4 ms·

IMO this is part of the Wapo's editorial board agenda for a neoconservative [1] plan in Syria. The Washington Post editorial was instrumental in convincing the

IMO this is part of the Wapo's editorial board agenda for a neoconservative [1] plan in Syria. The Washington Post editorial was instrumental in convincing the public of the Iraq war, "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," [2] A regime change in Syria has become difficult with such a visible backing of Russia. Unless we use the pretext of Russia interfering in our elections to equate confronting Russia abroad as fighting back for our democracy. Wapo's editorial board never liked Trump [3]. This new push of Russian agenda, is killing two birds with one stone. Delegitimizing Trump while building the narrative of regime change in Syria or anything Russia is backing. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt [2] http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/13/the-closing-argument-against-donald-trump/?utm_term=.3f97850e1658 http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/13/the-clo...

hackuser 10y ago
The WaPo's ownership changed between the Iraq war and today, though I don't think Bill Moyers' statements are reliable sources of fact in any case. Yes, the Post opposed Trump (as did almost every newspaper in the U.S., conservative, moderate, or liberal). The rest is pure speculation and conjecture; their motives, good and bad, could be anything, and likely have little to do with your particular concerns.
- salimmadjd 10y ago
  if you had the chance to look at my Wikipedia reference, you'll see Hiatt is still the editor. You will also see there many references that he has shifted the paper into more of a neoconservative leaning paper.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    To be honest, I don't look at Wikipedia references. I think Wikipedia is the prime example of people's willingness to accept misinformation on the Internet. I would expect the owner, not the editor, determines the politics of the editorial page. Newspapers don't change their political stances significantly when they change editors, but they do when they change owners.
    - api 10y ago
      The editor sets the voice. If the owner wants to change that they would change the editor.

hackuser 10y ago

The WaPo's ownership changed between the Iraq war and today, though I don't think Bill Moyers' statements are reliable sources of fact in any case. Yes, the Post opposed Trump (as did almost every newspaper in the U.S., conservative, moderate, or liberal). The rest is pure speculation and conjecture; their motives, good and bad, could be anything, and likely have little to do with your particular concerns.

salimmadjd 10y ago
if you had the chance to look at my Wikipedia reference, you'll see Hiatt is still the editor. You will also see there many references that he has shifted the paper into more of a neoconservative leaning paper.
- hackuser 10y ago
  To be honest, I don't look at Wikipedia references. I think Wikipedia is the prime example of people's willingness to accept misinformation on the Internet. I would expect the owner, not the editor, determines the politics of the editorial page. Newspapers don't change their political stances significantly when they change editors, but they do when they change owners.
  - api 10y ago
    The editor sets the voice. If the owner wants to change that they would change the editor.