Media

The Curious Story of Taylor Lorenz … and Belated Concerns of the Washington Post

There is a rather curious controversy brewing over one of the Washington Post’s most controversial writers, Taylor Lorenz. The “tech columnist” for the Post has drawn continual criticism over public meltdowns and alleged doxxing. However, the Post seemed to value her notoriety…until she posted a picture of President Joe Biden with “war criminal” on it. Lorenz appeared to suggest that others added those words before various mainstream media outlets contradicted her account. She is now denying that she denied it was her words and the Post is investigating. What is most curious, however, is what it takes for the Post to investigate alleged false claims by its columnists.

Lorenz posted the image during the White House Creator Economy Conference with the President. Many on the left have characterized Biden as a “war criminal” for his stance on Gaza.

Mainstream media outlets reported the posting by a prominent Post columnist in echoing the criticism of Biden.

Lorenz then responded by seemingly denying that she posted the words, chiding others on X that “[y]ou people will fall for any dumbass edit someone makes.”

Many outlets then covered the story that Lorenz was denying the post. However, that produced a torrent of skepticism from even liberal outlets. For example, NPR ran a story that verified that the photo and “war criminal” caption were real:

NPR has obtained a screengrab of Lorenz’s actual post, which contained that caption. … Four people with direct knowledge of the private Instagram story confirmed its authenticity to NPR. They spoke to NPR on condition they not be identified due to the professional sensitivity of the situation for Lorenz.

After the NPR and other stories questioned her account, Lorenz publicly issued her denial of the earlier denial. She tweeted that “I literally never ‘denied it was real.’” She added “Yeah that’s saying they’re falling for (charitable view) something that’s an obvious meme reference by taking it seriously. Please don’t put words in my mouth[.]”

So now, the Post is looking into it.

For some of us, the controversy only adds to the uncertainty over the current standards at the Post. For example, there is apparently no problem in a White House Post reporter supporting government censorship of Donald Trump as an “America issue.”

Likewise, the Post has publicly stood with reporters who have repeatedly published false claims and conspiracy theories. Take Philip Bump, who had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that they stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden laptop and other stories.  That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.

There was no announced or apparent investigation into those claims, or similar alleged false or misleading claims by political or legal columnists. Many of those past controversies involved false claims directed against former president Donald Trump.

The future of Taylor Lorenz is hardly a weighty question for American journalism. However, the lack of consistency on these issues is a matter of concern, particularly as the Post tries to come to grips with falling readership and revenue.

 

 

 

135 thoughts on “The Curious Story of Taylor Lorenz … and Belated Concerns of the Washington Post”

  1. The Washington Post is known as “a writer’s newspaper” which I guess must mean that its “reporters” are allowed to write whatever they want – truthful or not, balanced or not. As Washington radio station WMAL’s great Chris Plante say, “The Washington Post, it looks like a newspaper but it’s not.”

  2. O T Election slogan. A couple weeks ago, a commentor on this blog made a suggestion: the Trump campaign should take the words of one of its ordinary American supporters and turn it into a campaign slogan: “Everthing was better under Trump.”
    That slogan can be placed on billboards across the country next to Trump’s picture. It would be impossible for the Democrats to make it disappear from the minds of everyone who sees it, because: it is true, and everyone in their hearts knows it.

    1. “It’s the [“free stuff” and “free status”], stupid (e.g. present company excluded)!”

      – James Carville

  3. After watching the Nuremberg trials, Hannah Arendt spoke of “the balanity of evil”. If today she were able to read Taylor Lorenz and the various Critical Race theorists, and listen to other deep thinkers among the American censorship class, she probably would refer to “the silliness of evil”. It is true that these people are evil, and dangerous, but at root they are very unserious people.

  4. BRAZIL – If you want to see where the Democratic Party will take us in implementing a Police State, you may want to listen to Glenn Greenwald’s Rumble presentation three days ago (rebroadcast on You Tube) about how far the regime in Brazil has gone in censoring, and jailing, its oppenents, using the judiciary as the main moving force in picking out victims and manufacturing evidence. This is where we are heading if Trump is not elected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPwucDbO4xM (“Major Leak About Brazil’s Notorious Censorship Judge Revealed”)
    Greenwald makes a point that also occured to me: how did a great country so quickly turn into a police state? What happened to all of the rhetoric about “democracy”? The Brazilians cannot even blame Trump.

  5. OT

    18.7% of the population is not general and does not constitute “general Welfare.”  

    Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries comprise merely 18.7% of the population.

    Social Security and Medicare are not “general Welfare,” are not constitutional, and may not be taxed for or funded by Congress. 

    Like Abortion and Roe v. Wade, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and must be struck down by the Supreme Court.

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) have nullified and rewritten the Constitution and intend to completely “fundamentally transform” the Constitution into the Communist Manifesto under Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    The Land of the Free!

      1. The corrupt Supreme Court of 1869 said that secession was unconstitutional.

        It said that because secession is not prohibited it is prohibited.

        The corrupt Supreme Court of 1973 said that abortion was constitutional and a federal right.

        The coherent and impartial Supreme Court of 2022 said that abortion shall be remanded to the States by the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.

        You’re brilliant.

        You failed to cite the Constitution for even a scintilla of a legal basis for Social Security and Medicare.

        There is none.

          1. The “decisions” you cite are illicit, unconstitutional, and unratified amendments to the Constitution, entirely without basis. 

          2. “FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH”

            The Constitution of the United States of America:  Secession is NOT prohibited. 

            Secession is not prohibited and is precisely what the American Founders executed vis-à-vis Great Britain, leaving your sole irrational rationale and oxymoronic contradiction in 

            terms:  “Secession is not prohibited; therefore, secession is prohibited.”  

            Also, you failed to cite the Constitution for even a scintilla of a legal basis for Social Security and Medicare for good reason.

            One does not exist. 

          3. Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional without legal basis.

            The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance.  

            The communist thesis is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”  

            The American thesis excludes redistribution of wealth and social engineering.  

            The Constitution is not the Communist Manifesto.  

            Never the twain shall meet. 

            Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now. 

            Lincoln was Karl Marx’s fellow traveler; review their positions and timelines. 

            You, apparently, are Lincoln and Roosevelt’s fellow communist traveler. 

      2. Helvering v Davis (1937)

        Pure unconstitutional corruption, and communist social engineering, and redistribution.

        The concurring Justices must have been impeached and convicted for abject partiality, failure to fulfill their sworn-oath duty to support the Constitution, usurpation of power, arbitrary and illicit nullification and amendment of the Constitution, the implementation of the principles of communism, treason et al.

    2. George, do you know there are a lot of good arguments around the subjects you choose to speak about. Unfortunately, you don’t use any of them.

      90 to 95% of Americans reach retirement age and receive Social Security. That doesn’t include Medicare and Medicaid.

      So go gaslight someone else with that 18% shit

      1. The beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare are over 65 constituting 18.7% of the U.S. population.

        18.7% of the population is not “general” and does not constitute “general Welfare.”

        Social Security and Medicare are not “general Welfare,” are not constitutional, and may not be taxed for or funded by Congress.

        Congress may tax for:

        – DEBT

        – DEFENSE

        – GENERAL WELFARE.

          1. No citation of the Constitution supporting the legitimacy of Social Security and Medicare is available or exists.

            Congress has the power to tax for and fund ONLY debt, defense, and GENERAL welfare, which is defined as ALL WELL PROCEED.  

            Social Security and Medicare benefit only people over 65, which constitutes 18.7% of the population, which does not constitute ALL or THE WHOLE. 

            You cannot argue; you can only repeat your falsehoods. 

            Karl Marx’s slogan, which is representative of communism, is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”  

            The American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance. 

            The Constitution is not the Communist Manifesto.

            You are simply wrong and erroneous. 

  6. Taylor Lorenz and her allies are anti-American communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) revolutionaries, in my opinion.

    Taylor Lorenz and her allies are direct and mortal enemies of the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America. 

    Karl Marx would be proud; Karl Marx would be struck down by the Supreme Court. 

    All of the planks in their platform are unconstitutional. 

    Lorenz, Harris, and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) may not accomplish what they propose.

    Their entire platform must be struck down by the Supreme Court as its Justices fulfill their sworn-oath duty to support the “manifest tenor”* of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

    Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “…general (all or the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity.  The best example is the Social Security and Medicare population segment, which is distinctly not “general Welfare,” and is infinitesimal at 18.7%.

    The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces. 

    Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.

    The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, price controls, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    Government exists under the Constitution and Bill of Rights to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    *
    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  7. WaPo’s newsroom is a microcosm of this cognitive dissonance in America. The brats want communism, and the oligarch (Bozos) wants a profitable pipe organ.

    Maureen Dowd triumphantly declares that the Dems are exuberant about their upcoming Kamala coronation after executing a coup. A coup! However their coup does not undermine democracy, per NYT. Had Trump been elected, that would have undermined democracy, per Maureen. Cognitive dissonance is trendy if you’re a Kamala Kommunist cult member

    <b<The Dems Are Delighted. But a Coup Is Still a Coup

    We head to Chicago on a wave of euphoria, exuberance, exultation, excitement and even, you might say, ecstasy. It’s going to be a glorious coronation…

    Biden went from looking “forward to getting back on the campaign trail” to gone in one weekend, with the handprints of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries on the president’s back.

    Party leaders whitewashed the coup by ornately extolling Biden.

    On Wednesday, Ron Klain, Biden’s longtime adviser, expressed to Anderson Cooper Bidenworld’s feelings about the Jacquerie heard round the world. “I think it was unfortunate because I think that the president had won the nomination fair and square,” Klain said. “Fourteen million people had voted for him and the vice president as vice president.” He added: “I do think, you know, the president was pushed by public calls from elected officials for him to drop out, from donors calling for him to drop out. And I think that was wrong.”

    Those who pushed out Biden should be proud. They saved him and their party from a likely crushing defeat, letting Trump snake back in and soil democracy.

    The New York Times

    That Maureen Dowd and her editors failed to catch the irony was expected. Honesty is not in their DNA.

  8. When writers at the Washington Post keep their jobs after publishing lies, those lies accrue to Jeff Bezos.

  9. It is apparent anti-Conservative fabrication is good. Anti-Communist Regime fabrication is bad. Time to reverse course.

  10. What do you do with a newsroom in which everybody needs to be fired?

    This is the inherent paradox of the current flavor of communism. Beijing and America’s globalists all want to meld oligarchy and communism into a coherent, well-oiled, semi-fascist tyranny, but inevitably the oligarchs and the communists get into a spat over who actually calls the shots.

    In China, Xi is cracking down on the oligarchs. In America, the oligarchs are major Democrat donors, so who is actually in charge? Not clear yet. The problem for the Democrats is that they need the oligarchs to keep rising, but that runs the risk that the oligarchs will never let go of that power and influence. The CCP was already in charge, so Xi doesn’t have that problem. Not yet, anyway; hence, his crackdown.

    WaPo’s newsroom is a microcosm of this cognitive dissonance in America. The brats want communism, and the oligarch (Bozos) wants a profitable pipe organ.

    We’ll see who prevails, but as the above indicates, it isn’t just Red State versus Blue State. There are other tensions under that iceberg. There’s also the Eastern Establishment versus West Coast hipsters for control of Washington D.C. and its infamous revolving door. That’s Democrat intraparty tension, and that’s a problem for Harris.

    This is why I vote against the Democrats. They really have no program for national unity. The red states are the unity. All those patriots are the glue. Once they’re politically irrelevant, the country either unravels or we wind up with a dictator. The rivalry with China may push us toward dictatorship, but the Democrats have very little leverage over their oligarchs, many of whom are in bed with Beijing.

    I wouldn’t hazard a prediction over how the Democrats could finally f*** up America. It’s too complicated.

    Let’s just hope the Democrats get their fannies kicked in November and we never have to find out.

    1. “but the Democrats have very little leverage over their oligarchs, many of whom are in bed with Beijing.

      Diogenes is digging deeper and reaching for the truth. There is no Democratic political party. It is a party of power dictated by oligarchs and world events. This was proven when Biden stepped down, and Harris stepped up without a single vote from the people.

      1. Good point, Alan. Biden, the meat puppet of the East Coast corporate interests, and Harris, the meat puppet of the West Coast oligarchy. This is what the Democrats have reduced themselves to. Titular imbeciles with globalist hands up their skirts.

      2. S. Meyer — The Prez and VicePrez candidates are selected by party conventions, not primary ballots.

        1. I knew that was you posting above as synonymous, ya santimonious little cowardly twit.

          Waters

        2. David, the DNC hasn’t held its convention yet, yet the Democratic Party has already selected the candidate who received no votes.

    2. You call in the Justices of the Supreme Court and compel them to fulfill their sworn-oath duty to support the literal “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, primarily

      taxation and regulation per Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment right to private property, which is self-qualified, allowing no further qualification, and, therefore, absolute.
      _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

      – James Madison
      ____________________

      “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

      “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      1. How convenient for James Madison, the expansionist, and manifest destiny, supporter, then, all of the lands we acquired, were “public lands” and not the private property of the individuals residing there.

        George can always be counted on to “his favorite hypocrites.

    3. Diogenes, but it is The Donald who says that he wants to be dictator and that if you vote for him you’ll never (need to) vote again.
      So I think that you have your brain on backwards this Sunday.
      Try again.

  11. Please don’t put words in my mouth

    Taylor Lorenz’s comment is an excellent segue to STDs.

    It appears Monkey Pox is surging again, per the World Health Organization.

    Lockdowns should begin immediately in Washington DC in and around the Washington Post offices and at the DNC Convention in Chicago to flatten the curve

    😷 🦠

  12. Is Turley annoyed that the Post ignored the post, or that they are now looking into it? I am legitimately confused.

    1. There is a long tradition at newspapers to publish a “Social Diary.” I believe Lorenz is supposed to be a new, contemporary version of this institution for the current internet era. I was not aware that she is supposed to be a Tech columnist.

    2. Perfect!
      What operating in a coordinate system for distance and angle means to partisan journalism: stake a particularly odious angle, then distance yourself from it.

  15. Has she called them ‘cheap fakes’ yet,
    or blamed time-traveling Russian editors?
    Amateur.

  16. OT: “The weekly Global Antisemitism Report published by the Combat Antisemitism Movement analyzed 113 incidents that targeted Jewish victims worldwide and found that 57.5% of the perpetrators were identified as far leftists, 22.1% of them were Islamists, 11.5% were unknown and 8.9% were done by far-right extremists.”

    https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/polling/majority-antisemitic-incidents-were-done-far-leftists-not-muslims-combat?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

  17. Jonathan: Yes, the curious story of Taylor Lorenz is hardly a “weighty question for American journalism”. So permit me to discuss some more important questions.

    First, DJT continues his campaign of disinformation. Yesterday he falsely claimed on Truth Social that 2 gold medalists at the Paris Olympics were men and DJT wants to “keep men out of women’s sports”. DJT was referring to female boxers Imane Kheif and Li yu-ting, falsely claiming the two boxers had “transitioned” and allowing them to compete was “crazy” and “it’s demeaning to women”. Once again DJT lies. Both the Algerian and the Taiwanese boxers were born female and remain so–neither has “transitioned”. But it’s DJT’s way of continuing to attack the LGBTQ+ community.

    Second, Elon Musk has his own disinformation challenges. He is not only under investigation for spreading disinformation in the EU and the UK but the Michigan Secy of State, Jocelyn Benson, is investigating Musk’s “America PAC” for deliberately misleading potential Michigan voters by not registering any likely Democratic voter.

    Now Musk faces another investigation–this time in Brazil. The BBC reported yesterday that Musk is closing the X office in Brazil. What’s that about? Musk is in a fight with Judge Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazil’s Supreme Court. Moraes is investigating X account holders who continue to support right-wing politician Jair Bolsonaro after he lost the 2022 presidential election and attempted a violent insurrection to remain in power. They call Bolsonaro “the Donald Trump of South America”.

    Anyway, Moraes ordered that certain X account holders not be reactivated during the pendency of his investigation. Musk has refused and has reinstated accounts that continue to spread disinformation re the Bolsonaro insurrection. Moraes has imposed $19,777 fines for each day the disputed accounts have been reactivated. In response, Musk closed his office in Brazil although Brazilians still have access to X. He says “no question that Moraes needs to leave”. Musk claims Moraes’s orders violate Brazilian law because he seems to thinks he is above the law in Brazil when it comes spreading disinformation in Brazil. No doubt the SC of Brazil will have the last word!

    1. So your concerns about Trump’s disinformation is based on its volume, or its quality? Why no mention of Biden/Harris disinformation? Is their volume acceptable to you?

      1. Kama La La “The Ineligible” was “against fracking” before she was “for fracking.”

    3. Dennis: It is my understanding that Khelif and other boxer were first declared female based on passport sex ID and a medical clearance to compete. However, they both failed gender eligibility tests (chromosomal gender ID tests), showing up as “XY” (male) with high testosterone levels. SO that would make Trump correct and you wrong, n’est ce pas?

    4. I am impressed by your consistency in opposing free speech by labeling “false” the speech with which you disagree.

      Are you at liberty to explain:

      How a person with XY chromosomes could be said to be “born female”?

      Why we should trust the information on an Algerian passport?

  18. Lorenz is an activist. Activists act, they do not think.

    Acting without thinking is the definition of stupid.

    The problem with media is stupid people are reporters.

  19. Funny how easy it was for NPR to authenticate Taylor Lorenz ‘s tweet (or whatever it was). Yet, in 2020, they were helpless in authenticating Hunter Biden’s laptop.

  20. The policies of the WP and the NYT regarding lies are quite clear: they are disfavored, with 3 exceptions: they defame Trump; they defame Republicans; or they defame Conservatives.

    1. This is a judgment. She is entitled to her judgment. Philip Bump is lies.

      The WaPo seems to abhor the coverup.

      Maybe a leftover from watergate?

    2. “3 exceptions”
      I would add a 4th exception: any lie that serves to misrepresent or undermine the legitimacy of the Constitution.

Comments are closed.