The Washington Post has just ousted Glenn Kessler by reportedly buying the newspaper’s Democrat-aligned head “fact-checker” out of his contract and showing him the door.
Kessler, the long-time editor of the Washington Post’s controversial “fact-checking” operation, announced his departure on Monday.
He said in a social media post that his abrupt departure comes after he accepted a buyout.
Kessler, who has been at the helm of the Post’s “fact-checking” since 2010, shared his decision on LinkedIn.
He revealed plans to pursue other ventures, including writing books and exploring freelance or consulting opportunities.
However, Kessler didn’t point to any solid career plans, suggesting the move was a surprise.
While Kessler’s exit from the paper may seem like a routine career move, it has raised questions about the credibility and motives behind the Post’s “fact-checking” operations.
Conservatives and critics widely view so-called “fact-checkers” as a form of censorship and propaganda rather than objective reporting.
Despite his claims of wanting to continue scrutinizing politicians, Kessler admitted that financial pressures ultimately led him to leave the position.
“Much as I would have liked to keep scrutinizing politicians in Washington, especially in this era, the financial considerations were impossible to dismiss,” he explained.
However, for those who have long criticized the Washington Post’s so-called “fact-checking,” Kessler’s departure is another sign of the deepening partisan divide in the media.
The “Fact Checker” operation, under Kessler’s leadership, has often been accused of bias and selective reporting.
One notable example came in June 2024, when Kessler labeled videos showing former President Joe Biden’s apparent confusion, including a moment where he wandered aimlessly during a G7 summit photo-op, as “cheap fakes.”
The “cheap fakes” line was parroted by the Biden White House and widely mocked.
Kessler went so far as to accuse conservative outlets like the New York Post and the London Telegraph of working in tandem with the Republican National Committee to push a narrative that he believed was misleading.
In a highly controversial move, Kessler assigned the “Four Pinocchios” rating, reserved for the most egregious of falsehoods, to these videos, despite growing evidence that they were accurate depictions of Biden’s behavior.
His defense of the “fact-checking” process, coupled with his frequent dismissals of legitimate concerns about the former president’s cognitive state, only fueled the backlash against his work.
The “Four Pinocchios” rating has become a symbol for those who believe that the Washington Post’s “fact-checking” operation is far from neutral.
The term itself has been mocked by critics who argue that it is nothing more than a tool to target conservative media outlets, while allowing liberal narratives to pass unchecked.
Kessler’s attempt to dismiss the concerns raised by the New York Post, which called his “fact-checking” operation a “propaganda mill.”
However, he only solidified suspicions that the Post’s “fact-checking” was anything but impartial.
Despite the Post’s claims of presenting factual, unbiased journalism, many on the right see Kessler’s work as a tool for pushing left-wing talking points and silencing opposing voices.
His decision to leave without a clear successor and his acknowledgment of attempts to arrange a short-term contract raise additional questions about the future of “fact-checking” at the Washington Post.
While Kessler claims that his departure is due to an inability to come to an agreement with the Post’s editors, some view it as an implicit admission of the growing irrelevance of “fact-checking” operations like his in a rapidly changing media landscape.
As the Washington Post struggles with its credibility and the role of sleazy “fact-checkers” in today’s polarized climate, conservatives are left wondering whether the era of corporate-backed, politically motivated “fact-checking” is coming to an end.
With figures like Kessler moving on, it’s clear that the public’s trust in “fact-checking” as a legitimate, unbiased practice is dwindling, especially when the lines between journalism and activism become increasingly blurred.
Ultimately, Kessler’s departure serves as a reminder that “fact-checking,” when wielded as a political weapon, can no longer be trusted as an objective means of reporting.
As Americans continue to face a media environment where truth is often defined by political convenience, the push for more transparent, unbiased reporting has never been more crucial.
The question now is whether the Washington Post and other major outlets will acknowledge this shift or continue to operate as mouthpieces for the Left.
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.