Untitled Document

Over the last ten years, I have been regularly writing to the Post about how it deals with issues of race. These letters have not been published by the Post. Yet when I have written to the Post about other topics, such as foreign policy, my letters are frequently published.

I believe that the Post is not interested in critically examining the issue of race, and especially is not interested in showcasing white anti-racists like myself. This is true though Washington is a city largely defined by race, both because of its local real estate practices and its status as the capital of a racially defined imperial system.

And here is the only letter of mine using the word "racism" that the Post ever published:'

The Sept. 3 letters about Hurricane Katrina were a Rorschach test for observers of the national scene.One writer saw looting, while another saw people grabbing necessary goods to survive. One letter writer saw an administration with fatally skewed
priorities while another saw Democrats opportunistically attacking a political “soft spot.” Some saw the long-anticipated outcome of environmental and policy mistakes, while others looked past human outcomes to focus on the patterns of natural forces.

Essentially, the wind, rain and subsequent high waters ripped away the everyday social facade, revealing the raw anatomy of our system. The misery from Katrina will last for decades. However, those who knowingly benefit from the status quo confidently expect that the mechanisms that ordinarily obscure the daily reality of homelessness, racism and institutional neglect will be functioning smoothly again within weeks at most.

The New Pravda -- How the Washington Post Maintains the Status Quo

This occasional feature showcases articles in the Washington Post that spin the news to protect the US government as we know it.

My thesis is that the Post is neither liberal nor conservative, but is the house organ of those in power in the federal government, whoever they are. (Of course at the moment they are "conservative," i.e. they claim to support culturally conservative values and small government, and to identity with white workingclass people with fundamentalist faith. These claims are a bit shaky.)

While the articles critiqued here were written by specific reporters, this critique is of the wholeinternal process of the Post. We can assume that what is printed is not necessarily what the bylined reporter wrote or wanted to write. Post reporters are mid-level employees of a large corporation, which, like all corporations, has a "political line" that its employees must follow, and that line overrides its commitment to fact-based journalism. Just as at Pravda under the Soviet Union, some "stars" get a little more leeway, and occasionally stories seem to stretch the party line a bit.

But the overall party line at the Post is consistent from day to day --

Federal power is exercised by responsible individuals who are motivated by sincere values and ideology to do the best thing for the nation and its people.
Political differences in Washington are almost always matters of principled opinion and personality, of region and local interest and agency infighting. They do not reflect corrupt power blocs of people seeking personal profit. They also do not reflect grassroots movements for social change.
Everyone worth taking seriously is a liberal or a conservative or a moderate, as defined by certain simple "hot button" issues. Radicals of all kinds are funny and silly.
"National security" decisions in particular are not driven by corporate profit or by lust for power, but by genuine concern for our safety. These decisions are sometimes mistaken, but are never foolish, pathological, or criminal. Only those who have been employed in "national security" work have standing to say what "national security" means; if they say so, keeping a dictator in power in Central Asia is vital, while preventing nuclear reactors here in the US from being blown up is a minor concern. As for civil liberties, it's nice to protect them procedurally, but security (as defined by experts) always comes first.
There may be a few "bad apples" in the high circles of federal power, but the independent mainstream media will seek them out and they will be punished. There never has been and never will be a corrupt conspiracy making our national decisions. There also never has been a grassroots movement based on popular outrage that has made a difference in people's lives.
While there are always scandals in Washington, they just come and go, always unrelated to each other, with no need for organized action by citizens to fundamentally change the system. There are no patterns of power and privilege operating behind the scenes.

And if you buy all that, I have a nice monument I want to sell you, with a great view of the White House and the Capitol and the place where they keep that Constitution thing people used to care about so much.

Social Justice Connections -- A Personal Website

Want to see what else is on this site?

The Washington Post and Race -- Ten Years of Unanswered Critiques

The New Pravda -- How the Washington Post Maintains the Status Quo

`click the door, open a selection from my novel`

`>>>>>>`