The WaPo: Which Is It?

By August 22, 2006General

It’s almost comical to read the WaPo every day. In the last month, they’ve had almost a daily dose of stories about how badly they expect the Republicans to be trounced in the upcoming elections, their glee barely disguised. And so it was no surprise that this story by Zachary Goldfarb appeared on Sunday entitled, “GOP’s Financial Edge Shrinks: Challengers Gain On Incumbents.” The first two paragraphs read like this:

“The traditional fundraising advantage held by incumbent lawmakers — which Republicans have regarded as a safety wall in their effort to keep control of Congress — has eroded in many closely contested House races, as many Democratic challengers prove competitive in the race for cash.

In a year of bad omens for the GOP, the latest batch of disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission offers one more: Incumbency no longer means that embattled Republican representatives can expect to overwhelm weakly funded Democratic challengers with massive spending on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts.

But wait — not so fast. The WaPo online edition on Monday ran this AP story by Phil Elliot entitled, “GOP Fundraising Outpaces Democrats.” Its first two paragraphs say:

“Republicans trying to hold onto the House raised $12.5 million in July, outpacing Democrats by a 3-to-1 margin but leaving the GOP just $1 million ahead in cash on hand.

The influx of money — largely from political action committees — gives Republicans a slight advantage more than two months before the November elections.”

As we’ve said in this space before, maybe the WaPo doesn’t read the WaPo.

Join the discussion One Comment

  • Ben Blankenship says:

    I recently read a news account in the Washington Post about the behavior of Marine Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, one of the commanders up the line at the time of the Haditha incident. The narrative was going fairly objectively until about the tenth paragraph in the page-one story.

    Then the reporter, Thomas E. Ricks, turned lefty:

    “Commentators likened the incident [at Haditha] to the Vietnam War’s My Lai massacre and predicted that it would damage the U.S. effort in Iraq more than the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse scandal had.”

    Did Ricks then hasten to add a “however” paragraph, to cover such topics as which commentators were likening and predicting, plus any counter arguments that may have surfaced to justify the raid?

    Are you kidding? This is the Washington Post running with a long inflammatory news story that is damaging to the U.S. military. The editorial page is, comparatively, more fair and balanced. And in the article itself, there was no qualifying of the status of Ricks as an objective reporter, or the inconvenient fact that he’s written a book, “Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.”