In a tweet bashing the Washington Post for their bloated, expensive, self-congratulatory Super Bowl advertisement, Donald Trump Jr. wrote: “You know how MSM journalists could avoid having to spend millions on a #superbowl commercial to gain some undeserved credibility? How about report the news and not their leftist BS for a change.”
The ad attracted criticism from across the spectrum, even from some within the Washington Post’s own sphere. The Post reportedly spend more than $10 million on the ad, which featured narration by Tom Hanks and highlighted the importance of journalism at a time when “democracy dies in darkness.”
In a (tacky) story on their own ad, the Washington Post quoted their publisher Fred Ryan as saying this about the ad: “The Super Bowl is a remarkable moment to recognize the courage and commitment of journalists around the world that is so essential to our democracy. We decided to seize the opportunity to make this a milestone moment in our ongoing campaign.”
Nothing wrong with advertising your paper, we suppose, and there’s probably no better place to do it than the live event with the most eyeballs you’ll ever find on television. That said, there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about it. The Post, as per usual, decided to go the political route and pretend that they are the bulwarks of freedom at a time when totalitarianism is growing in the White House. This is the nonsense they’ve been peddling in their pages for the last two years, and our sense is that the American people are getting fed up with it.
At least one person on the Washington Post’s own payroll had a big problem with the ad – or at least the amount of money the paper spent on it.
“Now unfreeze our pensions, pay an equal wage, and strengthen maternity benefits,” veteran Post reporter Dan Zak tweeted after Amazon/WaPo CEO Jeff Bezos posted the ad on social media.
Many other commentators echoed that line of thinking, questioning the wisdom of spending that amount of money on an ad at a time when journalists are being laid off in many corners of the media.
“For the price of running that ad just once, the Post could have hired a dozen reporters for four years,” tweeted the Daily Mail’s David Martosko.
Given the kind of reporting the Post has been putting out for the last couple of years, maybe we should be glad they’re blowing their money in such frivolous ways. When they finally realize they’re out of funds and no one’s actually reading their crap anymore, maybe they’ll do some much-needed course correction. Of course, by then, it may be too late.