True Pundit

Politics

Why the Washington Post Has No Credibility

FOLLOW US!
Follow on FacebookFollow on Twitter

There’s a reason why the Washington Post is not-so-affectionately tagged the “Washington Compost” by its fast-growing pool of distrustful detractors. That reason is embodied in both the person (and the “journalism”) of one Jonathan Capehart, homosexual activist, Washington Post mercenary-hack and editorial board member. Capehart is a liar and, by extension, so is the Washington Post.

Now, when I say that Capehart is a liar, I don’t mean it in the pejorative sense. It’s not an ad hominem attack. It’s a fact, supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In the journalism biz, a reputation for truth and accuracy is everything, and Capehart’s reputation is polluted by an extensive history of inaccuracies, journalistic spin and outright lies. His word processor is the beaker from which he regularly concocts a poisonous brew intended to sway the public toward his left-wing extremist ideology. Indeed, the Post’s liberal bias is better documented than Hillary Clinton’s cyber-crimes – and Capehart’s yellow journalism more known than her wayward hubby’s womanizing.

To be sure, Capehart’s agenda-driven shenanigans have the dubious distinction of managing to tick off both conservatives and liberals. Consider, for instance, that during the Democratic presidential primary, Capehart, who is “in the bag for Hillary Clinton, lock, stock, and barrel,” infuriated Bernie Sander’s supporters with a now-discredited missive that “progressive” Paste Magazine writer Shane Ryan called, “A dishonest narrative propagated by a supposedly neutral journalist, with perfect timing, in an attempt to smear Bernie Sanders.”

The crux of the piece was that Bernie Sanders really offered little support during the civil rights movement for racial equality. You can read Ryan’s article to learn of how, once busted for a litany of gross inaccuracies and outright lies, Capehart, as wont to do, merely doubled down with more lies and obfuscation.

“Why wasn’t Capehart just admitting that he’d gotten it wrong?” wondered Ryan. “Didn’t he understand that his attempt to cover his own tracks was blatantly obvious, and that no matter how much bulls–t he tried to heap on his original mistake, it would only make him look worse?”

Ryan called Capehart’s actions “rash dishonesty of a journalist with an agenda who had failed to do basic research before printing a smear piece.” – READ MORE

FOLLOW US!
Follow on FacebookFollow on Twitter