My question to you, why did you exclude Obama in your question. Or was it just Trump your target of discussion?
Because Obama's time is up. Why would anyone want to bother with any talk about him let alone talk about how to talk regarding him? We have a real problem going forward if we can't find a way to produce a loyal opposition experience to the incoming president. I'll throw the question back to you. Perhaps you might suggest why anyone would want to find ways to criticize constructively whatever Obama may up to now that he's out of power? I can't think of a reason other than more stupid and useless partisan bickering, that is, which, in case you missed the point of my post, is a non-constructive occupation that is getting the way of a constructive one.
The WaPo is poisonous and avoid at all cost. They are just one of many "news" organization and many blogs that have become known for endlessly trumpeting the case for one candidate or party
I read the WaPo daily, among many sources from many perspectives. The WaPo became my hometown newspaper when the Washington Star went out of business forty years ago. I had adopted the Star back then because it was an afternoon paper. At that time, one got news primarily from newspapers and I worked regular hours so the afternoon news was more timely. A switch to the Post took a bit of adjustment but not much. They covered mostly the same things mostly the same way.
Although the Post was and is also a national newspaper as well as local, it is citified. Its clientele is citified and government oriented and you can see that in its coverage.* I had never known it to be uneven in its coverage of candidates although it generally ended up endorsing Democrats, as is to be expected by virtue of the above cited "citified" and "government oriented." Anyone who thinks that the Post is any further left than center/center-left has had his perspective distorted by indulging in too much a.m. talk radio.
The Post changed last December. It was a jolt to my system--clear and conspicuous. There was no doubt that it was horrified by Trump, but IMO not as a Republican, per se. I had started capturing clips regarding Trump and the other candidates last fall. I just went back to verify when the change started. The first I saw of it came from Jennifer Rubin, who is the house righty. She was really exercised over him. It was quickly followed by opinion pieces from the Republican establishment, which was just starting to entertain what became never-Trump mode. Once the Post started in on Trump, it never let up. I think that GOP partisans make a big, paranoid mistake when they treat the Post's action as partisan. It was driven by the sheer horror experienced by both cosmopolitan D's and R's that the likes of Trump, someone considered monumentally unqualified, could actually be elected president. Considering someone unqualified is not the same as disagreeing with his political positions or disfavoring his party.
I'm watching now to see if and how the Post backs off that shift. Not clear yet whether they will get fully back to reporting as usual rather than from the horror perspective. Probably not clear to them yet how to play it.
*I'll give you an example of culturally citified reporting. I recall clearly when Jimmy Carter was running and he was said to be a born-gain Christian. I had no idea what that was. No one around me had any idea of what that was. The Washington news, both TV and print, thoughtfully explained it, which suggests that they realized that it was an alien notion to much of their audience. Whoever wrote up the explanation probably had to research it to do so. Call it citified or cosmopolitan or elite or whatever, that was and still is the Post's paying audience.
|
