Through a Gimlet Eye: Studying the Washington Post Kremlinologist-Style

During the Cold War, back when Russian spies typically looked far more like Boris than Natasha, not to mention Anna Chapman, the phrase “Kremlinologist” came into vogue to describe those men who could study photos and snippets of information emerging from behind the Iron Curtain and attempt to determine the current health of the Soviet Union, and who was running the show.
So let’s employ a little Kremlinology to try and ascertain the health of the Washington Post. Or even a little Nixonology — a modern-day equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein (or at least how they were presented to the public in the form of Redford and Hoffman) would have lots of fun tying together all of the strange stories that have circulated recently from the former home of Ben Bradlee and Katharine Graham:
- Newsweek’s Howard Fineman lamenting the legacy media’s industry-wide pro-Democratic presidential candidate group-think immediately after election year 2004, and wondering if it’s caused the industry to lose credibility.
- The Washington Post’s then ombudswoman, Deborah Howell, lamenting her paper’s office-wide pro-Democratic presidential candidate group-think immediately after election year 2008, and wondering if it’s caused the paper to lose credibility.
- In April of 2009, Andrew Alexander, the Washington Post’s ombudsman, claims that he’s “Whittling Down the Corrections Backlog.”
- In the summer of 2006, Newsweek retracted its infamous Koran in the Can story, perhaps permanently damaging the brand’s reputation as a news source.
- Newsweek goes hard left in late 2008, to the point where the magazine’s name is now paradoxic: it’s an opinion magazine inside the shell of a once more or less centrist news weekly. In the process it slashes its printed circulation in half. “It’s hugely counterintuitive,” Jon Meacham, Newsweek’s editor, tells Howard Kurtz of the magazine’s parent publication, adding, “The staff doesn’t understand it.”
“Newsweek staffers, having suffered through layoffs and the struggle for the title’s future, have to endure yet another loss: their new offices,” Media Week reported in late March of 2010, adding, “Scarcely a year after they moved from their unglamorous Midtown offices to cushier Tribeca digs, staffers were told they would have to pack up again, to relocate uptown.”
- Newsweek describes small-government activists as “A Surge of Hate;” perhaps the first protest group to receive negative coverage in the history of the magazine or the newspaper that owns it.
- By the early summer of 2010, “Washington Post Co. Seeking to Unload Money-losing Newsweek.”
- In February 2010, Gerard Alexander asked in the Washington Post, “Why are liberals so condescending?” perhaps not noting the enormous mote in the paper’s eye.
- Compare and contrast: 2005: Media destroys President Bush over his administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Or as Evan Thomas of Newsweek put it in mid-September of 2005, less than three weeks after the storm touched ground in New Orleans, “Katrina: How Bush Blew It.” 2010: “Obama to Pen Cover Story on Haiti and the Earthquake for Newsweek.”
- In the waning days of 2008, the New York Times, Washington Post and NBC’s Tom Brokaw all wanted to see steep additional gas taxes in the midst of a protracted recession. Keep doing your part to boost the economy and relieve the financial burdens on the common man, fellas!
- Bias in WaPo photo captions tilts left.
- Bias in WaPoTV coverage tilts left.
- Bias at WaPo-owned blogs tilts left.
- Post goes into Alinskyesque “pick the target, personalize the target, freeze the target” during the fall 2009 election cycle, running dozens of stories about Republican candidate for governor of Virginia’s 1989 college thesis.
- Post goes into Alinskyesque “pick the target, personalize the target, freeze the target” during the fall 2006 election cycle, running over 100 stories about Republican candidate for US Senate from Virginia’s joke about Democratic operative assigned to videotape his every public utterance.
- Dismissals of Helen Thomas from Hearst and the meltdown of Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC), both stemming from the Post-approved methods to force a gaffe from Allen, receive scant notice in comparison.
- During fall of 2009, “Hacks In Sandbox Trade Licks At Post!”
It’s come to this: The Washington Post Style section, for years known as “the sandbox” because it was a playground for sometimes immature writers, has turned into a boxing ring because one of the editors was revolted by a story that came across his desk on deadline.
- Post newspaper division lost money by the boxcar in 2009:
The company’s newspaper division, which includes The Post and several smaller papers, lost $23.6 million in the quarter, bringing 2009 losses to $166.7 million, compared with losses of $178.3 million through the first nine months of 2008. Like most newspapers, The Post was hit hard by the recession, which further eroded advertising revenue, already in decline for years. … Daily circulation at The Post is down 3.6 percent for the first nine months of the year, and now stands at 600,800. Sunday circulation was down 3.7 percent and is now 840,100.
- Newsweek seemingly puts Obama on its cover every week — OK, to be fair, every other week – during the 2008 election cycle and early 2009.
- Evan Thomas of Newsweek declares the President “Sort of God” in mid-2009.
- The Washington Post’s pay-to-play scandal in the summer of 2009:
In an update on Tim Graham’s earlier post about The Washington Post’s flier that circulated to Beltway lobbyists, the Post abruptly canceled its “salon” program to offer “exclusive access” to “Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds” for between $25,000 and $250,000. (View an image of the flier.)
Michael Walsh of Big Journalism recently called the Washington Post “deeply compromised.” Which if anything may be understating the situation: add all of the above stories together, and then add the JournoList scandal on top of all of them, and then imagine what it must be like inside of the Post’s offices every day.
And then imagine how the paper itself would describe such a scandal if it were occurring at, say, Citibank, or the Union Pacific Railroad, or General Motors — at least before that last corporate institution became almost as much a de facto wing of the federal government as the Post itself.
(Artwork at top of this post originally created for my Silicon Graffiti video look at media bias back in May.)







I would add one more data point: the refusal of the Post to sell Newsweek to anyone lacking the correct ideology.
There used to be a saying: “‘Time’ is for people who can’t read; ‘Newsweek’ is for people who can’t think.”
Where does WaPo fit in? Beats me. I don’t read any of them; why spend time reading about them?
I believe the original statement was “Life is for people who can’t read and Time is for those who can’t think”. That sort of dates me doesn’t it. Anyone else remember Life?
Yes. And its competitor Look.
I miss the wisdom of David Lawrence and his staff at USN&WR.
Yes, secular socialism (G-dlessness) always leads directly to cannibalism.
Too bad they won’t sell NewsWeak to someone like Brent Bozell who could turn it into a print version of his website, exposing the Olde Media’s lies and propaganda as they continue to circle the drain.
This is really good stuff. Had no idea WaPo was losing money. I can’t imagine Sally Quinn is worth the crap she prints, that should save them some money.
I’ll put $10 down to purchase the Newsweek operation and turn it into a toilet paper manufacturing plant with Obama’s, Biden’s, and Holder’s faces printed on each sheet since they were good at printing manure on a weekly basis. I’m sure the Newsweek writers and editors will be great at testing our unique product as well as writing copy for the commercials and print ads for it. Nah, why waste my hard-earned money on a sinking ship. Die a slow and painful death “Newsweak!”
I submit the following bizarre story with all its implications of plagiarism and duplicity on the part of the Washington Post and its subsidiary, ABC, or is it vice versa. Here goes: In the summer of 2008, in the speculation brouhaha over who would be Obama’s running mate my wife and I were convinced that Obama was going to pick Caroline Kennedy for a daring return to Camelot! In our enthusiasm we penned an op-ed to the Washington Post in late July. We got no reply and ok maybe they didn’t care for it. But now it got interesting. Browsing the internet my wife sees an ABC news video proposing Catherine for VP and containing lots of the phrases and ideas in our submission to the Post. Yeah, and the posting date on ABC News was just one day prior to our submission date to the Post. Can they do these things, technically, nowadays. we wondered. Anyway, of course we wrote to said ombudsman. No reply. We swallowed hard, and figured we’re naive:this stuff must happen all the time. I just wonder, why go through the bother to round out all those ethical corners over what seems to have been nothing – a silly VP trial balloon. And big #2: Is everything gone totally to rot.
A great and very enjoyable article. I have been anxiously awaiting the death of the main stream media and I totally enjoyed the details on the Newsweek travails.
I am a novice WaPo reader and never knew Sally Quinn was married to the boss, so you can imagine my surprise when I saw she actually had a column. And here I thought she was just a talent less hack. But no she is a practitioner of a much older profession. Who knew?
Thanks for the coverage. When can you write more such articles?
Schadenfreude is better served with coffee.
You think this is bad….I actually know people who listen to NPR and watch Public TV
in order to avoid this kind of ” biased reporting” to get the unvarnished ” truth”.
What I find puzzling about the oddly-named mainstream media’s rapid slide into irrelevance is the seeming absence of any business types at the formerly elite organs like the WaPo. Let’s think of the detergent business for a moment. Can you imagine a decision to write off roughly 80 percent of the market for soap powder and tailor your product for what remains? Try as I may, I cannot think of any reason why a sanely run organization would make such a decision or even allow internal inertia to bring it to such certain ruin unless nepotism is a controlling factor. Both the NYTimes and WaPo are owned by families, not to mention Conde Nast (the New Yorker and other left wing magazines). That blood thins as the generations pass is well-known enough to be a maxim. The tough-minded businessmen who built publishing empires yield to heirs who have had everything given to them. This does not do much for character and you can imagine what the impact is on ability. After formative years in expensive schools where the predictable indoctrination occurs, the heirs want nothing more than to be considered cool. (This, by the way, is why so many trust fund babies live in San Francisco. People are so cool there and you can hang out with others like you who have lots of money and also want to save the whales). The left is cool, ironic and laid back, the governing cultural paradigm, but also righteous about the inch-long smelt that must be preserved even if farming in the Central Valley is laid waste. The right is stodgy and uptight with its old-fashioned emphasis on work, merit, morality and so forth. Take the one development with the other and it is a deadly combination as the old media empires have discovered.
Excellent point.
May I suggest that due to an infiltration of progressives, business is no longer the mission of these publications.
It is also possible that other groups have been compromised. How does one explain AARP’s support in gutting medicare in support of healthcare bill? The recent irrational behavior of the NAACP? The NRA’s possible endorsement of Reid? and on and on
They’re finished, done…it’s OVER, WaPo, Newsweek, Time, NYTimes, LATimes and all other lame streamers. Goodbye to the junk killing our trees.
Wait for the bail-out.
“Oddly?” Good, but not quite right for the circumstances.
Is “Orwellianly” a word?
Is “Orwellianly” a word?
It is now!! and about time someone thought of it!! I’m certain I won’t be the only blogger to start using it regularly!!
As someone who started reading the NY Times a long time ago – 1956 – I’ve watched the WaPo improve for most of those many years but haven’t watched closely enough to see this detailed process of degeneration that you so ably report. I read anything in the Times that same as a Russian would read Pravda in 1956 and expect Liberal bias from the WaPo. I had thought it was in decent shape financially unlike the Times. Satisfactory, as Nero Wolfe would say. Right now that 15-20% of the population is in power and used to being shielded by the press and the academy. Given that the Republicans don’t get it either if this ‘progressive’ elite gets marginalized by the collapse of their cherished illusions I think there is plenty of room for that remaining 80% to create entirely new governing coalitions. I am reminded of when Andrew Jackson won the election of 1828 and his uncouth frontier flowers camped out on the White House lawn with barrels of whiskey and guns and proceeded to get drunk and shoot each other just for the hell of it.
The poor dumb tramps of the media didn’t know when to cut back on their pimping activities. To have that much religious faith in the power of central government is a devastating comment in itself. Everybody in the business relied on everybody else for back up, a totally incestuous and destructive web of self certification.
The fools have blown it, their cover & much of their influence,[except for fanatics and morons, allowing for cross over of both types].
So you have a half crazy and not to bright ape like Chris Matthews stating that Palin will be destroyed if she runs in ’12.
Ape, don’t bet on it.
We can be thankful that a business’ financial success still relates somewhat to the usefulness and appeal of it’s products. It seems the Progressives and the Obama regime are continually trying to destroy this relationship. They have efffective control over a segment of the MSM as evidenced with WaPo, Time, LA Times, etc, but they cannot see an easy way to weed and feed and control the industry completely and they will not want to just stand buy while their favorite organizations fail. Look for a bailout program and, just as with the banks, even those organizations who don’t need help (i.e. real news organizations) will be forced to accept the resulting government controls.
#14 Mike G
Its already in the works. They have been publicly throwing forth the notion that since the press (or at least the legacy press) is so special and important (but dying) that they want to allow them to become “non-profits.”
And if they don’t spout the line of “the government is good and always right” the non-profit status would be in jeopardy.
Nothing to see here…move along peasants or we’ll arrest you.
I have heard that but I don’t see how non-profit status would alter a failing business model. Someone still has to pay the bills. The key for the Dems would be government funding and the regulation that would attend it.
Back in September 2009, Obama said this in support of a proposed Press bailout bill:
“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,”
Has there ever been a more disingenuous and frightening comment from a president of the US? The fact is that just about the only serious fact checking is occurring in the blogosphere! The MSM is all about promoting Obama and his Progressive ideology. Facts don’t need to be checked there.
You neglected the most egregious of all media bias stories of all time. It is the spiking of the story of President Clinton perjuring himself before a federal judge with his testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Newsweek had the story in on the presses, documented with the tapes, ready to go. Newsweek’s editor at the very last moment spiked the story.
The story couldn’t be contained however. Someone at Newsweek leaked it to Drudge and it was picked up by Rush Limbaugh. Eventually (4 days later) the Washington Post, with egg on its face, dribbled portions of the story out. But it was not the Post that journalists and the public went to for updates, it was Drudge.
In its efforts to hide the story, it literally made Drudge the go to site for stories the legacy media tries to banish. Result: The Drudge website consistently outdraws both the NY Times and the Post.
This was the beginning of the end for Newsweek and the Post.
Newsweek made Drudge – sweet irony.
Heck, I had a “I don’t believe The Post” bumper sticker back in ’83. Yes, 1983.
“If I told them once, I told them a hundred times…. put “Newsweek” first, then “Spinal Tap” and the puppet show last….”
Didn’t Evan Thomas defend his rag’s shameful participation in the media lynching of the Duke lacrosse team by stating they had the right narrative, just the wrong facts?
Newsweek’s blaring headline “We’re all Socialists now!” may have put a little tilt in the kilt of Evan Thomas, since his grandfather Norman ran for President six times under the Socialist Party of America’s banner.
The leftist tilt of coverage by the leftist propaganda wing, thinly disguised as “media” for the masses, was announced to give a 15% “edge” to the “home team” in each and every election.
Red diaper babies abound. Hardly a surprise that they are bleeding red ink. WashPo/Newsweek?ABC slurpers of propagandistic pap have one common trait. In order to continue to enjoy the thin gruel of daily distortion one must go three “i” blind.
Integrity, information and inspiration must not matter to you one whit. Truth must be a trifling thing. Or…you are just to ignorant to know the difference. This description apparently still fits over 600,000 of our countrymen. That’s the pity of it all.
NEWSFLASH…. Scientists have discovered a link between the content of far left media publications and loss of revenue and subscribers….more at 11!
The irony is that Newsweek only became a serious competitor to Time a quarter century ago by printing George F. Will every other issue! (The “token” conservative took their paycheck and cleaned their clocks, all right indeed.)
When will Mr. Meacham leave?