The Washington Post tried to pull a fast one, and at least this one time it didn’t work out so well for them.

That is largely thanks to Twitter, where the paper got what is called a “ratio.” (“Ratio” is term used to describe when a post gets an overwhelming ratio of negative to positive responses).

The Washington Post did a story about the controversies surrounding Twitter, including the stories being doled out regarding Twitter’s moderation and censorship policies. There are so many Twitter controversies that it is hard to keep up. Because the Left wants to muddy the waters.

The paper framed the story as solely “conservatives” vs. “truth, beauty, and God-like purity” as you would expect. (Yes, I am using a bit of hyperbole there. Lighten up!). Among the ways they conveyed this “good” vs “bad/conservative” frame is describing Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi, the main reporters on the Twitter Files story, as “conservative” journalists.

Twitter exploded, as it rightly should. Neither Weiss nor Taibbi is remotely conservative. Both are in fact center-Left journalists with long careers demonstrating their political bona fides. Weiss resigned from the New York Times editorial page, but that is because she was a liberal who rejected woke. True, she has been “red pilled,” but that merely means she is in touch with reality, not on Trump’s speed dial.

Same with Taibbi. He was a reporter for Rolling Stone, and hasn’t blazed a trail rightward. The accusation is ridiculous on its face. I say this as a bona fide member of the Right Wing Conspiracy. I respect and read both, but hardly expect them to vote as I do. I would be surprised if they did.

The ratio on Twitter was epic–and is exactly the sort of thing that makes the Left fear Twitter’s having become free of Left-wing bias. In this small part of the universe, at least, the Left is not free to gaslight without consequence.

“Conservative” is just a smear to the MSM. It has no other meaning except to brand someone as unworthy. To signal to its readership that such a person can be safely ignored. https://t.co/SEyb6ebMPw

— Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) December 13, 2022

We must understand how leftists and wokesters use words. They don’t care that calling Taibbi and Weiss conservatives is a lie. WaPo uses that word to signal to its NPC readers that Taibbi/Weiss are the evil out-group and therefore everything they say should be ignored. https://t.co/DP5Otrud9j

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 13, 2022

So what happens when a MSM outlet gets caught out in a ratio? They pretend it never happened. Which in this case means that the Washington Post did what is called a “stealth edit.” They changed the story without acknowledging that they did, which in an honest world is a big no-no. It is just a way to avoid making a dreaded correction, which no paper ever wants to do. [As a side note, I have had to correct myself at times and never stealth edit. I always put an update at the bottom of a post indicating I have made changes; that is what honest people do!]

After Fox News Digital reached out to The Washington Post for comment, the word “conservative” was scrubbed from the article. No editor’s note nor correction was placed to acknowledge the change but the article itself shows it was “updated” at 10:57p.m. EST.

“That is hilarious,” Taibbi reacted to Fox News Digital, adding, “Anyone who steps out of line in any way is labeled conservative or pro-Trump now. It’s automatic and predictable.”

A spokesperson for the Post confirmed it received Fox News’ initial request for comment but did not respond to following inquiries regarding the apparent stealth edit. Weiss did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

A stealth edit is better than no edit, although what appeared in print? Some people still read print, you know. And I would be shocked if something like this got printed and then was followed by a correction the next day. I have no idea about what will happen here.

The Post and the entire MSM is in an uproar about Musk’s changes to Twitter, and you can now see why: it is harder for them to hide their lies. A Twitter ratio stings them.

That is a great thing. Not a huge thing, but a great thing nonetheless. Even a small measure of accountability is better than none, and over time it does add up.

Twitter has always been powerful in this way, which is why the Left worked so hard to take it over. It allows real-time, large scale feedback to reach influencers. They love that when the feedback is positive, but now that they get a lot more negative feedback they are feeling stung.

Keep stinging them, I say!