The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.
If there were ever a story that exemplifies why I call them the “activist media,” the Washington Post’s attempted hit piece on Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) would be it. In an effort to paint her as the female version of Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who won his seat by lying to his constituents, the alleged newspaper spun quite a yarn about Luna’s past.
The piece relied on a series of errors lies about Luna’s statements about her past and used its usual tactics to weave a deceptive narrative about the lawmaker.
As RedState’s Jennifer O’Connell put it:
The WaPo hit piece is the usual drivel of anonymous sources, interviews with associates that are supposedly dear friends, distant cousins, and hair-splitting hyperbole to make Luna’s story and background as questionable as possible.
The author hit Luna for everything from wearing designer clothes, identifying as Middle-Eastern, to her use of the terms “break-in” and “home invasion.” It was the type of desperate claptrap we have come to expect from the activist media when they are attacking an up-and-coming star on the right.
RedState’s Bonchie pointed out more of the silly attacks on Luna:
They dug deep, quoting estranged second cousins and supposed acquaintances from Luna’s time in the Air Force. The result was a comically bad profile that used scant evidence to push a broader narrative of the congresswoman’s supposed inauthenticity.
For example, in one section, they try to prove she didn’t previously embrace her Hispanic heritage (as if that even matters) by citing a claim that she didn’t join the Hispanic club during her stationing at Whiteman AFB. No, I’m not kidding. Oh, and she used an English pronunciation of her name while taking selfies in pretty dresses. You know, because Hispanic people can’t like designer clothes or something.
Scandalous.
Unfortunately for the Washington Post, the attempt to paint Luna as disingenuous fell apart pretty quickly, as the claims and insinuations made in the article did not stand up to scrutiny. But unfortunately for those who value truth, we already know how this works out, don’t we?
The Washington Post issued a series of corrections to address their “errors.” But as is typically the case, the activist media outlet knows that far fewer people will see the corrections than those who read – and believed – the initial false report. We have seen this scenario play out time and time again with organizations like WaPo, CNN, the New York Times, and other left-wing propaganda mills.
Still, some people are referring to the WaPo’s failed hit piece as filled with “errors,” implying that this deception was merely an accident.
If you believe that, I have some prime oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you on the cheap.
Yes, there are times when members of the press make honest mistakes that require correction. But I’m sure you have noticed that the lion’s share of these mistakes tend to go in one direction, don’t they?
When was the last time the Washington Post published a lie-filled hit piece against a Democratic politicians or a high-profile leftist?
Exactly. It doesn’t happen.
Some of us need to stop being so surprised when these things happen. Yet, I can’t blame folks for being surprised because they still view these people as journalists.
These are not journalists, dear reader.
These people threw off all pretense of objective journalism once the Orange Man What Is Bad™ came onto the scene. These are activists using the press as a platform to spread their propaganda. They are left-wing agitators with perfectly coiffed hair and makeup, with cameras on the faces and their names in the bylines of the most established activist media outlets in the country.
These folks are not here to inform you. They are here to influence you, and they have no problem lying to get the job done.
There are ways to fight back. Publishing the truth like my colleagues have done is a big help. But if these outlets know they will face little to no consequences for lying to their audience, they will never have an incentive to stop. Lawfare must also be an option.
Remember what happened with Nick Sandmann and the rest of the Covington Kids? After CNN and other activist media outlets lied about them, he filed defamation lawsuits against CNN, the Washington Post, and others. Each of these organizations settled with him out of court and had to pay big bucks for their lies.
We need to make every lie as expensive as possible. Yes, defamation suits are not easy. But in places where the charge applies, those on the right must be willing to strike hard, and strike fast. Otherwise, these propaganda mills will continue to feel emboldened to lie to the American people to smear their political opponents.
