Saturday, December 02, 2023
View Blog
Feb 23

Written by: Diana West
Thursday, February 23, 2017 5:52 AM 

As not everybody knows because most people have no time for such fluff, The Washington Post has unveiled a motto: "Democracy dies in the darkness."

I used to write for a newspaper with a motto -- the late, lamented Dispatch International. Ours was from Thomas Jefferson: “Freedom of the press cannot be limited without being lost. In 2013, Lars Hedegaard, editor in chief, was very nearly was assassinated by a Danish Muslim (who later disappeared into ISIS) for doing his job as a journalist and commentator regarding the limitations Islam and the establishment (I don't how to say "swamp" in Danish) seek to impose on free speech and other matters.

I will still take Thomas Jefferson over a misremembered line from Star Trek 14, but note of the delusional aspect. In the Post's fever dream, it, the Post, is this sleek light-sword slicing the galactic darkness where democracy dies ... unless it can hack into the password protected timebomb about to weaponize the fourth ring of Steve Bannon's encoded story treatment about a network of American Foreign Legion outposts cloning Stephen Miller ...  

Maybe the new motto has energized a demoralized fakenewsroom. After all, they and their media allies lost the election they tried everything to win for Hillary Clinton. Of course, what they will never see is that they are the darkness where power, not democracy, is everything.

My earlier foray in WashingtonPostLand ran this week at The American Spectator, where the editor expressed some mock-surprise that I still read the Post. To be sure, it seems to be mainly a Democratic club newsletter, not much of a news gatherer in the ideal sense, but there is use in tracking club activities. Meanwhile, its Alexa Rankings in the US (37) are almost as high as Upstart, I mean, Breitbart (31) which is almost as high as the NYT (24).

In a style reminiscent of the Daily Worker of yore, the Post sets and follows its political party line, its obvious mission being not to light up, but to undermine the Trump administration. I decided today to note here a new vector: the fake testimonial. A 15-year CIA employee "on loan" for the past three years to the Obama White House, Ned Price wrote an op-ed this week explaining that he had resigned from the intelligence agency because while he proudly served Republican and Democrat administrations, he could not serve this one. "To be clear," Price wrote, "this has nothing to with politics."

A Netflixnews video accompanies the op-ed. 

What Price's "tell-all" left in darkness, however, as the Washington Free Beacon reported, is that Price is a registered Democrat who contributed $5K in 2016 to the Hillary Victory Fund!

Tthe Free Beacon summed up aptly in its headline: "Clinton Donor Quits CIA, Says Decision Not About Politics." The subhead also offers more extremely pertinent information Price left out: "Ned Price was Ben Rhodes assistant, played key role in creating Iran deal "echo chamber."

On top of everything else, so much for Price's sanctimony. The Free Beacon goes on to excerpt the extremely, yes, informative reporting (however breathy) of the New York Times Magazine, which, in an infamous article on Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, a.k.a. the "Boy Wonder of the Obama White House," also gave us an up-close look at what Price did. (By the way, don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to call White House policy chief Stephen Miller, 31, the Boy Wonder of the Trump White House.)

The context is Iran's seizure of ten American sailors, which Rhodes, the NYT writes,  is "trying to keep out of the news until after" Obama delivers his 2016 State of the Union address. The italics are mine, of course; the NYT didn't find this questionable. Indeed, the Times' reporter actually glories in Rhode's and Price's propaganda machine.

From the NYT:

In this environment, Rhodes has become adept at ventriloquizing many people at once. Ned Price, Rhodes’s assistant, gave me a primer on how it’s done.

The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps. “But then there are sort of these force multipliers,” he said, adding, “We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them — ”

“I can name them,” I said, ticking off a few names of prominent Washington reporters and columnists who often tweet in sync with White House messaging.

Price laughed. “I’ll say, ‘Hey, look, some people are spinning this narrative that this is a sign of American weakness,’ ” he continued, “but — ”

“In fact it’s a sign of strength!” I said, chuckling.

“And I’ll give them some color,” Price continued, “and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.”

Much more on the operation, which Rhodes described as "echo chamber" here

Price can spout in the Washington Post about how "As intelligence professionals, we’re taught to tune out politics," but as a White House message-maker, he tuned in politics as a career. He hasn't stopped. Neither has the Post. 

This "clarification" almost makes things worse. That is, having now "clarified" that Price's single most important claim to speak as an apolitical source is a lie, the Washington Post doesn't seem to understand that they have just nullified the entire op-ed and made it ridiculous. The Post has appended no such "clarification" to the video version, by the way.

Truth, logic, and credibility? Not on this mission.





Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West