Do you trust the Washington Post to report on American Politics accurately?

[bryant69]

Just out of curiosity.

And if you don't, well, why are you buying their frame that the Democrats have capitulated?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[splat]

1. Politics is so subjective that accuracy can only be applied to quotes

[EFerrari]

7. The frame, too, though. They did a piece on Sunday about

the A28 action in D.C. and made it sound like three hippies with a bullhorn -- completely ignoring the many other cities that were also participating.

[damntexdem]

8. Whatever. But one place the word "accuracy" can clearly not be applied is to ...

the WAPO!

[depakid]

2. Is that a trick question?

The Post is as "fair and balanced" as Fox "news."

In some ways, they're even worse.

[Rydz777]

3. The WaPo is neocon n/t

[givemebackmycountry]

4. I voted "trust a little bit...little bit" sounds like Deniro...

"Ah you insulted 'em a lil' bit, maybe a lil' bit"

AFTER SEEING BILL MOYERS LAST NIGHT!!!!

And his stunning "Buying the War" piece on Bill Moyers Journal, I'm not sure I trust them at all. The Knight-Ridder guys were amazing.

Washington Post, trust? lil'bit.
Washington Times, trust? no fucking way.

[Marnieworld]

5. The editorial page is delusional bullshit

But occassionally they actually do good reporting which contradicts ironically the assertions of the delusional editorials.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. How can anyone report honestly on something inherently dishonest?

[WiseButAngrySara]

9. I am going to e-mail them the results once more have voted.

I voted a sad NO.

:kick: and Rec so as many DUers as possible can vote prior to my forwarding the results. Let them realize what a "Liberal Press" they are.... :sarcasm:

[underseasurveyor]

10. Where's the 'Fuck No' box?

:-)

[DerBeppo]

11. Where is the "Only when it suits my personal interest" option?

Generally, that seems to be a popular choice.

[WiseButAngrySara]

12. Look at this whoredom by the WaPo just today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x812737
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosis_office.php

Pelosi And Reid's Offices Deny WaPo Story Saying Congressional Dems "Backed Down" To White House On Withdrawal
May 03, 2007 -- 10:05 AM EST
Check this out -- the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.
Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go. But the WaPo story goes further than that, saying explicitly that Dems have already "backed down" and offered the concession of removing the withdrawal language. Those aren't the same thing.
But did Dems actually back down and offer this concession, as WaPo says?
I just emailed a Pelosi aide to ask whether the story was true. Here's the reply:
Not true. Speaker just told members of the Democratic caucus that the story is totally untrue. We are still deciding what provisions the new bill will include.

[bryant69]

16. Let's note also that this "whoredom" was believed

hook line and sinker, by many of our fellow DUers.

Bryant

[Cha]

13. Why should I trust? Don't they

have an agenda? And that agenda is fascism.

[Jacobin]

14. Didn't Smirk give the editor of the WaPo the Medal of Freedom

for his propaganda supporting the invasion of Iraq?

nuff said

[TheBaldyMan]

15. Investigative journalism is so rare in the US that when it happens ...

you make a movie about it.

[BuyingThyme]

17. kcik