The Washington Post is petitioning a judge to dismiss the $250 million defamation lawsuit against the paper by Covington, Kentucky, Catholic student Nick Sandmann. The paper claims rather hilariously that “politics has nothing to do with this case,” that Sandmann can’t show that the paper has any anti-Trump bias that would lead them to defame him because he was wearing a MAGA hat, and besides, its coverage was “ultimately favorable” to him. Which I guess means that after painting him as bigot, destroying his reputation and helping incite death threats against him, they finally got around to telling the truth, so hey: no harm, no foul. Just like any unbiased, professional newspaper would, am I right?
For proof that this is how any unbiased, professional newspaper covers Trump supporters, note that this Hollywood Reporter write-up of the story says that while it initially appeared from a video clip that Sandmann and his friends were acting in a bigoted, threatening manner, a “fuller video depicting what happened was much more ambiguous.”
"Much more ambiguous.” That’s how a professional, unbiased news outlet says “the full video we should have watched before rushing into print half-cocked proved the exact opposite of what we reported: that Sandmann and his friends were actually the victims of people acting in a bigoted, threatening manner against them, and the ‘victim’/witness we quoted was a big, fat liar.”
See: Not “defamation,” just “professional journalism.” Happens all the time.