The Story as it appears on WWW.WashingtonPost.com
Economists Criticize Proposal to Halt Gas Tax
Plan first offered by Sen. John McCain, supported by Sen. Hillary Clinton, would spike demand, offer little savings at the pump, many economists say.
Alec MacGillis and Steven Mufson
But that's not all. It also appears under
"Most Viewed Articles"
With (as always) a slightly different headline and (as usual) the gross extreme blatant explicit shameful pro McCain bias is obvious and undeniable
the new headline written by someone whose name should not be hidden from the public is
" * Clinton Gas-Tax Proposal Criticized"
There it is, all on the web page (which I have, of course, saved).
On the very same web page the proposal is correctly described as "first offered by Sen. John McCain" and as "Clinton Gas-Tsx Proposal".
Maybe www.washingtonpost.com should just officially declare that they have decided that any facts which are embarrassing to John McCain are not to be reported.
Screen Shot with my higlighting in pale pale yellow
update: The Editorial suggests that the editorial board of the dead tree Washington Post is as in the tank as the nameless web page technician. They denounce the "Gas Tax Gotcha" writing "Alas, that hope was not warranted in the case of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has followed Republican John McCain in recommending a suspension of the federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day."
Odd phrasing. Ink and some shred of credibility would have been saved if they had written "Alas, that hope was not warranted in the cases of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican John McCain" but they chose not to. Why is the grammatical position of Clinton and McCain so different ? More importantly, why did the Washington Post editorial board wait until Clinton joined McCain in demagoguery to denounce it ?
There is no doubt in my mind that the explanations are that the Washington Post Editorial board is unwilling to denounce McCain without also denouncing a Democrat.
However, I may be influenced by the gross monstrous bias demonstrated by www.washingtonpost.com which is a separate organization (with the same owners).
www.washingtonpost.com is my browser home page. I was a huge fan of the Washington Post starting, I blush to say, when I saw the film All The President's Men (at the time I followed Watergate on TV and in Newsweek (hey I was only 13 when Nixon resigned)). I read the full page advertizement for themselves "All the Presidents Men. If you liked the film, you'll love the Newspaper" with joy appreciated their just pride. I bristled when people said the New York Times was a better newspaper.
I am sure that there is something the Washington Post could do to regain my trust. I can't imagine what it is, but it must be possible.