This morning, the Washington Post editorial writers (presumably a gent named Fred Hiatt) authored an opinion piece that defends George W. Bush for his leaking of what had been classified data, and attacks Joe Wilson for his statements against Bush. Here is a link to the editorial in question.
Now, what's interesting about this is that the "facts" presented in support of the editorial's position are not only at variance with what has been reported elsewhere…they're even at variance with what's been reported in the Washington Post. Matter of fact, the editorial contradicts some facts presented in the very same issue of the Post. This article that was in the paper this morning is headlined, "A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic" and they're referring to Wilson. But the editorial in the same issue is written as if it's an established truth that there was no such effort. (For more on the contradictions, read this.)
So here's my question: Is the Post editorial a case of its author saying, "I don't believe the other article?" Or is it, "I didn't read the other article?" There's a big difference there.
This is not unprecedented. A few years ago, The Wall Street Journal went through a period where the editorial page seemed to be written and assembled by folks who were unpersuaded by facts that appeared in The Wall Street Journal. In that case, it seemed clear that they thought the rest of the paper was getting things wrong. I'd like to know if that's what's occurring now with the Washington Post.
For a paper that still gets dismissed by some as a left-wing rag, the Post has been pretty supportive of George W. Bush. In fact, the American people have been a lot less supportive of Bush than the Post has been. At times, it's seemed like the paper has been consciously trying to side with him in order to shake the "Liberal" label and garner some respect (and subscriptions) from Conservatives. If that's their goal, it won't work. They could write 98 editorials praising the brilliance of Bush and two criticizing his policies, and the two would still be dismissed as Bush-hating, left-wing bias. For a lot of right-wingers, hurling that charge has becoming a way of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la" so they don't have to hear, and therefore deal with facts that aren't going their way.