Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Worthy of endorsement ... or not

The other day I had a little talk with Mr. Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of The Washington Post.

Every now and then we all have conversations with people which can be revealing.

This conversation was revealing to me in how the editorial board of The Washington Post views the social dynamic of the District of Columbia.

To the hopeful delight of some and to the possible disdain of others, I try to attend community meetings across the District. These meetings are on varied topics of interests to residents in various neighborhoods and wards of the District.

However, I have rarely, if ever seen publisher Ms. Katharine Weymouth, Mr. Hiatt or Ms. Jo-Ann Armao, primary District editorial writer at these community meetings. Yet, despite their neighborhood and community invisibility, they feel comfortable in arguing and editorializing what is best for District residents.

Thomas Payne once said, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”

The current cadre of endorsements by the editorial board lacks reason. They show Ms. Armao and the editorial board to be intellectually dead, if not dishonest. Moreover, it is obvious they hold District voters in contempt.

Rather than express cogent specifics to support their selections, Ms. Armao and the editorial board instead hurl insults and misrepresentations of individual candidates’ life’s work. Apparently, facts don't mean a thing and are irrelevant in The Washington Post standard for election endorsement.

It is unfortunate that out of revenge and with a vendetta the editorial board of The Washington Post and Ms. Armao feel it appropriate to discredit the public service and accomplishments of certain good political candidates in order to boost the relevancy or promise of others.

I have long ago lost confidence in the credibility of editorial endorsements offered by The Washington Post. I have concluded local District candidates should not seek or accept them.

In my view the electoral atmosphere in the District of Columbia would be cleaner and more honest if The Washington Post stopped making them.

The process by which the editorial board of The Washington Post endorses is not transparent, fair, honest, or consistent to the principle of providing truth to its readers. What does the editorial board use as standard or standards for endorsement? Does it have one?

Any candidate, who believes he or she needs and uses the endorsement from The Washington Post and the efforts of Ms. Armao to tear down an opposing candidate in order to be a credible candidate, does not have any credibility worthy of support.

E-mail contact information:

Twitter: @robert158

Report this ad