I had some fun with the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago when they published a terribly misleading and inaccurate article intended to cast doubt on Marco Rubio’s family history. I joked that the Post was becoming the Ron Burgundy of the newspaper world, talking about itself more than any other subject, and insisting to its readers that its reporting is important and influential.
While much of the criticism of the Post’s story has focused on its habit of ginning up controversy and then reporting on its reporting, we now know that it failed in its objective as well. Tim Mak calls attention to the latest poll of Rubio’s job approval, and it shows he has emerged from this absurd non-scandal unscathed:
Forty-nine percent of Florida voters approved of Rubio’s job performance — unchanged from late September, reports a new Quinnipiac poll. Only 29 percent disapproved of his job performance, slightly down from 31 percent in September.
A majority of Hispanics — 52 percent — approved of Rubio’s job performance, compared to only 23 percent who did not approve. The breakdown for Hispanic voters in September was not available.
This is a very good sign, obviously. Mainstream newspaper outlets have made a practice of insulting their readers by publishing vague stories about prominent Republicans, usually filled with innuendo, hearsay, and guilt-by-association. Their assumption is that they can confuse readers into thinking the politician has done something wrong when he has not.
But going after that politician’s family and ethnicity, the way the Post did with Rubio, deserves unambiguous rejection. Florida voters have done just that.