The Washington Post loves to present President Trump as boisterously snide...and quite obviously, they can't imagine anyone would apply that description to them. On Wednesday night, the Post website was boasting at least three articles ripping into Trump's behavior at the funeral, or his bad optics. This isn't a "newspaper." It's an Insult Aggregator.
Within hours of sliming Ted Cruz’s daughters as cartoon monkeys, The Washington Post presses were churning out Wednesday’s front page. At the top, it read “The quiet impact of Obama’s Christian faith.
Next to the story came this summary: "President Obama, who did not grow up in a religious household, has relied on his Christian faith in trying to bring civility to the nation’s political debates. But no modern president has had his faith more routinely questioned or disparaged, and the nation has grown more polarized during his presidency."
The nation’s leading newspapers couldn’t be bothered with the controversy over Team Obama's no-show at the huge Paris "unity" rally on Monday morning, and then buried it on Tuesday. The Washington Post and The New York Times noticed France didn't seem to care.
NPR reporter Mara Liasson arrived on the story, but underlined "it's probably not that big a deal."
The Washington Post played up Barack Obama’s war-on-terror credentials at the top of Friday’s front page. (Or to use Team Obama lingo, their war on "man-caused disasters.") The Post used to be upset by secret terror attacks, but now they like them, if they help Obama look strong to voters. "U.S. ‘secret war’ expands globally," boasted the Post headline, "Terror groups are targets."
News that doesn’t make Team Obama look good is harder to find. Take this Jeff Stein story from Wednesday, deep inside on A-13: "The FBI appears to be ready for a chemical, biological or radiological terrorist attack, but the rest of the Justice Department is ‘not prepared,’ according to a blistering audit released Tuesday."
The Obama the Secret Warrior story by Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe is most biased in how it asserts from the first paragraph that Obama is "much more" aggressive than the national-security slacker named George W. Bush: