THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF BEZOS: The Washington Post’s Disgrace.
In that chat, several people pressed Adams to send the New York Police Department to clear out Columbia University’s dangerous, disgraceful, and violent pro-Hamas encampment, something that did not happen until student reprobates further escalated the situation and broke into and occupied a campus building several days later.
The Post surfaces no evidence—zero—to indicate there is any connection between the demands made in the chat and the cops’ appearance at Columbia, since the decision, of course, was left to Columbia University’s weak-kneed president Minouche Shafik.
A spokeswoman for the newspaper declined to comment, and the paper did not publish the piece in its print version on Friday.
Maybe this is why. “The messages offer a window into how some prominent individuals have wielded their money and power in an effort to shape American views of the Gaza war,” the reporters write ominously. Get it? The piece is a modern-day echo of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in which Woodward and Bernstein—er, Natanson and Felton—mimic the uncovering of a secret plot.
We hope you’re sitting down, because the Post reveals that several of the billionaires also “worked with the Israeli government” to screen film footage of the Oct. 7 massacre compiled by the IDF and one of them, the hedge funder Bill Ackman, even facilitated its screening at Harvard.
And as Jeff Jacoby notes, the WaPo has made one of their periodic reminders that they’re simply Democratic Party activists with bylines: A cynical Washington Post tells Biden: Nothing matters more than beating Trump.
Of course the Times leans well to the left and many of its journalists revile Trump. All the more reason, then, for Kahn to emphasize that it is not the newspaper’s responsibility to ensure a Republican defeat. The Times may — the Times does — often fail to resist its liberal bias. Nonetheless, its highest-ranking news editor deserves credit for articulating the principle that the paper ought to uphold.
Now consider the principle articulated by The Washington Post opinion section.
Last week, the Post’s editorial board — which speaks with the institutional voice of the newspaper — declared that it regards President Biden’s reelection in November as a matter of such importance that it will not fault him for promoting misbegotten policies that are designed to attract votes. The president’s policies “clearly pander to core constituencies,” the editorial board conceded, and “some of these policies are quite bad — even dangerous.” Other pandering by the White House may be “less obviously dangerous but still violates common sense and principle.”
For example, the Post cites the president’s refusal to approve a ban on menthol cigarettes. The editorial board has strongly supported such a ban, which it maintains would save tens of thousands of mostly Black lives. But as a political matter, it knows that if the White House were to issue the ban, the Democrats would lose a significant number of voters “whom Mr. Biden can ill afford to alienate in this close election.” And since “Mr. Trump’s reelection is the kind of nightmare scenario any responsible politician would go to great lengths to prevent,” the Post concludes that it is responsible, or at least acceptable, for Biden to let those deaths occur rather than weaken his odds of reelection. “Democrats are scrapping for every vote,” the editorial asserts, so this is no time to be fastidious about matters of principle, or about right and wrong.
In a lifetime of newspaper reading, I have never encountered an editorial so cynical in its willingness to discard any principle other than to win at all costs. “Trim your principles, Democrats, and pander away,” the Post advises Biden and his party. To “play Machiavelli” isn’t the worst thing, it says — the worst thing is “losing.”
Or as Matt Taibbi wrote in December: Democracy Dies in Daylight: Eight years ago the Washington Post pledged to save democracy, but now argues we need to be saved from it.
