By RYAN DELARME
March 11th, 2019
The Washington Post, maybe you’ve heard of it? Also known as WaPo, the Post is a news publication composed of more than 700 journalists, this daily “American” newspaper is the most widely circulated newspaper inside the DC beltway, and the area’s oldest politically focused news source. In 2013, it was purchased from the “Graham family” (who had owned and operated the Post for generations) by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (Nash Holdings LLC) for a quarter of a billion dollars. It is oft alleged that WaPo is a propaganda mouthpiece for the CIA and it’s deep-state criminal interests. Regardless of whether that is true or not; In this article I would like to go over some things that really should be talked about more in regards to this publication.
- The Washington Post is Beholden to Monsanto
The Washington Post, much like Forbes, is beholden to Monsanto, the mammoth Biotech corporation/company that keeps offices in countries even where their GMO food is banned, not to mention peppered across all of North America (where genetically modified foods are allowed to go unlabeled) and South America. The Washington Post auspiciously purports propaganda for genetic engineering and it’s flagrantly obvious to an intelligent reader versed on the dangers of GM chemical agriculture. The entire editorial board approves and publishes Monsanto’s corporate “quack science” talking points, with the latest being their hit piece response to Chipotle’s announcement and press releases about going 100% non-GMO across their entire menu. Glyphosate, a key combination of ingredients that make up a bigger portion of Roundup herbicide, has been revealed by the World Health Organization to be suspect as carcinogenic and (probable) cancer-causing for humans, and Washington Post editors seem instructed by Monsanto to promote GMO even more, as the utter lack of balanced reporting or journalistic integrity becomes more and more publicly evident.
2. The Washington Post Tried to Penalize a Writer for Criticizing Jeff Bezos. He Fought Back—And Won.
The following comes from a September 18th 2018 article from In These Times as well as excerpts from Fredrick Kunkle’s Huffington Post article on the same topic
“Fredrick Kunkle… A staff writer for the Washington Post’s Metro desk, he noticed Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the owner of his newspaper, musing on Twitter about what to do with his money, which happens to be more than any human being has ever accumulated in modern history. Kunkle had an idea for the funds: reversing the hits Bezos had forced upon Post workers in successive contract negotiations.
The co-chair of the Washington-Baltimore News Guild’s collective bargaining unit at the paper, Kunkle witnessed in 2014 Bezos’ management team freeze defined-benefit pensions for non-union employees, replacing them with a lump sum or annuity for older workers, and a 401(k) plan for newer ones. Management also tried to eliminate health insurance from part-time employees, which the union managed to salvage by giving back wages. When the next contract came up in 2017, management sought to slash severance in half, while also conditioning the payments on a legal waiver from any lawsuit against the Post, a company that had recently settled a case of alleged racial discrimination.
In other words, while Bezos had made significant investments to revive the Post, he was stripping benefits from its workers and treating them as easily expendable, matching his storied mistreatment of workers at Amazon.
Kunkle had never shied away from media attention and speaking out against Bezos’ hardline tactics. So he used his talents to pen an op-ed, contrasting Bezos’ attempts to focus on philanthropy with the experience of those working beneath him.
“It should go without saying that charitable giving for medical research and other worthy causes is important and necessary,” Kunkle wrote. “But as with other multi-billionaires, Bezos should remember that his vast wealth came in part from labor, and he should do more to share that wealth with workers. Instead, Bezos has shown that he views his employees as parts in a high-tech machine, that income inequality is someone else’s problem, and that modern corporations owe little more to their employees than a paycheck.”
Kunkle first offered the article to the Post, but they declined; eventually Kunkle published it for free in the Huffington Post in September 2017. But shortly afterwards, Kunkle was given a written warning by the paper for “freelancing for a competing publication without permission.”
This disciplining was illegal, according to a memo from the Office of General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released last Friday. While the memo stated that it was legal for the Post to restrict its staff writers from publishing in other outlets, because Kunkle wasn’t paid for the HuffPost op-ed, he was engaging in protected labor activity by highlighting Bezos’ actions against Post workers.
“Since the reporter was not paid for the article and did not violate the no-freelancing rule, conduct was no different from that of any employee speaking out about working conditions in a letter to the editor of a newspaper or other communication with the public,” wrote Jayme Sophir, head of the NLRB’s Division of Advice, in the memo.
The fact that Kunkle requested that the Post run the op-ed first, as per the newspaper’s standards, also played into the decision. Sophir concluded that nothing in the op-ed was untrue or disparaging, and it could not be kept from the public or subject the author to a reprimand.
While the memo didn’t explicitly identify Kunkle, it did note the title of the op-ed in question: “Jeff Bezos Wants To Give More Money To Charity. He Should Pay His Workers First.” That was Kunkle’s article. The memo was written in July; its existence was only revealed last week.
This is an important victory for free speech rights at work, beyond the very unique circumstances of Kunkle’s situation. Everyone should have the ability to criticize their employer, not just the co-chair of a union bargaining unit. Far too many workers are intimidated against doing so, and few have access to op-ed pages to broadcast their message.”
3.The Washington Post regularly commits credibility suicide
In the fall of 2016 WaPo put out a blatantly fabricated hit piece attacking 200 independent (grass roots, truth propagating) websites and news blogs. This Craig Timberg story comes from an “Anonymous source” and has attacked online publications such as Natural News and 199 other websites, accusing them of being “fake news” sources controlled by the Russian government. The completely discredited paper has been threatened with lawsuits now so they’ve all but admitted their entire story was fabricated by Timberg and his potentially/likely fake “source” that still remains “anonymous” so that nothing can be verified (or proven false, as is the case).
Recently, the Washington Post added an editor’s note to the top of their story which essentially admits the Washington Post slandered and defamed all these websites by reporting false news derived from sources that even they no longer believe are even legitimate. Without offering any direct apology or retraction of their blatantly false and extremely irresponsible “fake news” story, Washington Post editors have now added an Editor’s note:
“Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.”
The discredited fake news group “PropOrNot” was the primary (and possibly only) source for the story. In addition to that, the Washington Post then jumps on the treason train and fabricates an entire story falsely claiming Trump won because of Russian hacks. Nice try CIA- er whoops, I mean WaPo! Which leads us to my next and final point…
4. The Washington post is often alleged to be a CIA asset (In league w other rogue elements of the intelligence community).
WaPo has been accused of passing along assumptions and errors that support their left wing platform, these media “overlords” fill the American mainstream minds with propaganda and striking liberal bias while advertising themselves as non-partisan in order to aid and abet the Democratic Party, whose goal is to vastly increase the size and scope of America’s central federal government, which is, in many people’s opinion, already far too broad and powerful.
The CIA and the American mainstream media machine have worked hand in glove for many decades, (For at least one persons perspective you could check Carl Bernstein http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php though there are NUMEROUS others who approach this from less compromised positions) But I think Professor James Tracy put it best in a 2015 article of particular relevance in relation to the “fake news” campaign directed against the alternative and independent media.
“Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, if any, relationships, yet the seldom acknowledged history of their intimate collaboration indicates a far different story–indeed, one that media historians are reluctant to examine.
When seriously practiced, the journalistic profession involves gathering information concerning individuals, locales, events, and issues. In theory such information informs people about their world, thereby strengthening “democracy.” This is exactly the reason why news organizations and individual journalists are tapped as assets by intelligence agencies and, as the experiences of German journalist Udo Ulfkotte (entry 47 below) suggest, this practice is at least as widespread today as it was at the height of the Cold War.
Consider the coverups of election fraud in 2000 and 2004, the events of September 11, 2001, the invasions Afghanistan and Iraq, the destabilization of Syria, and the creation of “ISIS.” These are among the most significant events in recent world history, and yet they are also those much of the American public is wholly ignorant of. In an era where information and communication technologies are ubiquitous, prompting many to harbor the illusion of being well-informed, one must ask why this condition persists.
Further, why do prominent US journalists routinely fail to question other deep events that shape America’s tragic history over the past half century, such as the political assassinations of the 1960s, or the central role played by the CIA major role in international drug trafficking?
Popular and academic commentators have suggested various reasons for the almost universal failure of mainstream journalism in these areas, including newsroom sociology, advertising pressure, monopoly ownership, news organizations’ heavy reliance on “official” sources, and journalists’ simple quest for career advancement. There is also, no doubt, the influence of professional public relations maneuvers. Yet such a broad conspiracy of silence suggests another province of deception examined far too infrequently—specifically the CIA and similar intelligence agencies’ continued involvement in the news media to mold thought and opinion in ways scarcely imagined by the lay public.”
He then goes on to list historical and contemporary facts– which are by no means exhaustive– to provide a glimpse of the power such entities possess to influence if not determine popular memory and what “respectable” institutions deemed to be the historical record. A heavily recommended read:
Once again I would like to stress that it is up to you to decide and discern what feels right, this information is for your own consideration and I hold no desire to force any sort of worldview or political ideology on anyone, rather I am only trying to express what the situation looks like through my own personal subjective lens. This articles intent is not to convince or sway or attempt to tell you how to think, but to indicate and suggest and hopefully encourage you to further develop your own discernment.
Further Reading on Media Corruption: