SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Of the 30 items published on Gorsuch since Trump's announcement, 17 could be construed as neutral and 13 were explicitly positive. (Image: Esther Vargas/flickr/cc)
A review of The Washington Post's coverage of Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch over the past two days reveals overwhelmingly positive coverage of the right-wing jurist. The Post, which prides itself on being a molder of Beltway conventional wisdom, has published 30 articles, op-eds, blog posts and editorials in the 48 hours since his nomination was announced live by Trump--and not a single one has been overtly critical or in opposition to Gorsuch.
A review of The Washington Post's coverage of Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch over the past two days reveals overwhelmingly positive coverage of the right-wing jurist. The Post, which prides itself on being a molder of Beltway conventional wisdom, has published 30 articles, op-eds, blog posts and editorials in the 48 hours since his nomination was announced live by Trump--and not a single one has been overtly critical or in opposition to Gorsuch.
Of the 30 items published on Gorsuch since Trump's announcement, 17 could be construed as neutral and 13 (marked with an asterisk) were explicitly positive. None openly opposed Gorsuch or leveled criticisms beyond mild qualifiers:
One post that was, at first glance, advocating against Gorsuch's confirmation, "We Cannot Possibly Confirm Judge Gorsuch Before the Election" (2/1/17), was, in fact, a lampoon of GOP hypocrisy by Alexandra Petri in the Post's satire section, "ComPost." (Get it: ComPost?)
Another writer who used the Gorsuch episode to advance a separate--albeit useful--point was Greg Sargent (2/1/17), who suggested Democrats should "use the coming court fight to spotlight Trump's authoritarianism." The piece wasn't so much about Gorsuch as much as it was about how his hearings were a chance to explore how the courts can provide a check on "Trump's excesses."
Gorsuch's "originalist" brand, of course, dovetails nicely with the Washington Post's pro-corporate editorial ethos, to say nothing of its multi-billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos.
The bulk of the Post's reporting has been focused on a combination of legal weeds and straight reporting that usually presupposed that Gorsuch's nomination was inevitable. "In the end, Republicans will get Gorsuch on the bench," asserted reporter Amber Phillips without qualification. Trump and Democrats "aren't making it easy to build bipartisan support," insisted another article--the assumption being that confirmation was the default objective. To the extent coverage was neutral, it almost always ran with the premise that Gorsuch was ultimately going to be confirmed, and the controversy was over how and at what political cost.
Due to his standard-issue Ivy League credentials and bland personal appeal--the good ol' boys club criteria--the legal consensus is cementing around Neil Gorsuch as a no-brainer selection. The Washington Post's coverage--populated with insiders using this same criteria, political reporters echoing that conventional wisdom and high-profile op-eds by fawning conservatives--largely doesn't ask the broader moral questions.
Aside from a few quotes from Senate Democrats, the reader isn't really confronted with substantive concerns, like how Gorsuch's confirmation will affect vulnerable communities, help out large corporations, or undermine women's and LGBTQ rights. These are merely a sideshow to the major attraction: the uncritical coronation of Trump's right-wing Supreme Court selection.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
A review of The Washington Post's coverage of Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch over the past two days reveals overwhelmingly positive coverage of the right-wing jurist. The Post, which prides itself on being a molder of Beltway conventional wisdom, has published 30 articles, op-eds, blog posts and editorials in the 48 hours since his nomination was announced live by Trump--and not a single one has been overtly critical or in opposition to Gorsuch.
Of the 30 items published on Gorsuch since Trump's announcement, 17 could be construed as neutral and 13 (marked with an asterisk) were explicitly positive. None openly opposed Gorsuch or leveled criticisms beyond mild qualifiers:
One post that was, at first glance, advocating against Gorsuch's confirmation, "We Cannot Possibly Confirm Judge Gorsuch Before the Election" (2/1/17), was, in fact, a lampoon of GOP hypocrisy by Alexandra Petri in the Post's satire section, "ComPost." (Get it: ComPost?)
Another writer who used the Gorsuch episode to advance a separate--albeit useful--point was Greg Sargent (2/1/17), who suggested Democrats should "use the coming court fight to spotlight Trump's authoritarianism." The piece wasn't so much about Gorsuch as much as it was about how his hearings were a chance to explore how the courts can provide a check on "Trump's excesses."
Gorsuch's "originalist" brand, of course, dovetails nicely with the Washington Post's pro-corporate editorial ethos, to say nothing of its multi-billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos.
The bulk of the Post's reporting has been focused on a combination of legal weeds and straight reporting that usually presupposed that Gorsuch's nomination was inevitable. "In the end, Republicans will get Gorsuch on the bench," asserted reporter Amber Phillips without qualification. Trump and Democrats "aren't making it easy to build bipartisan support," insisted another article--the assumption being that confirmation was the default objective. To the extent coverage was neutral, it almost always ran with the premise that Gorsuch was ultimately going to be confirmed, and the controversy was over how and at what political cost.
Due to his standard-issue Ivy League credentials and bland personal appeal--the good ol' boys club criteria--the legal consensus is cementing around Neil Gorsuch as a no-brainer selection. The Washington Post's coverage--populated with insiders using this same criteria, political reporters echoing that conventional wisdom and high-profile op-eds by fawning conservatives--largely doesn't ask the broader moral questions.
Aside from a few quotes from Senate Democrats, the reader isn't really confronted with substantive concerns, like how Gorsuch's confirmation will affect vulnerable communities, help out large corporations, or undermine women's and LGBTQ rights. These are merely a sideshow to the major attraction: the uncritical coronation of Trump's right-wing Supreme Court selection.
A review of The Washington Post's coverage of Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch over the past two days reveals overwhelmingly positive coverage of the right-wing jurist. The Post, which prides itself on being a molder of Beltway conventional wisdom, has published 30 articles, op-eds, blog posts and editorials in the 48 hours since his nomination was announced live by Trump--and not a single one has been overtly critical or in opposition to Gorsuch.
Of the 30 items published on Gorsuch since Trump's announcement, 17 could be construed as neutral and 13 (marked with an asterisk) were explicitly positive. None openly opposed Gorsuch or leveled criticisms beyond mild qualifiers:
One post that was, at first glance, advocating against Gorsuch's confirmation, "We Cannot Possibly Confirm Judge Gorsuch Before the Election" (2/1/17), was, in fact, a lampoon of GOP hypocrisy by Alexandra Petri in the Post's satire section, "ComPost." (Get it: ComPost?)
Another writer who used the Gorsuch episode to advance a separate--albeit useful--point was Greg Sargent (2/1/17), who suggested Democrats should "use the coming court fight to spotlight Trump's authoritarianism." The piece wasn't so much about Gorsuch as much as it was about how his hearings were a chance to explore how the courts can provide a check on "Trump's excesses."
Gorsuch's "originalist" brand, of course, dovetails nicely with the Washington Post's pro-corporate editorial ethos, to say nothing of its multi-billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos.
The bulk of the Post's reporting has been focused on a combination of legal weeds and straight reporting that usually presupposed that Gorsuch's nomination was inevitable. "In the end, Republicans will get Gorsuch on the bench," asserted reporter Amber Phillips without qualification. Trump and Democrats "aren't making it easy to build bipartisan support," insisted another article--the assumption being that confirmation was the default objective. To the extent coverage was neutral, it almost always ran with the premise that Gorsuch was ultimately going to be confirmed, and the controversy was over how and at what political cost.
Due to his standard-issue Ivy League credentials and bland personal appeal--the good ol' boys club criteria--the legal consensus is cementing around Neil Gorsuch as a no-brainer selection. The Washington Post's coverage--populated with insiders using this same criteria, political reporters echoing that conventional wisdom and high-profile op-eds by fawning conservatives--largely doesn't ask the broader moral questions.
Aside from a few quotes from Senate Democrats, the reader isn't really confronted with substantive concerns, like how Gorsuch's confirmation will affect vulnerable communities, help out large corporations, or undermine women's and LGBTQ rights. These are merely a sideshow to the major attraction: the uncritical coronation of Trump's right-wing Supreme Court selection.