They molest, too, who type and twist
WaPo's Dan Balz, Philip Rucker, and Robert Costa do dirt

So many are the fine illustrations of election-season mainstream media malpractice that another was hardly required. And yet, opening this day's paper, here we are.

Washington Post writers Dan Balz, Philip Rucker, and Robert Costa blended yellow journalism with purple prose to produce this latest one. "Trump wanted to put Bill Clinton's accusers in his family box. Officials said no," their 10/10 Post offering, was so slanted toward the political state as to earn the three behind-ear scratches.

The detestable sex offenses of which Bill Clinton has for decades been accused are raised only fleetingly before being hidden away again. Readers are not apprised that the disgraced ex-president paid some $850,000 to one woman, Paula Jones. 

Jones spoke at a pre-debate, survivors of Bill press conference. And
she spent the debate itself sitting in the front row, not far from Hillary. The lapdogs of the establishment press gnashed and wailed.

Kathy Shelton also was in Trump's company that night. She had been raped at age 12, in 1975. Then-attorney Hillary smeared her in court and later laughed of her client/Shelton's rapist beating the polygraph: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

Balz, Rucker, and Costa breezily bypassed Shelton's heartbreaking story. Instead, releasing a mere 34 words with an eye dropper, they exonerate Hillary of any hinted moral wrong: "Hillary Clinton was selected by a judge to defend the man [whom they do not name], who eventually pleaded to a lesser charge."

No need, they apparently reasoned, to mention Hillary's subsequent laughter.

Contrast the scant attention they paid to Shelton and to Bill's alleged sex assault victims with their generally melodramatic renderings regarding Trump:

"Donald Trump's campaign sought to intimidate Hillary Clinton and embarrass her husband..."

"The [Trump] campaign's plan...was thwarted just minutes before it could be executed..."

"Frank J. Fahrenkopf, the debate commission co-chairman...caught wind of the plot..."

"...he knew the [Trump] campaign had backed down."

Remember, ideologically reflective observations and phrase-turnings are perfectly acceptable in opinion essays (such as the one you're now appreciating). But it is quite different and unethical to allow biases to corrode ostensibly objective "straight news" reporting.

I once heard Professor Michael Parenti note the most foolish claim he had ever heard from a journalist was, "Nobody tells me what to write! I write what I like!"

"Of course, they let you write what you like," answered Parenti. "Because they like what you write."

He explained that only reporters whose work demonstrated respect for the prejudices of power and who could be trusted to never seriously challenge them were accorded professional livelihoods.

Dan Balz, Philip Rucker, and Robert Costa seem entirely comfortable with their leashed pretense at honest journalism, And they surely will not cause their keepers even a moment's dismay.


end