Former Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler finally admits what conservatives have known for years—the Post is “addicted” to liberal readers while still claiming the newsroom produces unbiased coverage.
Story Highlights
- Kessler acknowledges Post’s liberal audience “addiction” but denies institutional newsroom bias
- Mark Halperin confronts ex-fact-checker over alienation of conservative readers
- Debate exposes deepening credibility crisis facing mainstream media outlets
- Conservative distrust of legacy media reaches new heights under Trump presidency
Former Fact-Checker Defends Controversial Record
Glenn Kessler, former editor of The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” column, appeared on Mark Halperin’s podcast to defend his publication’s journalistic integrity against mounting accusations of liberal bias. During the August 5th interview, Kessler maintained that despite the Post’s overwhelmingly liberal readership, the newsroom itself operates without institutional bias. He claimed never to have discussed political leanings with colleagues and refused to register with any political party, emphasizing his commitment to neutrality.
The heated exchange highlighted fundamental disagreements about media credibility and audience engagement. Kessler’s defense of controversial fact-checks, including the Biden “deepfake” report, drew sharp criticism from conservatives who view such coverage as proof of systematic bias. His admission that the Post struggles with an “addiction” to liberal readers inadvertently confirmed what many Americans already suspected about the outlet’s editorial priorities.
Halperin Challenges Media Elite Bubble
Mark Halperin, the veteran political journalist, pressed Kessler on the Post’s failure to maintain credibility with conservative Americans. Halperin argued that the newspaper’s problems with conservative readers predated Trump’s presidency, representing a longstanding institutional failure rather than a recent political development. He emphasized that outlets like the Post have systematically alienated half the country through biased coverage and editorial decisions that favor progressive narratives over objective reporting.
The confrontation exposed the widening gulf between legacy media institutions and ordinary Americans who feel marginalized by mainstream coverage. Halperin’s critique resonated with millions of conservatives who have watched traditional news sources transform into partisan outlets while maintaining pretenses of objectivity. His willingness to challenge Kessler directly represents growing pushback against media elites who dismiss legitimate concerns about bias as unfounded grievances.
Trust Crisis Deepens Under Media Scrutiny
The podcast debate reflects broader challenges facing American journalism as trust in mainstream media reaches historic lows. Pew and Gallup polling data consistently show deep partisan divides in media credibility, with conservatives expressing far less confidence in outlets like The Washington Post than their liberal counterparts. This credibility gap threatens democratic discourse and undermines the media’s traditional role as an impartial information source for all Americans.
The controversy surrounding Kessler’s comments has sparked renewed examination of fact-checking practices and editorial standards across legacy media organizations. Conservative audiences increasingly view fact-checkers as partisan actors rather than neutral arbiters, citing examples of selective scrutiny and double standards in coverage of Republican versus Democratic politicians. This erosion of trust poses significant long-term consequences for news organizations that depend on broad public credibility to maintain their influence and financial viability.
Sources:
Next Up with Mark Halperin (Apple Podcasts)
Mark Halperin blasts ex-WaPo editor for blaming distrust in… (Fox News)
