What in it was not tongue in cheek?
The fact that if he read the article, which he must have if he knew “unsubscribing to the Post” wasn’t listed, he would have seen that all the tips were sent in by readers, who had no cynical motivation not to include “unsubscribing” as a tip the way the newspaper itself might. His post makes no sense as tongue-in-cheek.
I’m confused. What is or isn’t tongue in cheek? Are we talking about tips in the article or the comments in this thread? I’d still like to know some examples of tips in the article.
Well shoplifting is a technique the public seem to have embraced enthusiastically in some parts of the country.
The parts where there are people and shops, I would bet.
The Post is now endorsing murdering Iran’s negotiators if they refuse to accept Trump’s terms.
Please, please, please tell me this is not one of their actual editorials. I had intended to re-subscribe once their editorial division recovered some sanity (I don’t mind right-leaning, but at least make your argument). Something like, this, however: that crosses a line. Iranians have a duty to negotiate on behalf of Iran, not Putin or his American viceroy.
I dunno if I’d consider a Marc Thiessen opinion piece the voice of the Washington Post.
The editorials published absolutely represent the Editorial Board of the Washington Post. Not, perhaps, the specific ideas expressed, but the general slant collectively. They don’t just publish whatever crosses their desk. They have a conservative slant, but do publish other opinions. Whoever published this decided that it was an opinion worth amplifying, though, and I find that really disturbing.
I quite like reading right-wing opinion pieces, both to challenge me and to let me know what people who DON’T think like me are doing. I thought, however, that we had agreed as a society that it was unacceptably distasteful to call for the death of people who merely disagreed with us, especially if they are doing so within an understandable ethical framework (they are negotiating on behalf of their country).
We have long felt that it’s acceptable to kill people who are actively working to harm America or American business interests, real and sometimes perceived. I disagree with that for my own reasons, but seeing that sentiment expressed wouldn’t cross a line.
In addition to the problem of calling for their death, “a negotiated settlement to Trump’s liking” is really problematic. That, I think, I can lay at the author rather than the paper. It’s just stupid: the nation of Iran is not negotiating with one addlepated old man, but with the nation of America. Trump should be choosing the people who can best represent America’s interests, and even though we all know that’s not how he works, we should nevertheless cling to that ideal in print.
If the editorial contained conventional sentiments, this might be fair. But as several have remarked, calling for the death of anyone who doesn’t provide results ‘to Trump’s liking’ crosses an important line.
If the editors wanted Thiessen’s piece to start a discussion, they could have said ‘we disagree with the call to carry out assassinations; discuss.’ But they offered no such qualifiers or demurs.
It’s incitement to violence. If the Post wants that to be their editorial policy, they should put it up in clear language at the top of each page.
I don’t want to get too into the weeds on this, but it seems like the Washington Post mostly keeps Thiessen around to say outlandish things. Calling that an endorsement by WaPo seems fairly silly to me. At least, an important disclaimer to be included.
That’s basically what I was saying. If the WaPo wants to publish incitements to violence, they should include disclaimers to the effect that ‘the opinions expressed herein are not endorsed by the Washington Post’ or such.
I think most papers publish provocative editorials. A few on the opposite side of their political spectrum, or, as you state, someplace to put outlandish ideas. The grown-up version of trolling for clicks. That’s par for the course, and wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. But there’s “outlandish” and there’s “calling for the death of people who disagree with our Leader.” It’s both a qualitative and a quantitative difference from the usual “OMG did you see what «crazy writer» Fred said today?”
I agree fully, and from online discussion of this it’s clear that many others do, too.
“inciting violence” =/= “business-enhancing clickbait”
I mean, this isn’t the NAFTA negotiations. You said it yourself that it’s been within bounds for people who want to harm America. If that isn’t the Iranian leadership, who is it?
I agree with you that it isn’t a good reason to murder people in cold blood. I’m just saying it seemed like a really flimsy attack against the Washington Post.
Yeah, the actual WaPo editorial board itself seems more normal:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/04/15/trump-pointless-federal-reserve-threats-continue/
But they still carry independent columnists ranging from moderate to repugnant.
Their regular articles are often more outright critical of Trump et al than the NYT.
Also Thiessen’s not new. He’s been their token right wing idiot since the early Obama administration, years before Bezos bought it. So he can’t really be used as evidence that its gone down hill.
Depends. If he used to author 1 in 20 columns and now authors 9 of 10, I might conclude something has changed toward the RW stupid side of the ledger.
I d not know whether that is really happening or not. WaPo is not something I follow closely. But IMO it would be worthwhile to look into the mix of editorial writers over a 30 or 60 day timespan to see if the shape has shifted.
My unscientific reading as a subscriber, until not that long ago, was that while the overall political slant and mix of R / L pieces didn’t much change, the right-wing articles were getting dumber and more MAGA, more like propaganda than the standard I’d expect of an editorial. I haven’t been reading for a few months, but this particular example seems like the trajectory is continuing.
That could be more to do with the endumbening of readers in the modern world (fewer novels, more videos and social media), and so I might be reacting for the wrong reasons.
If I come across one of Thiessen’s screeds op-eds, I usually jump to the comments to get the gist of what he’s saying. And, you know, for the laughs.