Home 2023 Elections In 2021, the WaPo’s “Journalists” Whitewashed Youngkin/Sears/Miyares. This Election, They’re Doing the...

In 2021, the WaPo’s “Journalists” Whitewashed Youngkin/Sears/Miyares. This Election, They’re Doing the Same with Republican VA Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant’s Opposition to Women’s Reproductive Freedom?

Apparently, for the WaPo, the fact that Dunnavant "talks about [abortion] more calmly with soft camera angles" makes her "nuanced"


Remember back in 2021, how the Washington Post’s “journalists” covered the governor’s race (plus the LG and AG races)? For a quick refresher, see Three Front-Page WaPo Stories on the VA Governor’s Race…and They All SUCK (Hell, They Even Describe Youngkin as a “6 foot 5 Mystery Date” – WTF???) (“How much did Youngkin pay for this whitewash job?”; “What is this? A campaign ad for Youngkin, WAPO?”). More broadly, see if you can find much if any seriously probing, let alone critical, coverage of Glenn Youngkin, Winsome Sears or  Jason Miyares during that campaign.

So this morning, the WaPo’s Laura Vozzella is out with a weird puff piece on Republican VA Sen. Siobhan Dunnvant  about Dunnavant’s supposedly “nuanced abortion stance” (based on Dunnavant’s misleading and dishonest new ad) In fact, Dunnavant received an “F” rating in REPRO Rising Virginia’s 2023 legislative scorecard, which labeled her an “extremist” on this issue. Note that this wasn’t exactly a fluke either, as REPRO Rising’s 2022 legislative scorecard gave Dunnavant a “D” grade, while NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia (the group’s previous name) gave her a ZERO grade in 2019 – and a zero “cumulative multi-year” score.

And yet, according to the WaPo “news” story, Dunnavant is now out “with a 60-second commercial that spells out a nuanced stance on a polarizing topic.” WTF?  The WaPo “news” article continues:

“The tone of the spot — from the soft music playing in the background to the use of “conversation” rather than ‘debate’ — seems intended to cool the heated emotions the topic typically triggers. As Dunnavant goes on to spell out her position, she says nothing about ‘banning’ the procedure but allowing it to ‘remain legal up to 15 weeks.’”

So…yeah, in addition to being nauseating, this is just editorializing masquerading as “journalism.” As Blue Virginia contributor “Kindler” puts it:

“Reading the story, Dunnavant supports Youngkin’s 15-week abortion ban proposal with a couple more exceptions that he does. And she talks about it more calmly with soft camera angles. That’s the extent of the…nuance!

Also, no information about Dunnavant’s past votes or even her opponent’s position. Really not @LVozzella’s best work…”

Also note that the WaPo failed to interview A SINGLE DEMOCRAT, including Dunnavant’s Democratic opponent (Del. Schuyler VanValkenburg, who is 100% pro-choice) for this “news” story. Can you get any more slanted than that for a supposedly “objective news” outlet?!? Wow.

By the way, for more on Dunnavant’s “convoluted, self-contradictory, factually incorrect views” on abortion, see here, in which “Dunnavant remarks that she’d love to bring the limit of elective abortion to 12 weeks.  She articulates no exceptions for rape or incest or to save the woman’s life.” So…yeah, this is all what constitutes “nuance” and, apparently, “moderation,” for the WaPo’s “objective journalists.” This November, make sure you vote for Democrat Schuyler VanValkeburg instead!


Sign up for the Blue Virginia weekly newsletter

Previous articleMonday News: Trump’s AG: “If Even Half of it Is True, He’s Toast'”; “How to Force Judge Aileen Cannon Off the Trump Case”; “The dysfunction among House Republicans is getting worse”; WaPo Works to Whitewash Another Virginia Right-Wing Republican
Next articleLoudoun County Democratic Committee Chair Condemns Republican “Dark Money” Interference in Democratic Commonwealth’s Attorney Primary