“Can’t get enough of that funky stuff. Can’t get enough of that funky stuff.” Kool and the Gang
The Washington Post can’t get enough of that funky anti-Gray, anti-K. Brown, anti-M. Brown, and anti-Thomas stuff. Its editorials’ has a familiar refrain to criticize District leadership, hoping for a Grammy like nomination pictured as a Peabody Award or Pulizter Prize.
If one only read The Washington Post, the District is brimming with dishonest politicians, corrupt business leaders, and jack-legged preachers. However, to The Washington Post, all its journalists and favored “bloggers” are to be viewed as rationally sanctified, mentally blessed, and intellectually holy.
Contrary to the hypocritical and reckless editorial writings of Ms. Jo-Ann Armao, not everyone looks to her or to The Washington Post for affirmation, introduction, redemption, acceptance, or see them as the light of truth. It is obvious there is an unethical purpose to this madness. Their dogged reporting on the question of District government ethics is colored by their failure to report transparently on its own.
Whether they deserve it or not, The Washington Post has been a leader in attacking and questioning the conduct of public officials. In contrast to its strident, if not self-righteous and discriminating criticism of targeted District government officials, it does not welcome strong criticism of its standards and ethics.
The Constitution’s First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” However, it seems The Washington Post and Ms. Armao feel freedom of the press is a greater right than an individual’s freedom of speech when criticalof the media.
Are the current ethical stories about a selected group of District elected officials acts of journalism bribery by print, extortion of values, and counterfeiting of principles? Is this an organized journalism pattern of conduct to be viewed as misguided, unethical hypocritical “racketeering activity” using the written word?
Recent articles are more designed to manipulate public thought, rather than to reveal an accurate public view. It is deceitful, treacherous, and duplicitous; yet not unexpected for Ms. Armao and The Washington Post to continue in the public glorification of former Mayor Adrian M. Fenty in a despotic hope for his Roman emperor like triumphant political return.
To pine for the leadership days of former Mayor Fenty, because of current political climate and experiences would be similar to some revering slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.
The Constitutional right of the free press does not extend to a right to be immune from public criticism. The rewriting of history is a mere exercise of right held by Ms. Armao and The Washington Post; it is not an emblem of their intellectual honesty. They both mock truth, in the end praise – not shame the devil.
Et tu, Mr. Donald Graham?
E-mail contact information: [email protected]