Washington Post’s Account of Charlottesville: Can this newspaper be trusted, and why the omissions?

Washington Post’s Account of Charlottesville: Can this newspaper be trusted, and why the omissions? By Ann Althouse.

This is the kind of newspaper article I’m looking for, detailing what happened in Charlottesville, and I wish I felt more confidence that The Washington Post would tell it straight. Maybe this is straight, but how can I know? What trust has been shot to hell in the last few years of journalism! …

See, right here, there’s a problem: We’re not told what words and noises came from the counterprotesters. We’re not told they were silent, only that the “white nationalists” got very ugly fast. …

I have to assume the police deliberately absented themselves. Was it because they knew or expected the counterprotesters to be the enforcers? And who started the punching and shoving? The WaPo report is a model of hiding the human agency: chaos, shoves, and punches seem to be acting on their own. …

The counterprotesters has “sticks” but the “white nationalists” had “long wooden clubs”? Are these weapons basically the same? (I’m picturing baseball bats.) Why withhold the details about the weapons on one side of a rumble? For that matter, why is one side given a label that characterizes its ideology — “white nationalists” — but the other side is not?