Washington Post Withdraws from Pentagon Organized "Freedom Walk"

Multiple choice analysis to follow.

'Wash Post' Cuts Ties to Pentagon Event After Protests
Editor & Publisher
By E&P Staff
Published: August 15, 2005 11:55 PM ET

NEW YORK: The Washington Post announced tonight that it will cease its co-sponsorship of the Pentagon-organized Freedom Walk next month. The paper's involvement had drawn heat from within and outside the paper, with a guild committee today calling for the link to end.

The newspaper told the Department of Defense that it was pulling back on its offer of free ads for the event--a march up the mall ending with a concert by pro-war country singer Clint Black.

"As it appears that this event could become politicized, The Post has decided to honor the Washington area victims of 9/11 by making a contribution directly to the Pentagon Memorial Fund," said Eric Grant, a Post spokesman. "It is The Post's practice to avoid activities that might lead readers to question the objectivity of The Post's news coverage."

E&P was first to report on the internal dissent at the paper on Friday. Antiwar groups and liberal blogs joined in the protest in the days since.

The Pentagon expressed disappointment with the decision. It has called the event a memorial to 9/11 victims and a salute to our troops.

Option A: It's about time the so-called liberal media quit endorsing the actions of this administration as an adjunct of the Defense Department. It's only taken a solid year of a growing majority of Americans telling the press the Iraq War was a mistake for them to get the idea maybe the Pentagon and Clint Black aren't the best spokespeople to truly honor the Washington area victims of 9/11. Finally, a glimmer of independence from state run media!

Option B: Interesting. Probably for the best. The media has to walk a fine. At least the Washington Post is contributing directly to the Pentagon Memorial fund. That's the most important thing.

Option C: This is ridiculous. The Pentagon's "Freedom Walk" has nothing to do with supporting the Iraq War. It's about supporting "FREEDOM" (thus the name), which this proves the liberal media does not. If they're so worried about appearing political, why cave in to the demands of anti-war protesters? Obviously, the only thing being honored here is a liberal agenda, and not the Washington area victims of 9/11.

Which one were you thinking?

None of the above, RANT.
Maybe you should/could have an Option D for none of the above or "other" factors and considerations.




seekerof

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
None of the above, RANT.
Maybe you should/could have an Option D for none of the above or "other" factors and considerations.

I considered suggesting it, but thought it would offer more creative inspiration for quality responses to leave that as the natural springboard in a community of devil's advocates often faced with being forced into unnatural pigeon holes by mainstream debate.

You've proven me wrong.

Originally posted by Seekerof
None of the above, RANT.

What is your Other, Seeker?

I was thinking D, as well.

Something along the lines of, Who would be protesting any part of a walk to raise money for, and remember victims of terrorism?

Fellas, heed this bit, k?
RANT, you left out the most important mention that needed to be quoted from another Editor & Publisher article dealing with this matter:

"As a matter of maintaining its appearance of neutrality on polarizing issues of policy."

'Wash Post' Guild Leaders Want Paper Out Of Sept. 11 'Freedom Walk'

We are talking the Washington Post here, as such, since when has the Washington Post maintained the appearance of neutrality on anything, be it a polarizing issue or not, RANT? In fact, since when has any mainstream media source done such?

Washington Post has an agenda for doing what they did, and Option D should be covering or incorporate that option, hence "other" considerations and factors. They have never maintained the appearance of neutrality and have been biased from Day One.




seekerof

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Seekerof, the "internal dissent" is not only mentioned in the short blurb I quoted, but the employee's guild is discussed in some detail in the updated article.

I don't see the cover-up, or you saying anything different so far other than you'd like to slap an Option D sticker on Option C.

Perhaps there's some nuanced point against the Washington Post specifically or it's infrastructure and editorial board you don't feel Option C (which makes general charges against "liberal media" and it's alleged agenda) adequately covers.

If so, then good. There's our first Option D.

I don't personally see that a difference has been demonstrated, but then that's my option as well. Feel free however to discuss the issue presented either with or without the constraints of relevance pertaining to the original themes provided. I just found this a rather boring topic and thought a discussion about media presentation per se could still be salvaged from it with this literary framing.

If it's somehow unexpectedly offensive however, I guess it worked!

[edit on 16-8-2005 by RANT]