WaPo’s One-Note Samba

Notice, that there is no third option mentioned — honoring the outcome of the vote. In fact, there is not a single sentence in this lengthy Post feature that quotes, or even considers the point of view, of anyone on the winning side of the St. Louis votes. The story does not contain a single sentence that isn’t framed by United Methodists who are in favor of doctrinal change on these issues.

So what are United Methodists on the other side — the winning side — thinking? When will readers hear their point of view about the future? How about their thoughts on a UMC divorce? In other words, will Post readers be given an accurate, fair-minded story about the beliefs and plans of the winners in St. Louis?

Apparently, this is yet another story in which only one side is worthy of coverage.

Terry Mattingly

Maybe I’ve been watching WaPo more closely than Mattingly on this issue, but it seems to me they have no intent of ever covering the other side, which by definition consists of rigid and mean-spirited crypto-fundamentalists.

April 1, 2019

Previous:Victims’ rights
Next:Mayor Pete