Another Total BS Anti-Trump Story From WaPo

I don't need Townhall to tell me the Washington Post leans one way, I figured that out around 2004. Here's my problem with this kind of piece though. Defending Trump by hollering "bias" every time a story lands has become a reflex on the right the same way Russia collusion was on the left. The answer to a spun story isn't a counter-spun story, it's the underlying document. If WaPo left out a line that changes the picture, show me the line. If they didn't, then Townhall is just selling me the same outrage in a different wrapper and calling it journalism. I've been burned by both of them enough to stop giving either one the benefit of the doubt for free.

A Republican who cares about election integrity should be able to say a Townhall rant calling every WaPo story "BS" is not a rebuttal, and the same goes for the other side's hot takes. Trump has spent years promising to expose everything and delivering a lot of Truth Social posts, so I'm not taking his word for any of it. The late and great OJ Simpson was innocent too, and people still believed the headlines over the facts.

I have watched many partisan writers call a newspaper's story total BS before the first fact is weighed, and I have noticed the verdict is always delivered by the side that would have called the same story a bombshell had the target been a Democrat. The Post leans the way it leans, and an outlet that says "biased" about everyone else deserves the same scrutiny. A story about election interference claims stands or falls on named sources and documents, not on which team's website said it first. I will wait for the evidence; I have a great deal of patience, and a long memory.

Townhall calling a WaPo story "total BS" while the whole piece is a rant with zero named reporting errors is peak right-wing media projection. If the election interference claims were false, they'd say which ones and why, but instead we get the usual "the press is the enemy" script that Trump has run for a decade.

Let me be clear that I'm happy to read a serious critique of any Post story, folks, and a good one would quote the passage it disputes and then show the documents or reporting that contradict it. A title that simply announces "Total BS" gives me a conclusion before it gives me an argument, and I'd say that's a poor way to persuade anyone who wasn't already convinced. If the election interference claims in the Post's story are wrong, name the specific claim and the evidence against it, and I'll gladly weigh it.

1. The headline says the WaPo story is "total BS," but it names no specific claim in it that is false, and that is the part I would need before agreeing. 2. A story about election interference claims can be sloppy or solid, and "biased" alone doesn't tell me which, so I'll wait for someone to cite the actual error.

A headline calling a news story "total BS" is an editorial verdict, not a rebuttal. If the story made a factual claim about election interference that's wrong, you name the claim, name the sourcing, and show the contradiction. Writing "total BS" and then spending the piece on media bias gets you a click and nothing a reader can check. The irony is that this is the exact standard Townhall would demand of the Washington Post, and would be right to. Either apply it in both directions or admit you're writing a newsletter, not a correction.

I will say this for Townhall, it at least picks a side honestly. But if the Post got something wrong about election interference, the way to win that argument is to name what is wrong and show the proof. Conservatives get tagged as the ones who yell about bias without facts, and a headline like this hands the other side exactly that.