This correction is utterly priceless!
I'm not a fan or follower of DJT Jr., but in this case I have to admit, he's nailed it. What was the Washington Post thinking of, to make so bald-faced an admission - in other words, confessing that one of its editors deliberately lied - that leaves it with egg (not to mention something less edible and rather more odiferous) all over its journalistic face? And what's being done about that editor? Will he or she suffer the consequences that should follow from such a breach of professional ethics? If not, the admission isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will enjoy a moment of schadenfreude at the Post's expense . . .
Peter
7 comments:
I picked this up at Survival Blog:
October 26th is the anniversary of the death of American-born RLI Trooper Joseph Patrick Byrne, in Rhodesia, in 1978.
I'm sure you were simply asking a rhetorical question about what will happen to that editor/journalist who lied.
Of course nothing will happen and there will be no consequences for his/her actions. After all, the lie, in their view, was a good kind of lie - the type that bolsters the progressive narrative. Why would s/he be sanctioned for that beyond having to admit that, oops s/he got caught lying for the cause?
+1.
I call the WaPo the WaPoo...because it WaPoops! And, does it STINK!!
Also, the word "progressive" always reminds me of CANCER.
EVERY crowd has been breaking into "F--- Joe Biden" chants, since ever.
That's been the whole point all along.
And wait?! The WaPo lied??
Next they'll tell us the sky is up, and water's wet.
Will wonders never cease?
I call the NYT the NYTrash, and I avoid it like the plague it is.
A friend of mine, known to you, sir, comments that it is VERY NICE that schadenfreude has no calories.
Night driver
Post a Comment