{"id":181146,"date":"2016-09-18T19:43:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-19T00:43:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2016\/09\/18\/the-washington-post-just-became-the-most-repulsive-op-ed-page-in-the-us\/"},"modified":"2016-09-18T19:43:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-19T00:43:00","slug":"the-washington-post-just-became-the-most-repulsive-op-ed-page-in-the-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2016\/09\/18\/the-washington-post-just-became-the-most-repulsive-op-ed-page-in-the-us\/","title":{"rendered":"The Washington Post just Became the Most Repulsive OP\/ED Page in the US"},"content":{"rendered":"

When considering the fact that the Wall Street Journal<\/i>‘s editorial page is a competitor, this is no small mark of ignominy, but since they just called for the prosecution of their own source in an Pulitzer Award winning study<\/a>, they have clearly jumped the proverbial shark:<\/p>\n

Three of the four media outlets that received and published large numbers of secret NSA documents provided by Edward Snowden \u2014 The Guardian<\/a><\/i>, the New York Times<\/i><\/a>, and The Intercept<\/a><\/i> \u2013\u2013 have called for the U.S. government to allow the NSA whistleblower to return to the U.S. with no charges. That\u2019s the normal course for a news organization, which owes its sources duties of protection, and which \u2014 by virtue of accepting the source\u2019s materials and then publishing them \u2014 implicitly declares the source\u2019s information to be in the public interest.<\/span>

<\/span> But not the Washington Post<\/i>. In the face of a growing ACLU and Amnesty-led campaign to secure a pardon for Snowden, timed to this weekend\u2019s release of the Oliver Stone biopic \u201cSnowden,\u201d the Post editorial page today not only argued<\/a> in opposition to a pardon, but explicitly demanded that Snowden \u2014 the paper\u2019s own source \u2014 stand trial on espionage charges or, as a \u201csecond-best solution,\u201d accept \u201ca measure of criminal responsibility for his excesses and the U.S. government offers a measure of leniency.\u201d<\/span>

<\/span> In doing so, the Washington Post<\/i> has achieved an ignominious feat in U.S. media history: the first-ever paper to explicitly editorialize for the criminal prosecution of its own source \u2014 one on whose back the paper won and eagerly accepted a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. But even more staggering than this act of journalistic treachery against the paper\u2019s own source are the claims made to justify it.<\/span>

<\/span> \u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span>

<\/span> The editorial page is separate from the news organization and does not speak for the latter; I seriously doubt the journalists or editors at the Post who worked on these news stories would agree with any of that editorial. But still, if the Post editorial page editors now want to denounce these revelations, and even call for the imprisonment of their paper\u2019s own source on this ground, then they should at least have the courage to acknowledge that it was the Washington Post<\/i> \u2014 not Edward Snowden \u2014 who made the editorial and institutional choice to expose those programs to the public<\/span><\/b>. They might want to denounce their own paper and even possibly call for its prosecution for revealing top-secret programs they now are bizarrely claiming should never have been revealed to the public in the first place.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(emphasis mine<\/i><\/i>)<\/p>\n

Jeff Bezos: You didn’t hire him, but you can fire Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the Post<\/i>, tomorrow. <\/p>\n

He is a cancer on journalism.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When considering the fact that the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page is a competitor, this is no small mark of ignominy, but since they just called for the prosecution of their own source in an Pulitzer Award winning study, they have clearly jumped the proverbial shark: Three of the four media outlets that received and …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[766,780,804,844,816,824],"class_list":["post-181146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-evil","tag-hack-journalism","tag-hypocrisy","tag-secrecy","tag-stupid","tag-wanker"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181146"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=181146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}