WaPo Con Watch rebuts the conservative commentary on the Washington Post’s Op-Ed. While considered a center-left newspaper in general, the Washington Post’s Op-Ed page is weighted heavily to the right. The paper boasts a pack of far-right conservatives. Oxford and Princeton-educated George Will, ranting at some mythical liberal elite, sneers down his nose at the rabble who no longer follow baseball. Charles Krauthammer promotes neoconservative foreign policy alongside far-right domestic policies. Relative new comer Michael Gerson, former speech writer for George W. Bush, devotes most of his page-space to apologetics for conservatism: arguing that conservatives care about poverty, they just prefer medieval alms inspired faith-based initiatives as the solution. Until recently Robert Novak, who provided strategically leaked information from Rove instead of the usual opinion column, rounded out this group of core conservatives until he was forced to retire for health reasons.
A recent ombudsman column argued that these conservatives are effectively balanced by liberals Richard Cohen, E.J. Dionne, Harold Meyerson, and Eugene Robinson, but these columnists are centrists compared to fore mentioned conservative cadre. They’re writing tends to be timid and does little to provide counterpoint to the conservatives. Moreover, ombudsman’s column paints the remainder of the columnists as non-ideological. She overlooks business reporter turned hack-economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson. Samuelson regularly shows his lack of economics knowledge as he blindly trumpets free-market ideology. Most of the remaining supposedly non-ideological columnists write on foreign policy. They, tipping the ideolgical scale decidedly rightward, have almost invariably supported Bush’s policies.
Right-wing ideology freely flows from the WaPo’s Op-Ed page with little danger of a counterargument or even a fact check. Considering pretty much the same criticisms could be made seven years ago, this blog is overdue. It will provide what balance it can.