The Washington Post, an enormously influential and widely cited publication, fought the good fight. For five solid weeks, it was able to pretend that Tara Reade’s sexual-assault allegations against Joe Biden either didn’t exist or were so illegitimate as to be unworthy of any serious attention. For five solid weeks, The Post was able to wait and see which way the political winds might ultimately blow, and to give Ms. Reade some time to realize that she was fighting a losing battle and should just go away.
Consider a few remarkable numbers. On September 15, 2018, The Washington Post published its first story about Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault claims against Brett Kavanaugh. Three weeks later — on October 6, 2018 —the Senate voted to confirm Kavanaugh. During the 21 days in between, The Post produced approximately 760 news articles and opinion pieces about the Kavanaugh-Ford affair. The vast majority of those stories trashed Kavanaugh and were sympathetic to Ford.
By contrast, Tara Reade went public with her sexual-assault charge against Joe Biden in a podcast interview on March 25, 2020, when she reported that Biden had digitally raped her when she was an employee in his Senate office. During the 21 days after Ms. Reade went public with her story, The Washington Post published a grand total of precisely 4 articles or op-ed pieces about the case. That’s right. The 21-day ratio for Post coverage of the Kavanaugh and Biden stories was 760 to 4 — or, to put it another way, 190 to 1. In fact, the paper did not publish even a single story about Reade’s claims against Biden until April 12.
For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.
The Post’s decision to ignore Reade’s allegations for so long is even more remarkable when we consider the enormously serious nature of the charge she was making. On January 6, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice that FBI Director Robert Mueller — in response to “the voices of survivors, advocates, law enforcement personnel and many others” — had just made an “important change” in how the Bureau defined “forcible rape.”Whereas the definition previously had “only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina,” the new definition would now be this: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
But The Washington Post doesn’t give a damn about the new rape, the old rape, or any other kind of rape — unless the suspected offender is a conservative. Not until April 28 — five weeks after Tara Reade had gone public with her claims against Biden — did The Post even begin to give her case anything more than the barest passing mention. Whereas the ratio for Post coverage of the Kavanaugh and Biden stories had theretofore been about 190 to 1, beginning on April 28 the new ratio was about 8 to 1 — still a shameful, though not nearly as astronomical, discrepancy.
Why the shift at that point? Because by April 28, it was no longer possible for The Post to pretend that Tara Reade didn’t exist. Because by then, other news outlets were reporting that people who knew Reade in the 1990s were now corroborating the fact that she had told them about the assault shortly after it happened. You see, if everyone else is reporting that it’s raining outside, you look rather imbecilic if you lock yourself in a windowless room and keep claiming that it’s a sunny day.
In short, The Washington Post didn’t begin to give the Reade-Biden story anything more than an occasional obligatory glance, until it was absolutely forced to do so. That’s because The Washington Post is not a newspaper. It is a demonstrably worthless, politicized rag whose sole purpose is to propagandize on behalf of Democrats and left-wing politics. Aside from that, it is a paper of considerable utility for anyone who needs to wrap a fish, ignite some kindling, soak up some grease, line the bottom of a bird cage, or swat a cockroach in the bathroom. Certainly, no one can deny that The Post has its uses.
The Post’s Kavanaugh Stories Were Overwhelmingly Anti-Kavanaugh & Anti-Trump….
… Following Ms. Ford’s initial public statement, The Washington Post raced to print the first of what would become more than 760 stories about Kavanaugh and the allegations against him. Below is a sampling of just a few of those stories. Each listing begins with the date of the article or opinion piece, followed by the title in bold italics, followed by a brief excerpt from the text in order to convey some sense of the story’s tone and content…..
If a particular story — however false, far-fetched, or unverifiable — has the potential to harm President Trump or conservative agenda priorities, The Washington Post will devote unlimited financial and manpower resources to keeping Americans’ attention firmly fixed upon it for as long as possible.
By contrast, if another story — however plausible or widely corroborated by credible witnesses — has the potential to harm a key political figure to whom the Democratic Party has hitched its star, The Post will do everything within its power to bury, whitewash, soften, or discredit that story.
It isn’t even debatable. The Washington Post is not a newspaper. It’s a comic book, minus the gravitas.