Washington Post Media Critic Blasts His Own Paper for Suppressing Alito Flag Story
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File
Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple slammed his own employer over their initial coverage of the controversial flag flown by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
The New York Times first reported that an upside-down American flag flew in Alito’s front yard following the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, which has become the center of ongoing judicial cases at the court. The symbol is used by advocates of former President Donald Trump who believe the election was stolen.
However, according to Wemple in an op-ed written on Wednesday, the Post first made aware of the flag at his home via then-Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes, who has since retired. He arrived at the residence on January 20, 2021, just as the Alitos were leaving home and asked them about the flag.
WaPo claimed it did not move forward with the story because “the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors…It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics,” according to a spokesperson for the paper.
Wemple then slammed the paper for being “naive” and giving the Alitos “deference” that they “were not entitled.”
As for The Post’s claim that it wasn’t clear in January 2021 “that the argument was rooted in politics,” well, that seems a bit naive. What argument involving a Supreme Court justice in January 2021 was not rooted in politics? If not politics, what was dividing these neighbors — Fairfax County’s protocols for the collection of bulk trash items?
The Alitos received deference to which they were not entitled. Though Justice Alito’s claim that the upside-down flag was flown “in response” to yard signs might be genuine, it’s a stretch. For one, Baden told me in an interview that she never even saw this alleged “response.” Plus — inverting the flag commonly expresses concerns more global than some handmade, glitter-sprayed, cursive sign down the street. “My involvement begins and ends with putting a sign in my yard that says, ‘F— Trump’ that they used as a scapegoat” for their display. “I just want to say that’s absolutely ridiculous and everybody knows it,” said Baden.
He concluded his piece by noting that the paper has played “second fiddle” on a story that it could have easily scooped from the Times.
Wemple writes, “Against that backdrop, the Times’s flag scoop — and The Post’s breakdown — became a big story. The episode has left The Post in the position of having to play second fiddle on a story that it should have owned from the start. When I asked Barnes whether he had any regrets, he responded, ‘I’m not going to get into it.'”
