To summarize that Washington Post review of the proposed Cabinet-level appointments, they consider everyone acceptable except for Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary, Robert Kennedy for HHS Secretary, Russell Vought for director of the Office of Management and Budget and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence. Those they consider unacceptable.
Bleech.
It is a list of people Trump has nominated for various Cabinet secretary and exec Director positions along with whether the Post Editorial Board considers them “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” plus for most a one or two sentence blurb about their suitability or background. (Some literally have nothing.)
In the past, the Post has published full bios and past government or applicable experience for Cabinet-level nominees, and in general not weighed in with an explicit endorsement or rejection unless they were exceptionally unqualified, no doubt trusting that the confirmation hearing process would reveal inadequate experience or poor character. Here, they have opined that 20 of the 24 are ‘Acceptable’ even though many are objectively unqualified either in their experience or temperament. Their rationale for making this assessment now is thus:
The president-elect won the election. He deserves deference in building his team, and the Americans who elected him deserve an operational government, absent disqualifying deficiencies in competence, temperament or philosophy.
By that standard, all but two of Trump’s planned Cabinet nominees seem confirmable — as well as all but two of his picks for Cabinet-rank jobs that require confirmation. Should any material emerge during confirmation hearings that changes this picture, we will update our evaluations in the chart below.
They do rate Pete Hegseth (Defense), RFK Jr (HHS), Russell Vought (OMB), and Tulsi Gabbard (DNI) as “Unacceptable”. However, they rate people like Scott Turner, Sean Duffy, Linda McMahon, and Kristi Noem as “Acceptable”, which is risible at the very least. In general, the purpose of this list seems to be demonstrating some fig leaf of objectivity by negging the nominees that are least likely to make it past even a Republican-dominated Senate while been seen as putting an imprimatur of respectability upon these other candidates, of which maybe two or three are even marginally qualified. It is just one more way the media is complying with authority so as to gain favor in the coming regime in a way that they have not done in the past and is certainly not the standard of ‘objectivity’ that Jeff Bezos argued the necessity of pulling an endorsement for Kamala Harris to protect.
Stranger
“Sane-washing” is so accurate and pithy that it’s no wonder it’s caught on.
But we need something like “integrity-washing” or (worse) “acting-in-good-faith-washing” to describe what Bezos’ rag is attempting to do here. They are attempting to sell the idea that Trump is, indeed, acting in good faith. That Trump’s intent is to create an “operational government.” That Trump is deserving of deference because he’s a serious guy, you know? A guy who has the nation’s best interests at heart, right?
HOW could any human have typed those sentences without having their heads explode from the corrosive, lying, absurd sales job they are endeavoring to put across?
It must have been written by A.I.
Welp, the Post officially kills their slogan in a tacit admission that Democracy is already dead in the darkness:
As that door closes on the antiquated notion of WP journalistic integrity for the final time …
Now, the Post is focused on “Riveting Storytelling for All of America.”
A new wave of candor is ushered in.
And Jesus wept.
That AV Club story is based on one from the New York Times, which says that Democracy Dies in Darkness isn’t actually going away. The new slogan is for internal consumption.
The statement is meant to be an internal rallying point for employees, according to two people with knowledge of the decision. Executives are not planning to replace its more strident public slogan. Suzi Watford, The Post’s chief strategy officer, has been previewing it to some employees this week.
Specifically here is the Post’s focus going forward:
According to NYT , a deck presented to executives this week described the Post ‘s new mission statement as “Storytelling… [which should] bring a relentless investigative spirit, backed by credible sources, to deliver impactful stories in formats the world wants.” Those formats will apparently come via making the Post “an A.I.-fueled platform for news” (whatever that means) that delivers “vital news, ideas and insights for all Americans where, how and when they want it.” Traditionally, the role of the news has been to “tell all the truth,” as a different slide articulated, not to tell subscribers what they want to hear. Still, catering more to your audience means the potential for more money, which is one of the next era’s three pillars. (The others include “great journalism” and “happy customers.”)
None of that sounds good to me. It sounds like Fox News + AI. Lovely.
(I believe these are the words of the AV Club writer, not of Atamasama.)
In any case, the answer to the question (bolded by me) is: This means that a bunch of WaPo writers are going to be fired and replaced by AI.
The message is 'we will survive financially and politically in this new authoritarian reality by ignoring facts in favor of massaging our readers, by repeating their long-held opinions back to them.’
Gosh, how super.
Over on Bluesky, Popehat has proposed some alternate mastheads for the Post;
You’d Be So Pretty If You Smiled More
A Bulwark But Against Immigrants And Science
“Sed Illa Muliebria Epistolae”
Peace For Our Time
Go Along To Get Along
He Kinda Has A Point Tho
Question The Afflicted, Flatter The Comfortable
Enjoy All Prime Benefits
This one is too funny.
I had to look up a translation, but “Sed Illa Muliebria Epistolae” is a good’n.
“But her emails”
I got it only because I’ve been doing Latin on Duolingo. And laughed.
Fox News already is Asinine Intelligence.
Why not…
Good people on both sides
Because they don’t believe the “other side” is good.
Honestly, neither side believes the other side is good.
And both are right. But not to the same degree or in the same way.
My Latin is limited to altar boy stuff and a semester of bioscientific terminology in college (where I was the only one NOT a pre-med student), but I was able to recognize “sed” as “but” and “illa muliebria” as “that woman,” so I managed to figure it out.
Dammit CNN why are you so shit at this
When has CNN been good at…anything?
Stranger
Well, they demonstrated with their streaming service that they’re very good at gathering a large pile of money and setting fire to it.