Home » Pigs fly, and the WaPo writes the article I thought they wouldn’t write about Newt Gingrich’s divorce

Comments

Pigs fly, and the <i>WaPo</i> writes the article I thought they wouldn’t write about Newt Gingrich’s divorce — 9 Comments

  1. Neo-neocon gets results!

    I think when they go out of their way to destroy Gingrich, should be the nominee, they can point back to how fair they’ve been to him.

  2. My Machiavellian guess, some people at the WaPo have a hunch that Newt actually has a chance to become the next President, and they are hedging their bets by trying to do a little anticipatory, precautionary, sucking up so that Newt won’t freeze them out come January 20th.

  3. “Or maybe, just maybe (could it be?) somebody out there actually wanted to do some decent reporting? ”

    I have my fantasies, too.

  4. Or perhaps, somewhat paradoxically, they’re trying to temporarily promote the Gingrich candidacy because they think he’d be easier to beat than Romney.

    Yup, that’s another possibility. Perhaps I’m a bit too cynical, but I presume that the WaPo’s coverage is dictated by the Prime Directive: advance the leftist cause.

    As an aside, am I the only one who finds annoying the leftist verbal tic of labeling someone with the appelation “Mother X?” (As in “Mother Jones,” “Mother Sheehan.”) It seems moronic, because a) there are lots of mothers out there, b) a woman’s reproductive history does not obviously bear (sorry) on the merit of her political views, c) the deference implicit in the usage deprecates nulliparous women by extension, and d) they never use “Father X.”

    Apart from that, it’s a delightful habit.

  5. “Or maybe, just maybe (could it be?) somebody out there actually wanted to do some decent reporting?”

    Hahahahahahahahahahhahahah haha ha.
    Thanks, I needed that.

  6. If one remembers that the MSM are propagandists, it doesn’t matter what they say about anything.

    Rule to remember: If they open their mouths, they are lying.

    The only thing I read in my local paper is “Mutts.” Because I like the cute kitty cats and sweet dogs.

    There is nothing else worth reading in the daily paper, except possibly a Clinique ad for a bonus plastic cosmetic container if the design is pleasant.

  7. It is well established that well established facts do not interfere with the narrative. A few e.g. offered: They still refer to Scooter Libby as the man who “outed”
    Valerie Plame, long after someone else has admitted to being the source, and Novak has confirmed this datum; the “Bush Lied” meme, the refutation of which is more complicated than most Democrats can understand; the “tax cut for the rich,” from which even I benefitted, and which were followed by increases in revenue to the government. Facts are strange things, which only the bourgeoisie seem to find interesting.

  8. My theory is conspiracy free, but I like to think about the better in people, even reporters.

    I suspect Mr. Farhi set out to get all the sordid details about the story and found out that the details didn’t match the narrative and so he continued but followed the facts. The piece is one which was focused enough to require actual research, and this focus is what caused the true details to surface.

    The explanation for it being on the Lifestyles section just reflects that WaPo (like many of us) are just regarding Newt as the latest under the microscope and that this old story is not really what anyone would call hard news. If the actual details had been as originally told, we can only speculate that it would have been on the front or political pages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>