Washington Post Is Imploding Spectacularly — And It’s About Damn Time

The Washington Post is having a rough time, and frankly, it’s hard to feel sorry for them.

First, the paper was caught with its hand in the cookie jar, colluding with Western intelligence agencies to launch an unfounded smear campaign against India.

The Washington Post accepted intelligence handouts from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national security adviser and the deputy minister of foreign affairs. These “gifts” conveniently implicated India’s Home Minister Amit Shah in violent acts while reducing National Security Advisor Ajit Doval to a bumbling caricature.

Just days before Canada made its ludicrous allegations regarding Indian involvement in the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, the publication received a cozy briefing from the Trudeau administration. The agreement was that it would sit on the information until Canada had publicly levelled their unfounded claims against India.

This scandalous arrangement should surprise no one familiar with WaPo's long history of cozying up to Western intelligence agencies.

It’s almost poetic that a publication once lauded for revealing the depths of governmental surveillance is now functioning as a propaganda arm for a foreign government. WaPo, after all, received a Pulitzer Prize a decade ago for its “insightful” reports on the National Security Agency's widespread secret surveillance.

Apparently, it’s gone from exposing governmental overreach to participating in it. The irony is as rich as their disingenuous reporting. It’s almost as if the Pulitzer Board awarded them the prize for being the best at turning a blind eye to their own hypocrisy.

But the Post's bad week doesn’t stop there.

In a hilarious twist, WaPo, which has spent years hammering home the narrative that Donald Trump poses a dire threat to democracy, has decided it will no longer pick sides in the political arena. How convenient!

For years, WaPo has pushed the Democratic Party's talking points, branding Trump as a looming authoritarian danger. Yet when push comes to shove, it seems the paper isn’t willing to stand behind the very party it’s championed.

If Trump is truly the menace WaPo has depicted, shouldn’t they have jumped at the chance to endorse Kamala Harris? After all, they’ve endorsed Democratic candidates for president since 1976! Yes, all of whom have been Democrats—funny how they've never found a Republican worthy of the White House all these years.

WaPo’s executives reportedly debated the decision for days, ultimately deciding to sidestep the issue entirely. This isn’t just an affront to their readers; it’s an admission that the paper no longer believes in its own propaganda. If WaPo has spent years portraying Trump as the antichrist, how does it justify passing on the opportunity to endorse his opponent, especially when that opponent is the sitting vice president?

One must wonder whether this silence signals a deeper concern among the WaPo’s leadership. Are they worried about the repercussions of alienating conservative audiences, especially given Jeff Bezos’ interest in expanding the paper’s reach?

Perhaps they’ve realised that their sanctimonious finger-wagging about Trump is a double-edged sword, capable of cutting their own credibility to shreds.

It’s almost comical to watch journalists at WaPo who have built careers vilifying Trump and other Republicans suddenly falter at the prospect of publicly taking a stance against the party they've painted as a dire threat to American democracy.

WaPo is now reeling from intense backlash, especially from within its own ranks.

Employees are voicing their discontent with the decision not to endorse Harris, and the Washington Post Guild has delivered a sharp rebuke as well. The situation escalated when editor-at-large Robert Kagan and others resigned. Several senior staffers are voicing their criticism on X (formerly Twitter) over the decision not to support Harris openly.

This internal strife has led to a wave of subscription cancellations, with hundreds of readers expressing their dissatisfaction with the publication online.

The paper has now blamed Jeff Bezos for the decision not to endorse, claiming that it was an internal decision rather than a reflection of its editorial stance. But the optics are less than flattering, and the Post is left looking like a deer caught in headlights, desperately trying to rationalise a move that leaves it open to ridicule from both sides.

So, here’s to WaPo—a publication that pretends to be the bastion of journalistic integrity while simultaneously acting as a willing participant in the very machinations it once sought to expose. It’s having a bad week, and honestly, it deserves every bit of the public scorn it’s currently receiving.

Maybe it's time for the Washington Post to take a long, hard look in the mirror. Pretending to champion democracy while engaging in propaganda is a precarious game, one that could completely wreck its already questionable reputation.