Posted on 03/07/2016 12:52:40 PM PST by Mount Athos
Lois Romano, clearly a left-leaning journalist with an anti-Republican agenda if her Twitter feed is remotely any indication, is chosen by the Washington Post to write Nancy Reagan‘s obituary.
Upon publication on WashingtonPost.com Sunday morning almost immediately following the announcement of the passing, some see Romano’s obit as a trashing of Mrs. Reagan in Kitty Kelly-meets-Perez-Hilton-like fashion.
– Sometime Sunday evening, somebody — either Romano or an editor — stealth-edits the obituary by eliminating the lead paragraph in question altogether.
– Despite the major change, Romano nor an editor inform readers any alterations to the piece were made
– Romano ignores Mediaite’s request for comment on the matter
So much for accountability. According to Gallup, trust in media by the general public was at 74 percent following Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post blowing the lid off Watergate and bringing a sitting president down in the process. It’s now at 40 percent and dropping.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Trust in media ought to be at a whopping zero.
Anyone who trusts this media is a damn fool.
There are a LOT of freepers who are most happy to believe ANY headline they read verbatim, as long as it doesn’t DIRECTLY relate to politics.
The offending paragraph:
“Nancy Reagan had an undeniable knack for inviting controversy. There were her extravagant spending habits at a time of double-digit unemployment, a chaotic relationship with her children and stepchildren that could rival a soap-opera plot, and the jaw-dropping news that she had insisted the White House abide by an astrologer when planning the president’s schedule.”
Glad we’ve got a first couple these days without any extravagant spending habits.
Libs have lost all possibility of being believable on any subject from time of sunrise to the movement of the tides.
I remember her from the ‘80s. She was always a lightweight Lefty. She shouldn’t have been given this assignment.
I fail to see the problem here.
They published something that upon reflection they decided was in poor taste, so they fixed it.
I understand that the author of this piece would like the Post to credit him for shaming them into it, but I don't see anything sneaky or stupid in what they did.
Why bother with a middleman? They could have just asked Kitty Kelley to write the obituary.
And so Lois Romano decided to write a ridiculously nasty smear of Ronald Reagan and his wife as the obit. About half the content seems to be about how much money Nancy Reagan spent on things. By paragraph 3, Lois Romano starts attacking Nancy Reagan.
"As first lady from 1981 to 1989, Mrs. Reagan had a knack for inviting controversy — from her spending habits to her request that the White House abide by an astrologer when planning the president’s schedule."
This pivots to praise for Obama. Because again, propaganda trumps any concept of basic decency. Then Lois Romano pivots back to attacking Nancy Reagan.
Mrs. Reagan’s most-prominent initiative as first lady was the “Just Say No” drug-awareness campaign, aimed at preventing and reducing recreational drug use among young people. But time after time, her efforts at developing a substantive role for herself were overshadowed by parallel revelations about her pricey clothes and rich friends and about accusations that she meddled in her husband’s official business.
Remember this is an obituary for a First Lady who just died. Not an editorial. Not a biography. And this is what the left thinks is appropriate. It’s what the Washington Post thinks is appropriate. Which means it’s what Jeff Bezos of Amazon must think is appropriate. So Lois Romano continues to attack Nancy Reagan as a bad feminist. More whining about her clothes.
Who reads the Post?
The worms in the compost that’s who.
I remember when the Reagans were in the WH. Nancy felt the WH china sets needed replacement. She appealed for donations and she got them. She never spent a cent of tax dollars on refurbishing the WH.
They fawned all over the Kennedys - anyone with a Kennedy name - and also over - the Johnson girls weddings. When the Nixon girls married, hardly a word or photo. After the Clintons, they ignored the Bush twins, which was OK - they did not want any fuss. Still we were constantly hearing how beautiful Chelsea was now that she was grown up. Nothing was more untruthful than that. Chelsea never was and unfortunately never will be a beautiful woman. She is average at best.
You wait. regardless of whom the GOP nominates and hopefully elects as President, the news media will never accept them as being attractive, nice, decent, or anything else.
Sounds similar to Andrea Mitchell’s “coverage” on MSNBC - something like “Mrs. Reagan’s death brings back so many pleasant thoughts - even though she saw an astrologer and spent a lot of taxpayer money on the White House and had to help her husband out with what he said she was a close partner to him for many years” - never let a chance to smear Republicans pass you by.....
Oh Louis! That cartoon brought tears to my eyes....they’re together again! Praise God!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.