Today’s paragraphs come to us from the Washington Post’s “reporter”, Philip Rucker: specifically, from his Tuesday article, headlined “Trump reacts to London terror by stoking fear and renewing feud with mayor.”
Before showing the first two paragraphs of this story, let me ask you an easy question: does that headline suggest neutral reporting or editorial content?
See, I told you the question would be easy. That headline is an opinion – a heavily negative one – about President Trump, thus obviously editorial content.
Now the story’s first two paragraphs:
A traditional president would have reacted carefully to the London Bridge terrorist attack by instilling calm, being judicious about facts and appealing to the country’s better angels.
But Donald Trump is no traditional president. He reacted impulsively to Saturday night’s carnage by stoking panic and fear, being indiscreet with details of the event and capitalizing on it to advocate for one of his more polarizing policies and to advance a personal feud.
Asking the same question I asked about the headline: do these paragraphs suggest neutral reporting or editorial content? The answer is even easier here than it was for the headline.
Philip Rucker wins Paragraphs Of The Day “honors”, for managing to shred what little is left of the Washington Post’s reputation as a news venue rather than a Democrat propaganda organ.
Ken, as I read your words it occurred to me how much wapo nyt’s or any other msm venue would gain by hiring you as the editor. You could get these ‘news reporting’ companies back to being trusted again and teach these ‘reporters’ how you actually report on stories.
Thank you. I’m very complimented…though I’m not sitting anxiously by the phone waiting for that call.