The Washington Post doth protest too much

“The more hands-off approach to content moderation that Musk envisions,” the paper warned in one report, “has many users concerned that the platform will reanimate accounts that propagated dangerous conspiracies and harassment.” Many people are saying, don’t you know.

Elsewhere, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin warned that Musk, whom she claims is seen widely “as a right-wing gadfly,” could become “increasingly unattractive to progressive Tesla customers.” “Right-wing”? Musk supports universal basic income. He is a leader in green technology, building his automotive empire largely on the back of taxpayers. He’s a climate change alarmist. He’s a crony capitalist. He’s liberal on nearly every social policy. For crying out loud, he once described himself as a “socialist.”

“Do they really want to buy a car from the new impresario of Trump-friendly social media when they can purchase a comparable product from a company without the Musk baggage?” Rubin asked, continuing her “just asking questions” shtick.

Amazingly, the Washington Post, the same paper that just a few weeks ago revealed the identity of the anonymous Twitter user behind the “Libs of TikTok” account, warned in yet another report that Musk’s acquisition of Twitter may put anonymous users in danger. “Blocking users from using pseudonyms or anonymous accounts,” the Washington Post reported, citing Columbia University’s Jameel Jaffer, “could expose critics of governments around the world to retribution.”

The Washington Post reported elsewhere in its coverage of the Musk acquisition, “Twitter workers face a reality they’ve long feared: Elon Musk as owner.” “Long feared”? Musk didn’t start toying with the idea of acquiring Twitter until late March of this year.

The paper’s advocacy on behalf of Twitter’s overpaid and severely pampered employees doesn’t end there. The Washington Post went so far as to publish not one but two hit pieces last week falsely accusing Musk of targeting Twitter executives. Musk did nothing of the sort. He merely responded to another user, conservative podcast host Saagar Enjeti, who wrote, “Vijaya Gadde, the top censorship advocate at Twitter who famously … censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, is very upset about the [Elon Musk] takeover.” Musk responded, “Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate,” a reference to Twitter’s decision in 2020 to block the New York Post’s scoop regarding the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

In response, the Washington Post published an article that claimed Musk’s tweets “have helped to fuel an ugly, and at times violently racist, harassment campaign against [Gadde] — and signaled that he won’t hesitate to use the platform against his own workers.” Another report titled “Elon Musk boosts criticism of Twitter executives, prompting online attacks” claimed that “Musk’s response Tuesday was the first time he targeted specific Twitter executives by using his nearly singular ability to call attention to topics that interest him.” All this because Musk repeated a position Twitter itself holds: that the censoring of the New York Post’s reporting in an election year was a terrible decision.

On April 25, in a moment that sort of gives the game away, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos himself hopped aboard the “deeply concerned” train, ever-so-coyly suggesting Musk’s business ties in China mean the Chinese Communist Party may now have leverage over a major media platform in the United States. “Did the Chinese government just gain a bit of leverage over the town square?” asked Bezos.

Is this a fair question to ask? Sure is! But it’s hard to get around the fact that Bezos’s Washington Post is guilty of the exact thing Bezos pretends to be worried about now. Indeed, for more than 30 years, the Washington Post published agitprop produced by China Daily, the official propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party. More specifically, the Washington Post published Chinese-produced “ads” disguised as legitimate news articles, many bearing comical headlines such as “Harmony Rules in Tibet’s Catholic Town.” The ads carry a disclaimer noting they’re produced and provided by China Daily, but there is no note clarifying that China Daily is a state-run operation. In other words, this is honest-to-God Chinese Communist propaganda. 

Further, between 2016 and 2020, the Chinese Communist Party paid the Washington Post more than $4.5 million to promote its propaganda. Remember, Bezos purchased the Washington Post in 2013.

And that $4.5 million figure is known only because China Daily decided for the first time in June 2020 to provide the Justice Department with a detailed breakdown of its payments to U.S. news outlets. It’s unclear how much, exactly, the Washington Post was paid in total for the 30 years it happily regurgitated Chinese Communist Party propaganda. You want to talk about the Chinese government gaining “leverage over the town square,” let’s start with the Washington Post.

Criticisms are fine. Asking questions is fine. The issue here, however, is that the Washington Post’s criticisms and concerns regarding Musk’s acquisition of Twitter don’t appear to be genuine or even organic. Rather, they conspicuously mirror the position of the man who owns the Washington Post, who, for reasons that are as reasonable as they are obvious, almost certainly views Musk as a direct competitor.

In other words, it appears the Washington Post, a major media outlet, is being used as the plaything of a multibillionaire tech tycoon waging a hilariously hypocritical and all-too-obviously self-serving war on a rival.

And remember: This is a bad thing, according to the Washington Post.