When the Occupy movement was going strong, the Washington Post devoted generally positive coverage to the Occupy D.C. camp, complete with a front-page puff piece on love (lust?) at Occupy D.C., a Style section puff piece on Occupy propaganda posters, and an "Occupied" Style section front pager gushing about the nascent hippie village-- complete with kitchen and library -- at the McPherson Square squatters camp.

But now the Post is finally getting around to detailing the violent tendencies of the movement, including the fact that an article circulating at an Arizona camp entitled "When Should You Shoot a Cop?" caused a homeland security bulletin to alert local authorities of potential violence in early November of last year.



The Washington Post has a funny way of covering conservative protests. Take Sunday's protest against "gay marriage," in which black churches have rallied to insist the people vote by referendum instead of letting the D.C. council dictate. The headline is "Both sides mobilize in same-sex marriage." Doesn't the reader assume that means that both sides mobilized.... yesterday? This headline would not happen in a story on a liberal protest.



"Geez, when will this guy go away?!" That's the tenor of the lede to Washington Post staffer Tim Craig's story "Pastor Redoubles Efforts vs. Same-Sex Marriage" (emphasis mine):

Bishop Harry Jackson is refusing to relent in his campaign to stop same-sex marriage in the District, despite the drubbing he took before the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics this summer. 

What Jackson is trying to do is put the following initiative before voters:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the District of Columbia.

Earlier this year the D.C. Council passed a bill to recognize gay marriages performed in states where they are valid. Craig noted before closing with an admonition for Jackson from a liberal activist:



On Sunday, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell noticed in passing an obvious example of front-page Obama favoritism in the Post. On Thursday, the huge McCain-Palin rally in suburban Fairfax, Virginia, with an estimated crowd of 23,000 reported in the story, was bizarrely placed on the front page of the Metro section. On June 6, the Post put an Obama rally in Virginia at the Nissan Pavilian concert venue with an estimated attendance of 10,000 people on the front page. (Actually, they offered two front-page stories.) How does the Post defend itself?

Then McCain and Palin's large Fairfax County rally was on the Metro section front page Thursday; a June 6 rally for Obama at Nissan Pavilion was on Page A1. [Assistant managing editor Ed] Thiede said, "We had a busier day with more competing for A1 play Wednesday, including a main art package commemorating the opening of the Sept. 11 memorial." These are logical answers in a newsroom, but they don't cut it with Republican-leaning readers, especially when, as I've reported, Obama has had a preponderance of Page 1 stories and photos throughout the paper.

On August 17, Howell noticed a dramatic three-to-one imbalance in Post front-page stories from June 4 to August 15, especially around Obama’s Nissan Pavilion event:



Washington Post reporter/advocate Tim Craig (along with Michael D. Shear) led the newspaper’s incessant "Macaca"-wielding crusade against conservative Sen. George Allen in 2006. Now, on the heels of Sen. Jim Webb’s national-media tour for his new book "A Time to Fight," Craig is back to promote Sen.



In the November 7 "Washington Post," in an article reporting on the Virginia General Assembly elections, staff writer Tim Craig adopted the liberal terminology of referring to government spending as "investing" as he relayed that Democratic Governor Tim Kaine hopes to get more support for his "agenda to invest more in education, health care, and the environment." The complete text of a similar article using the same line can be found on the Washington Post's Web site