While a bunch of players in conservative media thought that the Dave Weigel/Felicia Somnez inside baseball spat was really important, let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Washington Post is terrible and evil because it’s a weapon of political destruction wielded by leftists while being funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
Take this bit of nastiness in which a paper owned by the richest man in the world, or one of them, goes to war with a potato roll manufacturer because he supports a gubernatorial candidate opposed by the Left.
Martin’s potato rolls face boycott calls over owner’s politics – Washington Post
I like the usual passive voice and fake objective reporting language when what the paper is really doing is taking a cause by leftist activists that would have been obscure otherwise and promoting it nationwide and around the world.
Big national chains such as Shake Shack and the Hard Rock Cafe use products from Martin’s, according to the company’s own accounting. So do smaller, regional chains such as Clyde’s and Good Stuff Eatery in the Mid-Atlantic. So do celebrated smokehouses such as Franklin Barbecue in Austin and Bludso’s Bar & Cue in Los Angeles.
But whether big or small, restaurant owners were being asked to surrender their allegiance to Martin’s widely popular products after recent reports showed the family behind the company is a supporter, financially and otherwise, of Doug Mastriano, the controversial Republican nominee for governor of Pennsylvania.
The Republican nominee for governor.
Let’s parse that. The Washington Post is promoting a boycott of a potato roll company because its owner supports the Republican gubernatorial nominee.
López-Alt’s post generated more than 25,000 likes and more than a few people who said they would join the boycott, despite their love for Martin’s rolls.
25,000. Now it’s going to be seen by millions. That’s the agenda here.
And the Washington Post follows that up by promoting the boycott to assorted companies.
Danny Meyer, founder of Shake Shack, declined to comment, but a spokesperson for the company sent a statement to The Post:
“Shake Shack has always championed equality, inclusion and belonging at our company — and we know these values are important to our guests and team members. Shake Shack does not make political donations, nor does the company endorse the political donations of private individuals. In regards to the actions of individuals associated with the Martin’s company and their personal political donations — those are the choices of those individuals and do not express the values of Shake Shack. We continue to be in active conversations with Martin’s to express our concern.”
A “request for comment.” Is that what we’re calling this?
CogitoErgoSum says
I’m seriously considering making this my new motto: “Lefties can eat shit and die angry.” It’s really what they want anyway.
Kepha says
Due to pain at the pump, I say we ought to eat more Greens.
Next time I grill bratwursts, I’ll put them on Martin’s potato rolls, thank you.
gravenimage says
🙂
Westman says
Today, Elon Musk is the Richest at $207 Billion while Jeff Bezos follows at $129 Billion. Though that’s a lot of money, Bezos is 37% “poorer” than Musk.
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#7445c27a3d78
Once being in the newspaper business, I’m certain the WaPo is a money-losing entity. Bezos could only have purchased it for influence, not as a financial investment.
Putting thumbs on the scale for elections, influencing legislators, directing societal attitudes, and punishing enemies is now the function of large political newspapers after the Internet destroyed the advertising model. “Sugar Daddy” has the joystick.
As the Greenfield article above describes, in the hands of the Left, news media is a weapon.
Infidel says
Westman
These days, the WaPo is more interested in being the paper of choice for the DC elitists, rather than the public at large. It doesn’t matter to them how many subscribers they have, as opposed to who subscribes to them. Essentially, this ‘paper’ is now an influence peddling platform for Jeff Bezos
There’s a reason that I boycott anything and everything Amazon as much as possible, and only go there for rare items that ain’t available in most stores
Westman says
Sounds right to me, Infidel.
Infidel says
The correct response to this is to buycott i.e. buy as much as possible to defeat the boycott, Martins. I’m not familiar w/ that company, but from my diet, if they happen to make salt & vinegar chips, let me know where I can buy them
gravenimage says
Hear, hear, Infidel! I’ve got a couple of links below you might want to check out.
gravenimage says
Newspaper Owned by Richest Man in the World Promotes Boycott Against Potato Roll Maker Over Politics
………………….
Gee, whatever happened to calls to “punch up”? Certainly not the case here.
Demanding that customers of Martin’s Potato Rolls boycott their products is disgusting.
More:
Martin’s potato rolls face boycott calls over owner’s politics – Washington Post
I like the usual passive voice and fake objective reporting language when what the paper is really doing is taking a cause by leftist activists that would have been obscure otherwise and promoting it nationwide and around the world.
………………….
Exactly the case.
More:
…recent reports showed the family behind the company is a supporter, financially and otherwise, of Doug Mastriano, the controversial Republican nominee for governor of Pennsylvania.
The Republican nominee for governor.
………………….
Yes. I know nothing about this race, but clearly Mastriano is one of the two main candidates. Would any major newspaper demand that customers boycott supporters of a Democratic candidate for office?
I’ve certainly never heard of this.
Here’s Martin’s website, so you can see if shops near you carry their products:
https://potatorolls.com/
If you want to be perverse, you can actually order these products through Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Martins-Potato-Rolls-24-bags/dp/B01IWASIS0
It seems that they are ignoring their own calls for boycott…
gravenimage says
And what kind of bs is this to begin with? Unless I found that my purchases are, say, actually funding Fascism, I don’t really care about the politics of product providers. And why would I be? It’s none of my business. Remember when buying bread was non-political? Me too…
Infidel says
I actually do care: whenever I shop, I try and make sure that what I buy isn’t from a muslim country (although quite a few Indonesian products have slipped in). I’d love to boycott China, but that is impossible unless one is incredibly rich. But I make sure that I don’t enrich any country that’s already an islamic country
gravenimage says
Infidel, imports from Dar-al-Islam are a different matter, and generally fall into my Fascism exception.
James Lincoln says
gravenimage says,
“…I don’t really care about the politics of product providers.”
Neither do I – unless the product provider makes a public issue of it.
That’s why I will never buy another cone of Ben & Jerry’s…
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Hello, Daniel Greenfield.
You write, “I like the usual passive voice … .” Are you a fan of the passive voice, or a critic? (Perhaps your wording is ironic.) Please explain why. Of the 28 sentences in this article, only one is in the passive voice:
“But whether big or small, restaurant owners were being asked to surrender their allegiance to Martin’s widely popular products … .” The other 27 sentences (27/28 = 96%) are in the active voice.