There’s a reason why the Washington Post is not-so-affectionately tagged the “Washington Compost” by its fast-growing pool of distrustful detractors. That reason is embodied in both the person (and the “journalism”) of one Jonathan Capehart, homosexual activist, Washington Post mercenary-hack and editorial board member. Capehart is a liar and, by extension, so is the Washington Post.
Now, when I say that Capehart is a liar, I don’t mean it in the pejorative sense. It’s not an ad hominem attack. It’s a fact, supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In the journalism biz, a reputation for truth and accuracy is everything, and Capehart’s reputation is polluted by an extensive history of inaccuracies, journalistic spin and outright lies. His word processor is the beaker from which he regularly concocts a poisonous brew intended to sway the public toward his left-wing extremist ideology. Indeed, the Post‘s liberal bias is better documented than Hillary Clinton’s cyber-crimes—and Capehart’s yellow journalism more known than her wayward hubby’s womanizing.
To be sure, Capehart’s agenda-driven shenanigans have the dubious distinction of managing to tick off both conservatives and liberals. Consider, for instance, that during the Democratic presidential primary, Capehart, who is “in the bag for Hillary Clinton, lock, stock, and barrel,” infuriated Bernie Sander’s supporters with a now-discredited missive that “progressive” Paste Magazine writer Shane Ryan called, “A dishonest narrative propagated by a supposedly neutral journalist, with perfect timing, in an attempt to smear Bernie Sanders.”
The crux of the piece was that Bernie Sanders really offered little support during the civil rights movement for racial equality. You can read Ryan’s article to learn of how, once busted for a litany of gross inaccuracies and outright lies, Capehart, as wont to do, merely doubled down with more lies and obfuscation.
“Why wasn’t Capehart just admitting that he’d gotten it wrong?” wondered Ryan. “Didn’t he understand that his attempt to cover his own tracks was blatantly obvious, and that no matter how much (expletive) he tried to heap on his original mistake, it would only make him look worse?”
Ryan called Capehart’s actions “rash dishonesty of a journalist with an agenda who had failed to do basic research before printing a smear piece.”
Ryan acts surprised. I’m not. This is Capehart’s modus operandi—rash dishonesty with an agenda, and failing to do basic research before printing a smear piece. Truth never matters. It’s only the narrative.
And never the twain shall meet.
Capehart’s latest blunder comes by way of a tin-foil-hatted hit piece headlined, “Here they are, the enemies of equality for LGBT Americans.” The article contains a fraudulent flow chart created by the Paul Singer and Tim Gill-funded Freedom for All Americans, purporting to establish a “vast right wing conspiracy” of interlocked Christian organizations and people. The chart, for instance, falsely claims that Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has funneled thousands of dollars to the civil rights organization Liberty Counsel.
In reality, ADF provides no funding to Liberty Counsel. But, for Capehart, this paranoid conspiracy narrative is just too juicy to let go. After Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver tried on multiple occasions, and to no avail, to reach Capehart, he issued a press release and wrote an article of his own, correcting the record.
And so, like any good journalist or respectable news publication, Capehart and the Washington Post immediately retracted the piece and issued a public apology, right?
Wrong.
They doubled down on the lies with more lies. Capehart, as he did with the Bernie Sanders smear piece, “attempted to cover his tracks” with a second Washington Post hit piece titled, “One ‘enemy of equality’ for LGBT Americans doeth protest too much.”
This time, while he admitted that ADF never gave funds to Liberty Counsel as he’d previously claimed, he upped the ante, now alleging that ADF instead gave a $10,000 donation to the Liberty University School of Law in 2013, and that Mat Staver, dean of the law school at the time, “established Liberty University School of Law in 2004.”
Strike two. Strike three. You’re out.
Once again, ADF never contributed a single penny to Liberty University School of Law, and the founding Dean of the law school was Bruce Green, not Mat Staver. While Capehart claimed Staver “established Liberty University School of Law in 2004,” the reality is that the Rev. Jerry Falwell established it. Staver didn’t even become dean until 2006, after Bruce Green resigned.
A simple Google search would have revealed these facts.
But Capehart and the Washington Post were never interested in the facts.
In a rebuttal column posted at BarbWire.com, Staver addressed Capehart’s latest misrepresentations. “[N]ow he claims that ADF sent a $10,000 contribution to Liberty University School of Law in 2013, while I was dean of the law school,” wrote Staver. “There’s the connection, he thinks! Apparently, Capehart not only refuses to check his sources, he must also have a hard time reading.
“He points to an ADF 2014 990 form, and, sure enough, there is listed Liberty University School of Law. But, if Capehart had read the 990, he would know that this is an obvious mistake. The address listed is Ohio and Liberty University School of Law is in Virginia. That’s not all. The EIN number for the donation is nowhere near the EIN number for the law school or Liberty University. There is an obvious typo because EIN numbers do not begin with 31, as the 990 states. Had he typed the address on the 990 into a search engine, Capehart would have discovered the ADF contribution listed a private address in Ohio, not a law school in Virginia.”
This is shoddy journalism at best and intentional deceit at worst. I’m inclined to believe the latter because, while both Capehart and the Washington Post have now been fully apprised of Capehart’s multiple misrepresentations, and both of his “right-wing conspiracy” smear pieces have been 100 percent debunked, they yet refuse to issue any retraction or apology. This betrays both Capehart and the Washington Post as agenda-driven, rather than fact-driven.
But we already knew that, didn’t we?
See an error in this article?
To contact us or to submit an article
