Video News Clips: In Their Own Words

Former Washington Post Fact-Checker Glenn Kessler Falls All Over Himself Claiming Outlet Isn’t Biased

Screenshot/YouTube/Next Up with Mark Halperin

Former Washington Post editor Glenn Kessler struggled to defend his position that his former outlet wasn’t biased toward conservatives during an appearance on “Next Up with Mark Halperin” Thursday.

Kessler acknowledged in a Tuesday Substack piece that he believed the Post’s readership was left-leaning. However, as host Mark Halperin pressed him on his show, Kessler repeatedly denied that bias in the newsroom was to blame for the composition of the Post’s audience.

WATCH:

“My theory would be, from knowing a lot of Washington Post reporters — and particularly talking now about political coverage — is that you attract a lot of liberal readers because your reporters are hostile to Republicans more than Democrats,” Halperin said. “Do you reject that premise entirely?”

“Yes, I completely reject it,” Kessler said, laughing.

Kessler then stammered and had difficulty elaborating.

“Uh, I think, um, uh — that — I mean, how to — how — how to — how to — how to phrase this? Um, I believe that generally, in the main, the reporting of The Washington Post is tough on anyone who is in power,” he said. “[Former President] Barack Obama got very irritated by Washington Post coverage. [Former President] Bill Clinton got irritated by Washington Post coverage. The ethos of the newspaper is to be critical and scrutinize and hold to account whoever is in power.”

Kessler then blamed President Donald Trump for the perception of bias at the outlet due to his claim that the media is the “enemy of the people.”

“But you would say that there’s no liberal bias in The Washington Post coverage of politics and government?” Halperin followed up. “None?”

Kessler then stammered again and appeared unable to come up with a response on the fly, leading Halperin to ask another question.

“Let me ask it a different way while you ponder. I know a lot of your colleagues — your former colleagues — would you say that the people covering presidential campaigns and government for The Washington Post during the last ten years have been absolutely indifferent to whether Trump won or Clinton won, or Trump won or [former President Joe] Biden won — absolutely indifferent?” the host inquired.

Kessler stammered once more before asserting that he never discussed political views or perceptions of presidential elections with his colleagues at the Post.

“You’ve never read a political story or governmental story in The Washington Post and said, ‘Boy, I could see why conservatives would be pissed off by that’?” Halperin asked.

Kessler yet again struggled to come up with a response to Halperin’s query.

“I shouldn’t say ‘never’ … Let me phrase it a different way …  As I say often, half the country thinks The Washington Post is extremely biased against Republicans and extremely, extremely biased against Donald Trump, and that it impacts Donald Trump — his chance of winning elections and governing,” the host said. “Do you reject that premise completely?”

“Yes, I do reject that premise,” Kessler said. “And I — and having been in that newsroom, I don’t — I believe — you know — I am not excusing times when we messed up, but I often say — uh — and I — I believe you — we — you know — times — if we — I often say that — I often say that it’s not incompetence — I’m sorry — it’s not conspiracy, it’s incompetence. You know, that’s when newspapers, you know, make a mistake.”

Kessler announced on July 28 that he was leaving the Post after accepting a buyout. He faced criticism for some of his fact-checks, including a June 2024 piece that asserted some videos of former President Joe Biden’s struggles were “cheap fakes.”

In his Substack piece, Kessler criticized the Post for its decision not to endorse a 2024 presidential candidate in October, along with the outlet’s move to shift its opinion section’s focus to defending personal liberties and free markets. He wrote that both moves repelled the Post’s left-wing audience.

“[W]hile it would be great to get a more balanced mix of liberal and conservative readers, I didn’t understand how one could attract conservative readers … without alienating existing readers,” he wrote.