“George Santos had an awkward first day at the office.”
Washington Post: by Dan Zak and Ben Terris
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/01/03/george-santos-first-day-in-congress/
SOURCE: The Washington Post is famously known for being left-leaning on the media bias scale. The article is humorous about the third district elected representative, George Santos. It’s important to note that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, who has been reported to be more active in the company’s operations. The proximity to this article being written is close, as it was reported and quoted from other representatives a few days after the House chamber event for the oath of office space. The independence aspect of the article was clear that the Washington Post wanted to ridicule him with photos, and ABC journalist Lalee Ibssa posed questions that do so as the majority is aware of the confusing timeline and fabrication of Santos’s personal life and motivations for running for office. The expertise in the article is leveled; However, they reference five pieces, one being the New York Times. The Washington Post seems to have been closing following this individual’s patterns and speeches since he ran for office and election last year.
MOTIVE: Infotainment is the most plausible criterion to categorize this article into. It applies both an understanding of how George Santos has fabricated his claims on his resume and the use of pictures of him inside the House Chamber, almost paparazzi-like. Through sitting alone and walking alone, we, as the audience, see no interaction between him and the other representatives, which makes the statements of him looking shy and anxious that someone will make fun of him seem true. The article also seems like an opinion piece as it is under the lifestyle category of the paper. Along with this, the tone of the article and word choice become pronounced. Its goal is to ridicule Santos. Just from the first sentence, the audience will be alluded to the point of the post:
“On Tuesday, looking very much like a freshman at a prep school in hell, congressman-elect George Santos wore a black backpack, a periwinkle sweater underneath his navy jacket, and a sullen face with darting, evasive eyes, as if looking to see if anyone on Capitol Hill was going to accuse him of yet another lie about the basic facts of his existence” (Zak & Terris).
EVIDENCE: Zak and Terris claim that certain essential aspects about Santos, like where he works and went to school, have been false:
“Last month, the New York Times delineated apparent fabrications in Santos’s work and educational backgrounds: He apparently did not work at Goldman Sachs or Citigroup; he apparently did not go to Baruch College or New York University” (Zak & Terris).
The article referenced is from NYT, written by Grace Ashford and Michael Gold, highlighting the false claims Santos made about where he worked and graduated from. The report lists Santos’s false claims of having a tax-exempt charity organization, financial disclosures on real estate, and a criminal background that alludes to fraud he had done in Brazil.
Along with his lawyer, Joseph Murray, in a written response to the New York Times article:
“It is no surprise that Congressman-elect Santos has enemies at the New York Times who are attempting to smear his good name with these defamatory allegations” (Zak & Terris). Santos then commented on this with an apology for any further disappointment he had caused. Yet, adhering to the fact that he will still be sworn into office and it is inevitable.
LOGIC: Overall, the article’s flow of evidence makes sense to the point of ridiculing Santos and first talking about his disposition at the House chamber, referencing the NYT article and summarizing the major false claims he has made about himself, and then pleading the 5th when reporters bombarded him both inside and outside Capitol Hill. The article does have a trace of fundamental attribution error since the photos, about how he was described as a “loner,” seem to overemphasize the fact that he was not being spoken to and, therefore, is judgemental of his behavior.
LEFT OUT: The central aspect that I felt was missing was whether or not Santos was once a drag queen, as this was also something that Santos denies being true. Overall, the point of this article was to ridicule George Santos and make clear that politicians like him can heavily fabricate his history to be elected.
George Santos outside of Manhattan Court, April 4, 2023: John Taggart for WP via Getty Images
JUST GO WITH IT 