Washington Post publishes sloppy anti-Koch hit piece, forgets to correct mistakes.

Wow, but Wonkblog has gone downhill since Ezra Klein left….

Yeah, I’m shocked to write that, too.

Anyway, here’s the summary of today’s epic oil sand reporting oopsie, in a nutshell:

  • The Washington Post’s Wonkblog’s Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin essentially wrote a hit post on the Koch brothers (two high demons in American Orthodox Progressivism, or AOP) by attempting to link them to Canadian oil sands (a terrifying place of pure evil and fear, likewise in AOP theology) – and hence, to the Keystone Pipeline (a harbinger of the End Times to the AOP faithful).  You have to understand: the goal here?  Getting the right keywords in place, for the benefit of SEO.  That’s all that Mufson and Eilperin cared about.  It’s certainly why they didn’t correct the post…
  • Oh, yes, the post needs correcting. Turns out – as per Powerline – that the “biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is” not “a subsidiary of Koch Industries.”  Oil sands in Alberta don’t have any of the big oil companies heavily involved, not that Koch Industries is a big oil company. Or really prepared to make money off of Keystone. Or even likely to.
  • So why did that Wonkblog post get published?  Power Line, again, notes that Ms. Eilperin is linked through her husband to the fundamentalist environmentalist wing of the AOP: and while it would be rude of me to suggest that serving that faction might be more important to her than mere journalistic integrity please note the exact word that I used.
  • So, what was Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin’s response to it being pointed out that they wrote a factually challenged hit piece on the behest of radical religious fanatics? “The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. That’s why we wrote the piece.”
  • Using that… ‘logic’ …I could write a post on RedState about how Barack Obama probably relaxes on the weekend by castrating sheep* and anybody who objected to that would be justifying my article on the grounds that at least we’re all inflaming public debate.

Depressing. Say what you like about Ezra Klein, but at least he has some self-respect.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I am absolutely certain that I could find somebody who would be willing to assure me that of course Barack Obama castrates sheep, particularly if I promised to not directly reference that assurance.




9 thoughts on “Washington Post publishes sloppy anti-Koch hit piece, forgets to correct mistakes.”

  1. Moe, I personally cannot assure you that Barack Obama castrates sheep, but my friend Lucy Ramirez can. I can give you a Xerox copy of a deposition from her — she gave it to me herself, but then she had me copy it and burn the original. But that’s acceptable proof according to Professional Journalist standards, right?

  2. I just think this is sad as to how far journalism has fallen, from reporting the news, to being propaganda puppets of the Democrat Party…

    Seriously, there are probably tons of dead journalists rolling over in their graves (they may have been liberals, but they wouldn’t have let their bias get a big scoop and hold politicians accountable).

    Sean is right, Journalism is pretty much dead in America.

  3. Of course Obama castrates sheep. How do you think he got re-elected? Anyone who could vote for him after his appalling, disastrous first term had to have been a member of his pet herd of castrati.

  4. Hey! The only thing wrong with castrating sheep is that it implies that one is ranching the range maggots. Even that is not so offensive that we hold it against the commonwealth people. Much.
    I think the current state of the art for castrating that sort of stock involves a rubber band.
    Oh, wait, you are trying say something that would never be seriously said about President Obama.
    Because the apparently serious complaints include everything from him being a druggie who had his gay lovers murdered*, to his mad, sad, bankrupt foreign policy. We may yet see those topped.
    *I’m not very convinced of the former, but the claims have been made. He has done drugs, and may well be a drug addled loon**.
    **Do note that I am not asserting that autism spectrum is the whole of mental illnesses or impairments. When I talk of seeing signs of such, I am not specifying autism spectrum unless I explicitly say so. The autism spectrum has long been part of my understanding of mental abnormalities and tendencies, but I also know something of other things.

    1. First footnote has an error that is an artifact of an earlier rewrite. I know Obama has used drugs. I am not convinced of gay sex, the murders of lovers, or the claims of drug use later in life.
      It isn’t clear to me to what extent he is mentally impaired. There are a few features that the ‘pure ideology’ model does not explain to my full satisfaction.
      Yes, certain of his apparent weaknesses seem to be the same as those the pot smokers give the impression of having. (Issues of long term thinking, a critical view of how one might appear to others, and strategy mainly.)
      Those might be explained by laziness, and a lack of both reality clue by fours and significant robust intellectual opposition.

      1. It isn’t clear to me to what extent he is mentally impaired.
        It depends on whether being a narcissistic sociopath is viewed as a bug or a feature.

Comments are closed.