have you)

See? They're the same. No conflict. And as our media will agree, journalistically nothing to pursue.

This Washington Post article being an exception, what is really important to journalists is can the apparently front-running  opposition candidate affirm the president's sense of religious depth and patriotism. He was elected twice, you know. And that is all the investigative curiosity we can expect from them.

"How many of you know the name of the corner store manager Mike Brown grabbed by the throat?"

'Why don't you?"

One of several tweets interrogating Wesley Lowery, writer for Washington Post that nettles him as taunting. He's had it. Blocked the taunting followers and calls them stalkers for reading his posts. He's taken his argument Tumbler here, showing the screenshots of taunting tweets and responding. At the end of it some dozen + Tumbler followers "Like this" Wesley Lowery's response.

Since Twitter troll now stalks my tumblr, some responses:

 

1. every reporter i know who was initially in Ferguson tried to speak with the store owner - he’s lawyered up and won’t talk. I’ve followed up with the attorney several times (most recently two weeks ago - will follow up again today), no dice. 

2. For the record: The store owner was not the person shown in the video being grabbed by Brown, that is another employee.  

Someone let this guy know his media criticism is no more accurate in 2015 than it was in 2014.

That almost sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

But logic come as naturally to Wesley Lowery as consistent capitalization, as they do to his beholden followers over there on Tumbler who "like this."  Apparently he does not see how his response demonstrates the points made by the vexing taunting stalking questioners.

Let the vexing, taunting, stalking question be restated then, since Wesley Lowery is so impossible on the uptake:

Does anyone know the name of the employee that Michael Brown grabbed by the throat?  And, why don't you?

And now that the question is restated for the hard of understanding and its response predicted, did every reporter Wesley Lowery knows who was initially in Ferguson try to speak with the employee that Michael Brown throttled?  Is he lawyered up too, does the employee refuse to talk too? If so, have you followed up with his attorneys?

Finally, stop telling people to do what you can do easily enough yourself. Let the guy know his his media criticism is just as accurate in 2015 as it was in 2014 and that you, Wesley Lowery, are just as thick now as then. They haven't blocked you as you have them. And stop trying to bullshit us. That only works on your fellow traveler race baiting liberals.

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post

Didn't see that coming.