Tag: Washington Post

Washington Post slams Blue Origin

9:18 am

Capitalism in space: In a long article today the Washington Post — owned by Jeff Bezos — harshly criticized the management at Bezos’s space company Blue Origin, confirming earlier stories last week (here and here) and published by other news sources that accused the company of poor management and an unhealthy corporate culture. From the Post’s article:

The new management’s “authoritarian bro culture,” as one former employee put it, affected how decisions were made and permeated the institution, translating into condescending, sometimes humiliating, comments and harassment toward some women and a stagnant top-down hierarchy that frustrated many employees.

Though the story strongly confirms those earlier reports, I found it somewhat hilarious in that it seemed far more interested in “woke” issues than Blue Origin’s inability to get anything actually built.

However, that Jeff Bezos allowed the Washington Post to publish it suggests strongly that Bezos is getting ready to take harsh action at Blue Origin, and is laying the groundwork through his newspaper. If so, this is excellent news, as it might mean this very disappointing company might finally get back on track.

7 comments

Today’s blacklisted American: Biden sign language interpreter blackballed for also translating for conservative outlets

3:30 pm

The cancelled Bill of Rights

They’re coming for you next: In a news article soon after Biden became president, the Washington Post demanded that a sign language interpreter be blacklisted from working in the Biden administration simply because she previously translated for conservative and pro-Trump organizations.

From the Post’s article,

[The interpreter] who appeared in the White House coronavirus briefing on Monday beside press secretary Jen Psaki was identified by deaf and hard-of-hearing advocates and Time Magazine, fueling questions about the White House’s vetting process and what could have happened if [she] misinterpreted Biden officials or inserted her own bias. No one has publicly disputed her interpretation, but many questioned why the White House would legitimize her by giving [her] the national platform.

…More than 3,500 people have signed a petition to have [the interpreter] banned from interpreting for the White House. Some indicated they intended to report her.

That petition now has 9,000 signatures, and it appears that the Biden administration is now blackballing her, as she has not been given any work by them since the Washington Post story was published. It also appears that she has since been harassed and slandered online as well.

I have removed the interpreter’s name because I do not wish to help these storm-troopers in their two-minute hate campaign.

As noted at the first link above,

It’s a blacklist, and, in a sad devolution from the days when the press was the enemy of such things, now our national press is the very conduit. Here is a woman who has done nothing wrong. Her only sin was working. Even the reporter [Meryl Kornfield] admits that there is absolutely no evidence that this woman has done anything wrong — anything but her job. Her interpretations to this point seem to be deemed faultless.

All this woman did was take work from any who called her, from both sides of the political spectrum. That’s not good enough for our modern Democratic Party and its army of jack-booted thugs. They must always ask this paraphrased question from the worst of the McCarthy era : “Have ever been a member of or worked for the Republican Party or any pro-Trump organization?” If the answer is yes, then your life must be destroyed.

Welcome to the modern leftist paradise, brought to us by the supporters of the Democratic Party.

12 comments

Covington teenager settles with Washington Post

12:12 pm

The lawyers for Covington teenager Nicholas Sandmann have reached an out-of-court settlement with the Washington Post in its $250 million defamation lawsuit.

The announcement gave no details of the settlement.

If it didn’t include a complete front-page retraction and apology from the Washington Post than it is less than worthless. Sandmann might get a ton of money, but the slanders against him will remain, unchallenged. And the Post will still be free to slander others in the same manner, for crass partisan Democratic purposes.

Leave a comment

Nick Sandmann $275 million libel suit against NBC to proceed

10:31 pm

A judge has now ruled that the $275 million libel suit against NBC filed by Covington teen-ager Nick Sandmann can move forward.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann’s $275 million lawsuit against NBCUniversal may proceed on limited grounds, as he had with similar cases against The Washington Post and CNN.

U.S. District Court Judge William Bertelsman dismissed parts of the lawsuit while allowing discovery on allegations that the network’s coverage defamed the teen by reporting that he “blocked” Native American elder Nathan Phillips in a Jan. 18 encounter at the Lincoln Memorial.

…”As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nicholas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery just as he had earlier ruled with respect to WaPo & CNN cases. Huge, huge win!” tweeted Sandmann attorney L. Lin Wood.

Both the Post and NBC are very exposed here, especially when these lawsuits go before Kentucky juries. My big fear is that Sandmann’s lawyer will settle too easily, as these corrupt news organizations need to be slapped down hard for their routine effort to slander anyone on the right or even innocent who happens to do anything that appears to oppose the agenda of the Democratic Party or the left (I repeat myself).

23 comments

Covington lawsuit against Washington Post reopened

10:55 am

A federal judge has reinstated the $250 million lawsuit by Covington teenager Nicolas Sandmann against the Washington Post for slandering him during its news coverage.

U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman agreed to permit discovery on three of 33 allegedly libelous statements in The Post’s coverage of the Jan. 18 incident pertaining to teenager Nicholas Sandmann. The Post has insisted that its reporting was fair and accurate.

All three flagged statements from the newspaper’s coverage refer to Omaha Nation elder Nathan Phillips being blocked or impeded by Nicholas, a student at Covington Catholic High School, during their viral encounter at the Lincoln Memorial stairs.

Since the video of the event quite clearly shows that Sandmann never blocked anyone, that if anything Nathan Phillips pursued Sandmann, the Post is now very vulnerable to losing the suit. This decision also suggests that Sandmann’s lawsuits against CNN and NBC will also go forward.

11 comments

Judge dismisses Sandmann libel case against Washington Post

10:44 am

But of course! A Kentucky judge has thrown out the $250 million Nick Sandmann libel case against the Washington Post, saying the Post was merely exercising its first amendment rights.

Everyone should understand how this works. Leftist and liberal news outlets, as well as leftist and liberal politicians and pundits, are allowed to slander and libel and lie about any conservative because of free speech. Should a conservative do it however be prepared to have the full force of the law come down on you like a brick.

More and more it appears the law is no longer for everyone. Instead, it has become a weapon by the left to oppress its opponents.

8 comments

Sandmann lawyers file $275 million defamation lawsuit against CNN

9:29 am

The law firm for Nicholas Sandmann, the Kentucky teenager who was slandered by numerous leftist mainstream news organizations in January, has now filed a $275 million defamation lawsuit against CNN.

You can read or download the full suit here [pdf]

This suit is on top of a $250 million lawsuit the firm has also filed against the Washington Post.

Right now it appears to me that both the Washington Post and CNN are going to lose big in these suits. Following the filing of the lawsuit against it the Post published “an editor’s note” concerning its coverage of the incident, but never admitted to or apologized for its false reporting. Instead, it merely noted the numerous errors and false claims in the original reporting. If anything, that correction makes it more liable, as it suggests the false coverage was acceptable to it, at the time.

4 comments