Yesterday’s print edition of The Washington Post was more anti-Donald Trump than usual. Journalism ain’t what it used to be. Now it’s all click bait, blatant bias and sponsored content.
The WaPo opinion section yesterday had three hit pieces on Trump. The first was by a novelist who wrote a piece called “Fat-shaming a woman who isn’t fat.” Is that news? A beauty queen with hurt feelings from 20 years ago gets more attention than Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state. Which is more relevant?
Then there was a piece by Ruth Marcus that is full of silly insults. Marcus claims, “Trump is stuck in middle school. Early middle school. And that’s being charitable.” She then attempts to argue that the name calling she selected is accurate. Is it fair to ask Marcus if her column is better suited for a seventh grade paper (or partisan blog) than a major newspaper?
And the kicker was straight from the editorial board. They wrote “Trump is ignorant, unprepared, and bigoted.” There is no hidden agenda either, the editorial specially says it is meant for Trump supporters who “doubt he could do much harm.” Is that journalism or micro-targeting for one campaign over the other?
Are any of those examples of journalism?
If name calling, hurt feelings and more name calling are the only cases against Donald Trump, then Hillary Clinton’s campaign is in trouble. We’ll expect WaPo, the Huffing Mad Post and other mainstream liberal news outlets to continue their sponsored content, I mean, hits on Trump, I mean reporting on the election. R.I.P. Journalism.