Why is the Washington Post gunning for Sinclair?

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, otherwise known as a lightweight writer, has denounced Sinclair Broadcast Group, an owner of television stations in middle-sized cities, calling it a threat to democracy for asking its stations to read a statement about fake news.  She wrote:

Call me crazy, but when a local news station is required to have its anchor read propaganda created by its master — in this case, Sinclair Broadcast Group — it is not to be taken seriously. Indeed, it is to be feared.

Sinclair recently became the news story when it ordered its 193 local television stations across the country to read an identical script on the air denouncing other traditional news organizations as producers of "fake news," an accusation popularized by the fakest newsy himself, President Trump.

So she says it is dangerous for Sinclair to talk about the dangers of fake news to democracy?

What about the dangers of the Washington Post and others running, for more than 18 months, the fake story about Russian collusion when there was no actual evidence of collusion in the first place and when the whole story was based on illegal spying by Obama, based on a Democrat-paid-for dossier?  That is certainly dangerous to democracy.

Or an unverified story about a seven-hour love rendezvous that may have occurred 12 years ago that was wall-to-wall coverage and meant only to take out a duly elected president?

Today the WaPo is running an unverified story that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is looking at obstruction of justice.  Exactly what crime is Trump obstructing?  Does the Washington Post have any evidence that Trump has actually done anything to violate the law?  So why do these people just repeat stories as if they were true?

Did now-former FBI director James Comey lie before Congress?  Did Trump have the right to fire him if he wanted to?  Did people at the FBI collude with Hillary and President Obama to protect Hillary and go after Trump?  Did Comey and the FBI essentially exonerate Hillary before they did the pretend interview?  Did the Obama administration illegally spy on thousands of Americans, including Trump?  Isn't all of that more dangerous than anything Trump has done?

Wouldn't it be good for the WaPo writers to focus on what is actually dangerous than to try to take out Trump every day when he is trying to transfer the power, purse, and freedom back to the people as fast as possible, which is the opposite of what a dictator would do?

When the WaPo runs so many unverified stories based on anonymous sources and so many newspapers and media outlets just repeat the garbage the WaPo spews forth to take down a president, isn't it good that someone calls the paper out?

Take a look at this part of the quote from Parker's piece:

Sinclair recently became the news story when it ordered its 193 local television stations across the country to read an identical script on the air denouncing other traditional news organizations as producers of "fake news," an accusation popularized by the fakest newsy himself, President Trump. 

So isn't it much more dangerous when news outlets throughout the United States and world just repeat over and over again the story about Trump and Russian collusion for over eighteen months when there was no evidence that the story was true?

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, otherwise known as a lightweight writer, has denounced Sinclair Broadcast Group, an owner of television stations in middle-sized cities, calling it a threat to democracy for asking its stations to read a statement about fake news.  She wrote:

Call me crazy, but when a local news station is required to have its anchor read propaganda created by its master — in this case, Sinclair Broadcast Group — it is not to be taken seriously. Indeed, it is to be feared.

Sinclair recently became the news story when it ordered its 193 local television stations across the country to read an identical script on the air denouncing other traditional news organizations as producers of "fake news," an accusation popularized by the fakest newsy himself, President Trump.

So she says it is dangerous for Sinclair to talk about the dangers of fake news to democracy?

What about the dangers of the Washington Post and others running, for more than 18 months, the fake story about Russian collusion when there was no actual evidence of collusion in the first place and when the whole story was based on illegal spying by Obama, based on a Democrat-paid-for dossier?  That is certainly dangerous to democracy.

Or an unverified story about a seven-hour love rendezvous that may have occurred 12 years ago that was wall-to-wall coverage and meant only to take out a duly elected president?

Today the WaPo is running an unverified story that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is looking at obstruction of justice.  Exactly what crime is Trump obstructing?  Does the Washington Post have any evidence that Trump has actually done anything to violate the law?  So why do these people just repeat stories as if they were true?

Did now-former FBI director James Comey lie before Congress?  Did Trump have the right to fire him if he wanted to?  Did people at the FBI collude with Hillary and President Obama to protect Hillary and go after Trump?  Did Comey and the FBI essentially exonerate Hillary before they did the pretend interview?  Did the Obama administration illegally spy on thousands of Americans, including Trump?  Isn't all of that more dangerous than anything Trump has done?

Wouldn't it be good for the WaPo writers to focus on what is actually dangerous than to try to take out Trump every day when he is trying to transfer the power, purse, and freedom back to the people as fast as possible, which is the opposite of what a dictator would do?

When the WaPo runs so many unverified stories based on anonymous sources and so many newspapers and media outlets just repeat the garbage the WaPo spews forth to take down a president, isn't it good that someone calls the paper out?

Take a look at this part of the quote from Parker's piece:

Sinclair recently became the news story when it ordered its 193 local television stations across the country to read an identical script on the air denouncing other traditional news organizations as producers of "fake news," an accusation popularized by the fakest newsy himself, President Trump. 

So isn't it much more dangerous when news outlets throughout the United States and world just repeat over and over again the story about Trump and Russian collusion for over eighteen months when there was no evidence that the story was true?