Now that The Washington Post has investigated Romney a half century into the past, maybe we should ask ourselves a question. What was the paper doing 50 years ago?
Among other things, the newspaper helped neutralize rumors alleging John F. Kennedy’s marriage to Jackie was actually his second.
Allegations about JFK having another wife stemmed from research done by a respected genealogist. Seymour Hersh, in his book The Dark Side of Camelot, recounts how The Post reprinted an article from Newsweek debunking the rumors, attacking the genealogist’s work, in September 1962. [pgs. 338-339] Who wrote the story? Ben Bradlee, born into the wealthy Northeastern political class and JFK’s close friend. Bradlee is still an at-large member of the Post’s board.
The Post may have tanked President Richard Nixon by disclosing his dark deeds, but the paper managed to ignore most negatives about the Kennedys. It took Americans almost a half century to begin learning the truth about the fictional Camelot. And the truth, as most now know, was a pretty ugly scenario. Consider how long it took us to learn the truth about Chappaquiddick. Those Northeastern elites are prone to watching each other’s backs.
The Post of course partly owes its existence to the government, having been bailed out by a man connected to the Federal Reserve when Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt ruled.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, government power was reshuffling, and by the time JFK was assassinated, most Americans were unaware of what was going on in the dark corners of Washington corridors. Author Peter Janney offered another analysis of abuses of power, lies to the American people and questions about the death of JFK’s alleged favorite mistress Mary Meyer. In Mary’s Mosaic, Janney also raises questions about the death of another individual connected to The Post and to JFK—Phillip Graham, the paper’s CEO, in August, 1963.
Graham’s death was ruled a suicide, but Janney apparently has issues with that. Janney explains how Graham's tongue got loose when it came to intimate details about the Kennedys. At that time, the paper's family was in a quandary over who would control it.
Janney’s book is lengthy and complex. Some scholars have questioned some of his sources. He is not an easy writer to read—he veers off to classical comparisons to ancient Rome and his allegations are mind boggling. However, much of his work is based on both firsthand accounts and existing documents, so the reader can determine what s/he wants to believe.
Segue to the recent past. In 1981, a Pulitzer awarded to a Post writer was recalled. Turned out the writer, according to then publisher Bradlee, “felt she had to falsify the facts.” The writer created an 8-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy. The writer said the character was “a composite”—the same excuse President Barack Obama used for fictional girlfriends in his memoir.
Speaking of Obama, The Post figured largely in his election. A blogger at the paper founded a Listserv so he and his fellow journalists could chat up talking points. Most national media downplayed this scandal, but what it amounted to in my opinion was a massive propaganda effort. Remember how talking points at various elite media were so similar in 2008? That was no accident. Journolist was a blessing to Obama.
The newspaper’s ombudsman eventually publicly admitted The Post’s bias for Obama, but that was after the election.
Once in office, Obama was presumably expected to return the favors he’d been granted. Politico—certainly no fan of the Right, explained yet another Post scandal that received little attention:
“Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive 'salon' at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to ‘those powerful few’ — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.“
Does the hit piece on Romney surprise, considering the sordid past of this newspaper?
As the Left dismantles the U.S. economy piece by piece, chisels away at U.S. sovereignty and pushes messaging encouraging class warfare and racial divisiveness, bear the messenger in mind. In these times, the messenger is significant regardless of the news he is bringing or spinning. In a logical world, The Post would have lost all credibility years ago.
Considering what is at stake in the 2012 Presidential Election, it’s the height of insanity that a newspaper is investigating the teen years of a candidate, especially having given a pass to the personal history of the incumbent.
The Post isn’t alone. Most dailies swing left. Bear the messenger in mind when you read the message.
If you think I'm out of line with that statement, just say the name John Edwards and remember only The National Enquirer ran with a story many media had to have heard rumors about. Thing is, Edwards was a Democrat heavyweight.
Presidential election: Camelot or Camerot... (The US Report)
WaPo caves, finally notes correction on Romney hit piece (Breitbart)
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 12, 2012)