Washington Post caught in its own mousetrap

August 28, 2024 24 Comments

This is an example of the press putting its thumb on the scale.

This photo shows a Washington Post story as carried in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The story is what’s called a sidebar, or an auxiliary story that supports the main story, which was Donald J. Trump’s campaign event at the southern border a few days ago.

To me, the story was commissioned partly on merit, but also to embarrass Trump, as it talks about the wall built by Barack Obama, which came to an end when Trump was elected. The implication was that the wall’s ending was Trump’s failure.

The first thing that struck me was this: Since the wall is broadly condemned as “racist” by many on the Left, does this mean Obama was a racist for building this part of the wall? (The answer is “no,” for a surprising and embarrassing reason for the Post. We will get to that in a moment.)

Not mentioned in the story is this fact: In 2018, Congress refused Trump’s request for $18 billion to complete the wall. Blame (or praise, if you feel that way) for the wall not being finished does not fall on Trump. That was the doing of Congress. (And, of course, Trump failed to get Mexico to pay for wall construction.) 

Getting back to the Post story: It was wrong.

That part of the wall was not built by Obama, the Post acknowledged in a later correction.

I give the Post credit for doing that, which is what legitimate news outlets do.

I suspect the mistake happened because the three (!) reporters on the story might have been a little too anxious to mousetrap Trump.

Instead, they mousetrapped themselves.

The above being my opinion, based on many decades of experience in print journalism. When something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

24 thoughts on “Washington Post caught in its own mousetrap”

  1. It was a dumb story any way you look at it. Who the fuck cares WHERE he was speaking? The underlying issue is, was the wall a good idea to help cut illegal immigration (I kindly doubt it), and why did Trump shoot down the toughest (bi-partisan) immigration bill in a decade in order to help his campaign? I have yet to see any sensible response to this from ANY Trump supporters, because there IS no sensible response to that. It was just wrong on every level.

    1. Who the fuck cares what you think. You have proven over and over that you are a dishonest anti American low life who wants to destroy this country.

      2. It is going to continue to get worse Wanda because Daniel, and a few others know they can do anything they want except for calling Stu a liar.

        Stu has already told me if I do not like it I should leave. In my opinion it appears Stu, in some small perverted way, is victim blaming.

          2. Great way to react Stu, telling victims to shut up while allowing the perpetrators to do or say what ever they want.

          3. Calling yourself a victim of free speech says it all. Here are your choices: 1- Fight back. 2- Ignore what you don’t like.
            DON’T tell me to cancel someone who makes you unhappy. That will happen only if he libels you and does not apologize. Name calling is not libelous.

        2. Don’t worry Bogart, we will have our retribution when Harris-Walz win and while our country thrives under their leadership. It will drive the Daniels and Studes bananas while they stew and wallow in their dark hatred of all they don’t understand.

          1. I don’t think the American people are going to elect someone who can’t defend her record and can’t even give an interview. Now she wants to bring notes to the debate. Of course she will try to lie and change her positions like you advised her to do. But the people will see how dishonest she is and throw her ass to the curb.

        3. I’m only repeating your own thoughts and insulting you for how dumb and dishonest they are.

        5. Bogart, not so bad to listen to you and Wanda voice your opinions day after day. Why are you so bent on silencing Daniel?

          Are you offended by the freedom of a true democracy. Is Stu, somehow obligated to silence someone you disagree with as if he is some sort of minister of your truth.

          If so you clearly are in the wrong company. I disagree with many comments on this blog but respect the forum that allows them.

          Thanks, Stu.

          2. Phillyborn, I do not have a problem with people having a different opinion than I do. What I do have a problem with is people like Daniel who 99% of the time do not debate but simply insult and curse anybody who does not agree with them. I am sure that you have seen that for yourself.

            I also have a problem with Stu saying we should handle these people on our own. How do we do that? Whether we ignore Daniel or we confront him his replies are always the same insults and cursing.

            If you have a suggestion or a solution I would truly love to hear it.

  2. Unfortunately in our world today people tend to look at anything and figure either Trump and MAGA, all bad, or Harris, woke liberals et.al. all bad. There is good and bad and in between on most sides. You just need to pick your poison. My example is Gregg Abbott, Governor of Texas. How he went about calling attention to the immigration crisis is not how I would have preferred to see it done. But you know what? He was protecting his State and the people that pit him in office. The message he sent to the nation was certainly loud and certainly clear.

  3. Mexico may not have built the wall but they put thousands of troops on their northern and southern borders because of Trump. This stopped a lot of illegal crossings.

  5. Re: The Washington Post

    Read a real page turner a couple of years ago: “Postgate” by John O’Connor. Tells the story of how it was with Woodward and Bernstein, and their editor Ben Bradley, and how they handled the information being received by “Deep Throat” Mark Felt.

Comments are closed.