It used to be that the Washington Post was the news outlet closest to and that most accurately reflected the prevailing wisdom in the nation’s capitol. Is that still the case? If so, I think we have a lot about which we should be concerned.
This morning when I checked the WaPo’s online opinion page, as I do every morning, I was treated to George Will’s column to which I linked yesterday as the lead opinion piece. As was noted the piece reflected an oddly distorted view of events and called attention to events of whose interpretation I am far from certain. Certainly not as certain as George Will. They were events that could be leading us closer to a major war.
I can’t remember the last time that one of Mr. Will’s columns held the lead position on the WaPo’s online opinion page. Clearly, the piece has caught some attention and the WaPo’s editors broadly approve of it.
Today’s lead editorial is about the Polish government’s move against an (ultimately) American-owned 24 hour news station on the grounds that it violates foreign ownership rules in Poland. I’ll have more to say about the editorial later but here’s my question: why refer to it as an “attack”? Journalists are supposed to be wordsmiths so any claim that it was inadvertent rings hollow. “Move” as two fewer letters so the word wasn’t chosen to save space.
Which leads to the question in my title: why is the WaPo so bellicose? Does that reflect the prevailing view in DC these days?
I think a lot of print media promotes anger these days. They’ve lost their advertising base, so they are mostly reliant on creating an emotional connection with subscribers, anger and fear are good motivators it appears.