I admit that I’ve got an innate naivete when it comes to journalists.
Despite years of evidence to the contrary, I can’t shake my belief that news people are trying to tell the truth. Even after the 2012 election cycle, in which news outlets stopped even pretending about objectivity, I’m still surprised when I encounter boorish, shameless partisanship from the working press.
Enter Greg Sargent.
Sargent combines hyper-partisanship with an arrogant claim of aloof truth-teller (He calls his Washington Post column the “Plum Line,” a play on the carpenter’s tool that gives the craftsman a true, straight line). Earlier today I was skimming my Twitter feed and ran across this Tweet from Mr. “Plum Line.”
Seeing the obvious irony, I replied…
…and didn’t give it another snarky thought. There’s plenty to criticize about the GOP “leadership,” but for an Obot to attack Republicans for refusing to compromise is too rich. I figure I’d made the (obvious) point and that was that.
Then I saw a reply from “truth-teller” Sargent calling e a liar:
Huh? I was “lying?” What I said wasn’t even controversial, much less a lie. And rather than leaving this “journalist” to call me a liar, I pushed back:
I was counting on Greg Sargent’s sense of shame to end the conversation. Surely a guy who writes for the Washington Post and is part of the national conversation on political issues isn’t going to be the kind of pathetic, partisan hack who’ll deny the incontrovertible truth about a politician?
He called me a liar…AGAIN! Confronted with a fact, he simply shouts me down with a bogus charge. So I replied again:
Because that’s the Natural Truth (better than “Plum Line,” isn’t it?)–that the guy who should at least be attempting objectivity has completely sold out to Obama and his progressive bias.
I have no strong feelings about Sargent–exposed as he is as a total sell-out–but I still have respect for the idea of journalism and objectivity.
Watching what the Washington press corps has chosen to become is truly depressing.