View this email in your browser ([link removed])

FAIR

For WaPo’s Centrist Sources, Progressive Politics Are ‘Purity Tests’ ([link removed])

by Julie Hollar

[link removed] Washington Post's function as a bullhorn for centrist Democrats continues full force this week, with an article (12/11/19 ([link removed]) ) headlined, "As Democrats Trade Barbs on Business Ties, Some Worry Purity Tests Are Going Too Far" (or, in the print edition ([link removed]) , “Democrats’ Purity Tests Over Business Ties Could Backfire: Some Observers Worry That Voters Will Perceive a War on Prosperity”). It's a greatest-hits of an election piece, rounding up a posse of centrist sources ([link removed]) to accuse progressive candidates of imposing “purity tests
([link removed]) ,” and argue that a leftist turn by Democrats will hurt the party ([link removed]) .
WaPo: As Democrats trade barbs on business ties, some worry purity tests are going too far

The Washington Post (12/11/19 ([link removed]) ) says "many Democrats...fret that an increasingly aggressive tone could ultimately hurt the party, potentially creating litmus tests and exposing candidates to Republican accusations of a war on prosperity."

The article focuses on the Pete Buttigieg/Elizabeth Warren clash over transparency and ties to corporate America. This “growing battle" is “worrying some in the party that an escalating series of purity tests could turn off voters and convey an exaggerated disdain for business," Sean Sullivan ([link removed] Sullivan) and Matt Viser ([link removed]) report.

As usual, “some in the party" is corporate media code for “centrist Democrats." Aside from the current candidates and their spokespeople, the piece seeks out almost exclusively the right wing of the party to judge the import and fallout from this scrutiny over corporate coziness. Sources include a fundraiser for Buttigieg and Biden, another Buttigieg backer, two Booker supporters who won House seats in swing New Jersey districts last year, former candidate Tim Ryan (who told the Post, “You can’t be hostile to business, to free enterprise"), and centrist former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. Former Chicago mayor and Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel ([link removed]) , the epitome ([link removed]) of move-to-the-right-Democratism, was prominently featured.

They balance this barrage with one “liberal Democrat," a strategist who has donated to Warren.

But it's not just the centrist sources that do the spinning. Sullivan and Viser themselves report that “Buttigieg was being targeted by protesters labeling him 'Wall Street Pete,' though the bulk of his career has been in the military and city government." Well, then, those protesters must be loony lefties! Except that Buttigieg has raked in more Wall Street money ([link removed]) than any other Democratic candidate.

(The Post might also have mentioned the incident ([link removed]) that went viral earlier in the week in which a young voter asked Buttigieg, “I wanted to ask if you think that taking big money out of politics includes not taking money off of billionaires and closed-door fundraisers.” Buttigieg’s curt reply: “No.")

The piece uses the term “purity test" three times (four counting the headline), which—as FAIR (4/17/19 ([link removed]) ) has pointed out—corporate media use exclusively to chastise the left for supporting progressive policies.
NYT: How to Get Americans to Love Capitalism Again

The New York Times (12/11/19 ([link removed]) ) is alarmed as "more Americans become disillusioned with the capitalist system that has made upward mobility a pillar of the country’s identity."

The problem, according to “many," is that “the party needs to do a better job of outlining an economic agenda that can break through at a moment when the labor market is strong. ([link removed]) " But for too many voters, the labor market doesn't feel so “strong” (FAIR.org, 11/19/19 ([link removed]) )—and for them, the Post’s notion of a “war on prosperity” must seem rather ironic.

Sanders and Warren are perhaps the only ones outlining a breakthrough economic agenda—with Medicare for All ([link removed]) , a wealth tax ([link removed]) and a $15 minimum wage ([link removed]) , among other ideas—but that's not the agenda the Post and their "many" friends are looking for.

Instead, you'll find the centrist answer in this week’s New York Times opinion section (12/11/19 ([link removed]) ), where Henry Paulson ([link removed]) and Erskine Bowles ([link removed]) bash those leftist plans and explain that we “can get America to love capitalism again” by "aggressively invest[ing] in our human capital," "expanding the earned-income tax credit" and "restoring the sanity of our fiscal position" by cutting Social Security. Can't you just hear the crowds chanting those words now?
------------------------------------------------------------

Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) , or via Twitter @washingtonpost ([link removed]) . Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread of this post.
Read more ([link removed])

© 2018 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .