With Martin’s bloody scalp clenched in his teeth, it looks as though Wemple is apparently a little disappointed that he’s not being celebrated by his media colleagues as some kind of sacred slayer of homophobes. In fact, from the looks of a bitter post he published a little over an hour ago, Wemple ended his victory dance, looked around, and discovered that he was the only one who showed up at the celebration he planned for himself. 

Methinks Wemple is feeling a little naked and alone due to the fact that his MSM pals aren’t as eager to describe Martin’s tweets in the same way he hysterically did — as a “homophobic outburst.”

Hear Wemple whine:

Here’s how the Associated Press described those tweets:

CNN suspended political analyst Roland Martin on Wednesday for “offensive” tweets during the Super Bowl that some critics said were anti-gay.

….

There’s nothing factually wrong with how the New York Times and the AP abridged the tweets. Yes, the tweets were “interpreted by some to be anti-gay.” That’s well documented. And yes, “some critics” indeed said they were “anti-gay.” Again, well documented.

Yet the treatment by these cornerstone media properties remains silent on what the tweets actually are. In both cases, Martin is encouraging physical reprisals against men who are attracted to the same sex. There’s also some stereotyping thrown in — ”pink suit” — to eliminate all doubt about the population Martin is offending.

Wemple then huffs on for an improbable thousand words over how outrageous it is that no one could read Martin’s gay-hating mind and intent as well as he could.

But the story isn’t really Wemple. Blacklisting blacklisters are gunna blacklist. Wemple will always be a PC speech-policer who abuses his WaPo perch, and that’s all there is to that.

What is disappointing, though, is that it’s pretty obvious now that not everyone in the media is ready to declare Martin’s tweets as “homophobic.” And if that’s the case…

Why aren’t they standing up for Roland Martin instead of just covering the story as though none of this matters?

Cowards.

In sadder news:

CNN commentator Roland Martin has agreed to meet with GLAAD following his suspension Wednesday for tweets during the Super Bowl that the group and others denounced as homophobic.

Martin did nothing wrong, knows he did nothing wrong, but has still agreed to kiss the ring of his persecutors.

Unless he tells them they can all go to hell, that’s just sad.

The flaw in the Post’s poll is that they seem to have polled “adults” instead of “likely voters” and this fact calls into question the claim in the headline that “Obama holds edge over Romney in general election matchup.” You see, you have to be an actual voter before your opinion in an “election matchup” much matters but the Post apparently did not make sure that its respondents were actual voters before declaring that Obama is now winning over more voters.

But the bigger problem is the fact that the Post has decided it no longer needs to include the partisan breakdown of its respondents for readers to assess. The Post did not include the percentages of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in its polling data so there is no way to know if the poll included a fair representation of all parties or if the whole poll was weighted heavy with Democrats.

The Post has had troubling polls before. Ed Morrissey notes for instance that a WaPo poll from April of 2011 had 22% Republicans overpowered by 33% Democrats and 38% purported independents. If the Post is shorting Republican representation, no wonder the Obamessiah seems to be surging!

By excluding in reports its partisan breakdown, the Post risks having its results easily dismissed by serious readers. It makes the poll practically worthless. Of course, the problem is that the average reader won’t realize that things are askew with the polling and will accept the claims of Obama’s popularity at face value. But maybe that’s why the Post won’t include its partisan breakdown in its reports? As Morrissey says, “it’s easy to assume that the reason that the Post has ended its sample transparency is because they have something to hide.”

And with quotes from the Post story like, “Overall, 55 percent of those who are closely following the campaign say they disapprove of what the GOP candidates have been saying,” one has to wonder if those respondents scoffing at the Republican message were actual voters that the GOP should pay attention to, or partisan Democrats whom they won’t be able to reach anyway, or even disinterested “adults” that aren’t voting in the first place? Unfortunately, with this poll we have no way to assess the answers to those questions.

Still, the Post assures us that, “Meanwhile, the president’s recent remarks are better reviewed.” How do we know? Well, we don’t. We just have to take the Post’s word for it if we are going to believe it.

Essentially, what we have with these Washington Post polls is simple cheerleading for the president instead of legitimate analysis of the current sentiments of voters.

Here are the two tweets Mr. Martin was suspended for after GLAAD pretended to take offense:

“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.”

“Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass.”

The word “gay” appears nowhere, and it is painfully obvious that Martin is mocking the game of soccer as something less than masculine. But by no rational, reasonable, or fair standard is what Martin tweeted in any way offensive or out of line. Martin’s only sin is that his tweets weren’t politically correct.

In fact, the only bigotry at work here is coming from Politico’s Dylan Byers, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, and GLAAD – those who automatically equate a lack of masculinity to homosexuality, when nothing could be further from the truth. I know plenty of gay men who are plenty masculine and I know more than a few straight metrosexuals who aren’t. Equating a lack of masculinity to homosexuality is like equating “food stamps” to black people. The bigotry and homophobia is coming from those making the connection, not the other way around. 

But those fascistic scalp-hunters over at GLAAD and their blacklisting soul-mates over at Politico and the Washington Post wanted a scalp, and so CNN gave them one. 

But what are the rules? That’s the problem. There are none. The rules are Orwellian and will be made up as we go along.

Eurasia?

Eastasia?

We’ll let you know in Room 101.

Below are two examples of events that, unlike Mr. Martin’s tweets, occurred on the air — one at CNN and the other at MSNBC. No one involved was reprimanded or suspended. Granted, I’m most certainly on record making an issue out of both of these shameful examples of bias and the raging double standard currently at work in our corrupt media, but the thought of demanding anyone be fired or even suspended was the furthest thing from my mind. That, frankly, would be un-American:

—–

—–

CNN poster boy Anderson Cooper wasn’t suspended for trashing millions of every day Americans with an obscene sexual slur on the air.

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and Politico’s Jonathan –He Who Investigates Private Citizens To Protect His Precious One – Martin weren’t suspended for spouting what many regard as a racial slur, on the air.

Which is as it should be. This is a free country, and personally I’m all in favor of allowing people to be open about their prejudices and biases. The honesty is revealing and helpful. Obviously, you have to draw a line somewhere, but if that line was up to me, “tea bagging” and “cracker” would be a helluva lot closer to it than Roland Martin’s silly tweets.

But I go back to my original point about the deafening silence we’re hearing from those who work within the mainstream media, those who should be the primary defenders of free speech and free expression. Those who should be outraged by this non-stop attempt to institutionalize speech crimes within the very institution where speech should be the most protected.

Instead, they’re either behaving as sheep or — and this is a frightening thought — someday hoping to be the ones who will choose between Eurasia and Eastasia.

SIDE NOTE: It’s worth mentioning that Roland Martin has been a shameless race-baiter at times, one of those who automatically equates criticism of President Obama with racist motives. The Daily Caller’s “Jim Treacher” addresses this New Irony perfectly:

I think it’s ridiculous to suspend Martin for this, but maybe some good will come of it. Maybe now he’ll think twice before he complains about “dog whistles.” Maybe now he sees firsthand how unfair it is when other people decide what your motives are for you.

What happened to Roland Martin was wrong and un-American, but that doesn’t mean I’m losing sleep sympathizing with him.

Oh, and enjoy the “re-education” Roland.  

Say hello to Brett Ratner and Tracy Morgan for us!

Fascistic GLAAD wins another scalp.

Over the years, CNN’s Roland Martin has said some awfully outrageous stuff about Republicans and the Tea Party — and not on his Twitter feed, but on the air at CNN. He’s pretty much accused us of being everything  just short of Nazis due only to legitimate policy differences we’ve had with his precious Barack Obama. As a response, the left-wing speech police — who disguise themselves as “media watchdogs” — have never (according to memory and Google) put any pressure on CNN to have Martin fired, suspended, or reprimanded.  

And they shouldn’t. Martin has every right to be a racial demagogue, and CNN has every right to broadcast him. I don’t like the guy, but the thought of trying to silence him is anathema to everything I believe in. Unfortunately for Martin, the Washington Post and Politico aren’t big fans of the First Amendment and, as a result, just a few minutes ago it was reported that CNN has suspended Mr. Martin “for the time being.”

Martin’s sin? Tweeting a few childish jokes only a fascistic outlet like GLAAD could get away with pretending they are offended by. 

Martin’s mistake? Martin inadvertently stepped into a trap he probably didn’t know existed, and as a result he is now receiving an invaluable lesson about today’s politically-correct hierarchy, where gay trumps black. 

Naturally, media watchdogs who, in the past, have taken no issue with Martin’s race-baiting, are now into day three of their passive-aggressive censorship crusade that pushed CNN into taking the kind of action that puts another win in the column of GLAAD’s ongoing censorship crusade.  

Both the Washington Post, and by extension, our old friend at Politico, Dylan Byers (who is Media Matters’ bestest friend ever), just kept forcing the issue, even though Roland Martin apologized.

But.

That.

Wasn’t.

Good.

Enough.

Because, and try not to laugh…

CNN’s refusal to go on the record is starting to make a statement of its own. And it’s an ugly one: We don’t care about anti-gay violence.

Talk about bullying.

You see, when Martin is race-baiting the Right (on the air!), he’s a sacred cow. But when Martin’s having a few childish laughs that some sacred-er cow, like GLAAD, finds offensive, left-wing outlets like the Washington Post and Politico man their blacklist battle stations. 

In a right-side-up world, media watchdogs would be the primary defenders of free speech. But as we’re learning, especially with Byers, just the opposite is true. In reality and practice, they are speech-enforcers for the very worst and least tolerant on the left, and through this kind of pressure, intimidation and bullying, the goal is to regulate what people say, both on the air and off.

It just doesn’t it get any more un-American than this.

Before I continue I noticed some friends on Twitter growing upset that headlines were partisan. The MSM was right: This was a partisan fight and every single Democrat coddled Mr. Holder. The Republicans were the only ones to demand withheld documents and answers from Mr. Holder.

Right after the testimony ended I began searching for coverage of the hearing on Google. First stop was Associated Press. Remember: If the AP doesn’t write anything on Fast & Furious more than likely the rest of the media won’t mention it. Pete Yost did write about the testimony, but hat’s where the excitement ends. Again, he distorts information to favor Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice. Mr. Yost fails to mention the subpoena was issued October 12, 2011. That’s 4 months ago. That is plenty of time to go through the hoops to release the documents. Mr. Yost says, “Though neither side said so, negotiations are almost certain to be the next step.” If you watched the testimony do you honestly think Mr. Issa or Mr. Holder will negotiate? Didn’t think so. Mr. Issa won’t accept anything less than the documents he needs. Then Mr. Yost describes a few dialogues, but doesn’t bother to get down to nitty gritty of the testimony.

The article at FOX News was more straight to the point. It didn’t bother with the stuff that wasn’t about Operation Fast & Furious. Also, right after the testimony the website had it as their main story.

Reuters had a decent article right after the hearing. They even mentioned the $25 million dollar lawsuit the Terry family filed against the government. They kept it straight to the point, non of the mumbo jumbo from the Democrats. Reuters knows the hearing was suppose to be about Operation Fast and Furious.

Ah, The Washington Post. Once again, since this would require Sari Horwitz to talk about Republicans and quite possibly Mr. Holder in a not so good light, the Post decided to use the AP article. But I will give them props. Right after the testimony they posted the article and put the link under their Top Headlines column on the front page. As of this writing it’s still under the column, but still only the AP article. Under the “Politics” section they don’t have a link to this story, but do still have the link to Ms. Horwitz’s story.

This one was the biggest surprise. I went to the MSNBC website and I saw this:

I literally spit out my Diet Coke. I could not believe MSNBC not only had it on their front page, but it was the main story! Now, they didn’t write their own story, but it’s a baby step. MSNBC actually had the testimony as their main story. I’m proud of you MSNBC.

Not long after I received a tweet from Jay Caruso with this picture:

This made me cry. Thank you so much CNN for making a story on Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry your main story. This wasn’t about testimony. This wasn’t about about papers. This story by Moni Basu was all about the wonderful Brian Terry, who lost his life by people using weapons from Operation Fast and Furious. This is what needs to be known. If the MSM would just put a face to this tragedy maybe more people would pay attention and want to know about this. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry must not be forgotten. It’s their most popular story. People want, need to know about this!

CNN also wrote an original article. It included the Terry family lawsuit and concentrated on Operation Fast and Furious. Could this be a turning point? It was a pretty fair and balanced article offering Mr. Issa’s argument and Mr. Holder’s argument. They included Mr. Issa blasting Mr. Holder for once again dumping a bunch of documents on Congress on a late Friday night.

USA Today had an original article as well. It started off as if it would be all about Mr. Holder, but the author, Kevin Johnson, included a lot of dialogue from the Republicans. Mr. Johnson did a good job keeping it in the confines of Operation Fast and Furious. However, USA Today decided it wasn’t nearly as important as Drew Barrymore’s new movie. Nope, the movie received the big picture and story.

The Washington Times has done a decent job with Fast and Furious and they didn’t disappoint with the testimony. First off, it was the main story on their front page and they wrote an original article. I enjoy how Jerry Saper wrote out a lot of Mr. Issa’s strong arguments. Mr. Seper did include the report the Congressional Democrats released on Wednesday morning.

Good for The Huffington Post. Their story on the testimony is on the front page. Granted it’s a way down, but it is on the front page. However, the article is a complete joke. No quotes from Mr. Issa or discussion on the documents. Instead John Rudolf gives us Mr. Holder’s answers and then decides to concentrate solely on the Democrats.

My colleague John Nolte wrote an article on Politico’s lackluster coverage. You can check out his article here.

All in all I have to say I was impressed. Maybe it’s finally going to get the coverage it deserves. I won’t hold my breath, but baby steps. I’ll continue keeping an eye on the media’s coverage of this scandal. Stay tuned!

Rest In Peace Agent Brian Terry

Referring to this December report on the least desirable endorsements (“According to a Marist poll, 79 percent of New Hampshire voters say getting Trump’s support would make them less likely or no more likely to vote for him or her”), Jesse Benton, spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), e-mails me, “Poor Newt. Based on the polling I’ve seen, he stands to lose 5 points from this circus act.” As for Trump, Benton cracks, “I didn’t think it was possible for Trump to lower his credibility, but somehow, he just did.”

Perhaps it was the Donald’s appreciation for Mitt Romney’s unproductive style of governance in Massachusetts that caused him to settle on Mitt, or maybe he simply longs to sing a duet of America the Beautiful with him – we may never know. But rest assured, give it a day, or two and the light, life and inspiration of conservativism, our dear Jenn Rubin of the Washington Post will somehow manage to convince herself that joining them for a little three part harmony would just be the bomb. Let’s wait and see.

… all of these pro-Newt characters share a penchant for extreme, nasty rhetoric with a disdain for productive governance. This is all about THEM and their PR machines.

Really, what’s next for Newt — a Duke Cunningham endorsement from a jail cell?

Well, that’s unclear as this entire Trump Mitt fiasco is Trump’s doing, not Newt’s. The better question may be, what’s next for Jennifer Rubin? I mean, really, can one top a face plant into irrelevance from the height of Trump Tower? I’m not so certain. But if there’s a way to embarass oneself more completely than Rubin did, I have utmost confidence in dear Jenn Rubin’s ability to stumble upon it before the 2012 primary is over.

I’ve mentioned before it’s unusual for the Old Media to run any Fast and Furious news if the AP didn’t run something first. Same thing with this story. AP didn’t bother to post a story about Mr. Issa, but as soon as Mr. Holder says something they’re all over it. It’s quite pathetic and reminds me of Pavlov’s dog. This is the explanation of Mr. Issa’s letter:

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., made the accusation in a letter threatening to seek a contempt of Congress ruling against Attorney General Eric Holder for failing to turn over congressionally subpoenaed documents that were created after problems with Fast and Furious came to light. Holder was to testify Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which Issa chairs.

That’s it. No mention that this is a response to his subpoena on October 12, 2011. No mention of the emails sent Friday night. But the media goes crazy and reprints this article.

Not every outlet used the AP story though. The Washington Post again had an original piece written by Sari Horwitz! Weird, isn’t it, that she writes original posts when the DOJ and Democrats are on the defense. Surprise surprise! The story is on the front page of the website.

The Post to the rescue! The poor justice official Deputy Attorney General James Cole says it just isn’t possible to get all the documents ready by February 9th. Ms. Horwitz really makes the DOJ a victim of the awful bully Mr. Issa. She fails to tell you that these documents are from a subpoena that was issued on OCTOBER 12, 2011. They’ve had FOUR months. That’s F-O-U-R months Ms. Horwitz. How convenient Ms. Horwitz didn’t explain why Mr. Issa is resorting to contempt of Congress. Again, only reporting ONE side. No bias here!

CNN is no better. The author, Terry Frieden, didn’t bother to mention that the documents he is demanding is from his subpoena on, let’s say it together, October 12, 2011. Again, it makes it look like Mr. Issa is giving the DOJ an impossible task. Mr. Frieden hides relevant information which makes Mr. Issa appear as if he’s throwing accusations around. Mr. Frieden could have posted the emails they received last Friday that prove Mr. Breuer supported gun walking. But he doesn’t and Mr. Issa looks like a bully. No bias!

It’s obvious they don’t care how bias this makes them look. If they were truly neutral they’d cover both stories or neither. I cannot wait to see how they cover Mr. Holder’s testimony. I bet Mr. Issa is going to be so tough on him. I’ll shed a tear or two … for Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Rest In Peace Brian Terry. We Won't Forget.

The media’s biggest fear is Obama losing his upcoming reelection, and Rubio is the kind of VP candidate that keeps the corrupt MSM up at night. Not only could he help swing the all-important Hispanic vote into GOP territory; he also hails from the all-important swing state of Florida.

The nightmare scenario for Obama’s MSM Palace Guards is this attractive, articulate young man taking it to Obama on the campaign trail while wrapped in the mantle of history as the very first Hispanic nominated as vice president.

Unfortunately, the MSM is corrupt but not dumb, which is why over the last few months we’ve seen two major pushes from two major news outlets to discredit, toxify, and marginalize Rubio. Oh, and both of those stories were riddled with factual errors that we’re assured were nothing more than honest mistakes.

The first hit came from The Washington Post back in October. Their information was so blatantly wrong that early one Saturday morning I caught them red-handed quietly scrubbing away their mistakes from the hit piece. This is what I wrote at the time:

How about that? Suddenly those so-called embellishments aren’t part of some “dramatic account” on Senator Rubio’s part. The difference might just be a few words, but those words make all the difference in the world. It’s also worth noting that I saw no editorial notes indicating any changes had been made to the original story. …

Race. Race. Race. And all of it is motivated by race and generated to protect Obama. …

The Rubio hit was designed to take down an attractive Hispanic Republican for fear he might be the 2012 vice presidential nominee and drain away enough Hispanic votes to make The MSM’s Precious One a one-termer.

You bet it’s about race. An attractive Republican who is not Caucasian represents an existential threat to the Democrat party and their media allies, which brings me to the Reuters fiasco from just last week. This error-ridden hit job was wishfully titled: Florida’s Rubio a star, but an unlikely VP pick. The author is David Adams, and the goal is obviously to do to Rubio what the MSM does to all left-wing apostates, which is question their identity.

You see, according to the media, you can’t be a conservative and a woman, black, or Hispanic:

In a Latino Decisions tracking poll last year, 72 percent of Hispanic voters said Republicans either “didn’t care” or were “hostile” to their community.

It is unclear whether Rubio is the right choice to fix the party’s image. He has not endeared himself to Hispanic voters on several fronts, analysts say.

He opposed the so-called DREAM Act, which would have provided a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, and he expressed support for a harsh immigration law in Arizona.

Rubio opposed President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, and more recently blocked the confirmation of another Puerto Rican, Marie Carmen Aponte, as ambassador to El Salvador.

He also opposed Obama’s healthcare overhaul, which is popular among many low-income Hispanics.

“He’s on the wrong side on every issue that matters to Hispanics,” said Fernand Amandi with Bendixen & Amandi, a political consulting firm in Miami that has been retained by the Obama campaign. “He’s going to have to answer to those positions.”

That’s nothing more than left-wing opinion disguised as objective analysis. Par for the MSM course. But this hit-piece was so outrageously over the top in its zeal to destroy Rubio and turn its own headline into reality that no less than five corrections had to be made after it was published and, according to the Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis, two factually incorrect mistakes remain uncorrected.

How about that? Glaring, larger-than-life factual errors from two big, wealthy, fact-check-heavy MSM outlets like the “legendary” Washington Post and Reuters.

I’m sorry, but that seems inconceivable to me, and both episodes remind me an exchange of dialogue in Otto Preminger’s 1959 courtroom classic, “Anatomy of a Murder”:

Defendant (Aside): How can the jury disregard what it already heard?

Defense Attorney: It can’t.

As the Washington Post scrubbed and Reuters chiseled, both did so safe in the knowledge that nowhere near as many members of the jury read the correction as read their original hit.

As far as I know, no disciplinary action has been taken against the authors of either piece.

I wonder why.

Actually, that’s a lie. I don’t wonder at all.

Obama and Venezuela;s Hugo Chavez. (Photo source: Huffington Post)

The LAT article, by former Dick Cheney adviser John Hannah, was entitled: “The U.S.: MIA in the Mideast.” It makes the case that despite Obama’s success in the war against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, overall his foreign policy of “retreat” has destabilized the region:

In private conversations I’ve had with Middle Eastern officials, the sense of unease and dread expressed are only more severe. Fairly or not, these leaders appear to have taken Obama’s measure and found him wanting. Their bill of indictment includes retreat from Iraq and, soon, Afghanistan; betrayal of longtime U.S. allies, especially Mubarak; indulgence of enemy regimes in Tehran and Damascus; overblown promises to end the Palestinian conflict; and a persistent failure to mount the type of credible military option that these leaders believe is necessary for addressing the region’s most urgent threat — Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

The hardening conviction that the U.S. is disengaging from the Middle East should be cause for real concern.

Hannah also attacks “the administration’s lack of strategic vision, its instinct for retreat and its complicity in the unraveling of a benevolent imperium that has for decades underwritten the region’s security.” He notes that a perception of U.S. weakness is “one that left unchecked will breed uncertainty, instability and even war.”

The Washington Post article, by columnist Jackson Diehl, declares: “Obama’s foreign initiatives have failed.” Like Hannah, Diehl questions the conventional political wisdom, which sees foreign policy as a strong card for Obama to play in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death.

Diehl concludes that Obama’s major foreign policy initiatives–pushing Israelis to the negotiating table, disarming the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and engaging anti-American dictators–have all been failures:

Veterans of the Middle East “peace process” shook their heads in wonderment as what at first appeared to be a rookie error evolved into a two-year standoff between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu….

The New Start nuclear arms agreement with Russia merely ratifies warhead reductions already underway in Russia, while imposing a modest cut on the U.S. arsenal. More ambitious multilateral initiatives by Obama — to control nuclear materials, for example — have made little progress, despite an elaborate summit the president hosted in 2010….

Khamenei spurned the U.S. outreach. Relations with Putin warmed for a time but now have grown cold again. In Egypt and across the Middle East, the president’s popularity is lower today than when he gave the Cairo address.

That’s largely because, in pursuing “engagement,” Obama has mishandled the biggest international development of his presidency: the popular revolutions against autocracy.

Diehl ends by observing that despite presiding over an effective counter-terrorism effort against Al Qaeda, “his signature initiatives have flopped.”

Granted, these two articles appeared in the opinion pages of the LAT and the Post, respectively. The inclusion of these perspectives would have been more praiseworthy in the news section. Still, in an era when mainstream media outlets are reluctant even to publish opinions that run counter to the left’s narrative on foreign policy, these articles are refreshing–and on the mark.

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth emailed her year-end thank-you memo to a bunch of WaPo swells on New Year’s Eve (her first mistake). Before the electrons were even dry, the must-read Jim Romenesko posted her email in its entirety with the breaker that Weymouth blew air kisses to almost everyone at the Post—except executive editor Marcus Brauchli.

Image Credit: Washington Post

A C-Suite semaphore? Perhaps. But the real news wasn’t the errant Post Toasties. The real news was the unintentional candor with which Weymouth described how she is driving the paper straight into a digital tar pit.

If you care a whit about real journalism (in any medium), this memo will irk you, and not because of the grammar issues.

I can overlook the dozen or so typos—it was New Year’s Eve, after all. And I can ignore the “they’re-their” slip-up. Spell check doesn’t always catch that one. I can even see past the occasional subject-verb-agreement lapse.

No. No, actually, I can’t. She’s the publisher of the Washington Freakin’ Post, fer chrissake! Doesn’t she have people to catch that??

But what really gives me eye-bulge is watching the Sacagawea of the Fourth Estate instruct her expedition to press on after they’ve reached the Pacific.

The Internet asteroid has hit the Earth, threatening to bring an end to the Guttenberg Period of the Paleozoic Era. The time has come to challenge the talented WaPo team to innovate in the face this of pension-decimating upheaval. So what does Weymouth do? She instructs Wallace Hartley to keep playing the old favorites.

Four examples:

Celebrating Attrition: Unless Weymouth is employing the “Zeno’s dichotomy paradox” marketing strategy, there is no reason to celebrate “a rate of decline that is about half of what it was last year.”

Suffering from Polaris-is: The customer has always been considered the North Star in successful communications, even before the Internet demanded it. But Weymouth, apparently, is just coming around to that quaint notion.

“We set ourselves five priorities in the beginning of the year … 5) become more customer centric, by focusing on how we get our stories to people, how we package and promote them, how we can enlighten, engage, amuse and move readers.”

Early-onset Polaris-is: Worse, by Weymouth’s own admission, customer focus has only eked into the “top five priorities” in 2011.

“Customer focus has always been a priority at the Washington Post. By naming it one of our five priorities for the year, I wanted to push us to get even better and more disciplined.”

And even with that recent promotion, customer focus is still an also-ran.

“We are in the process of evolving to a company which uses data and our expertise to provide customers with more and more compelling consumer experiences. The most successful companies, from Southwest airlines, to Apple, to Walmart, have demonstrated, time and again, that a relentless focus on the customer always wins. Laura Evans, in her new role as Chief Experience Officer, will help us get there.”

“Strike up ‘Nearer, My God, to Thee,’ would you please, Mr. Hartley.”

Investing in the past: It is a given that shredding trees into pulp, spraying the dried mess with ink, wrapping it in plastic bags, and tossing those bags onto doorsteps across America is a fairly antiquated way to communicate a message.

But when you’re the Top Dog of this enterprise, it’s your job to shine a hopeful, promising light on the looming overhaul of this 20th century story factory. It is incumbent upon you to give hope to the ink-stained wretches who actually write, print and deliver the daily paper. “[W]e will continue to invest in our newspaper as long as their (sic) are customers who demand it,” has kind of a Little Big Horn ring to it, don’t you think?

To her credit, Weymouth does address, briefly, how the Post is embracing new technology.

“We are telling stories using the tools available to bring our stories to life in new ways, through pictures, video, text and graphics.”

But I figured being the niece of of Tina Weymouth, the bass-thumping founding member of the Talking Heads, Katharine would have realized before the rest of us that “talking heads” are, in fact, the future of news, and that she would have already developed a plan to drive the Post to that bright future.