"I wanted to learn more from him. Why was he so angry?"
No you didn't. He's angry because you twist words, lie frequently and are not worth trusting or listening to. There's like 10 good journalists out there who actually want to tell the story as is, rather than proselytize. And I'm pretty sure that's an overestimate.
There's a huge likelihood that you are not one of them.
He had no intention of learning from him, but slandering him, then using it to black-mail him, and lose his job, and break up his family. That is the primary purpose of journalism.
Frankly, this. Anyone still working at the Washington Post is either too stupid to know what the company they work for does, or is ideologically possessed.
Either ditch the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" tagline, replacing it with "DNC Propaganda Outlet", or start commenting on the actual current state of government and we'll talk - maybe.
No you didn't. He's angry because you twist words, lie frequently and are not worth trusting or listening to. There's like 10 good journalists out there who actually want to tell the story as is, rather than proselytize. And I'm pretty sure that's an overestimate.
There's a huge likelihood that you are not one of them.
He had no intention of learning from him, but slandering him, then using it to black-mail him, and lose his job, and break up his family. That is the primary purpose of journalism.
Should be "Why wasn't he angrier?"
These people deserve to be tarred and feathered and they're only getting a raised voice.
Frankly, this. Anyone still working at the Washington Post is either too stupid to know what the company they work for does, or is ideologically possessed.
Either ditch the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" tagline, replacing it with "DNC Propaganda Outlet", or start commenting on the actual current state of government and we'll talk - maybe.
Even if that story was real, he's right to be angry. But I also think it's completely made up.