Behold John Hinderaker's Breathtaking Demolition of Washington Post Far-Left Reporter Juliet Eilperin

Here's the Power Line piece that was top-trending all day yesterday at Memeorandum, and is still up top, "The Washington Post Responds to Me, and I Reply to the Post."

It's John Hinderaker responding to this hacktacular smear by Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin, at Thursday's WaPo, "The biggest lease holder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers."

Hindaker's original takedown is here, "WASHINGTON POST FALLS FOR LEFT-WING FRAUD, EMBARRASSES ITSELF [UPDATED WITH POST'S RESPONSE]."

And here's the authors' response at WaPo, "Why we wrote about the Koch Industries and its leases in Canada’s oil sands."

Hinderaker performs one of the most effective demolitions of leftist media bias I've seen in a long time. Be sure to check the links. But as I was reading through it was the personal background on Juliet Eilperin that was especially clinching:

Why would the Washington Post embarrass itself by republishing a thoroughly discredited attempt to link the Koch brothers to the Keystone Pipeline? Because that is a Democratic Party talking point, and the Post is a Democratic Party newspaper. But the truth is a little worse than that.

Who is Post reporter Juliet Eilperin? Among other things, she is married to Andrew Light, who writes on climate policy for the Center for American Progress. The Center for American Progress is an Obama administration front group headed by John Podesta, who is a “special advisor” to the Obama administration. CAP’s web site, Think Progress, has carried out a years-long vendetta against the Koch brothers that has focused largely on the environment. Ms. Eilperin’s conflict in writing about environmental issues has already been a subject of controversy at the Post. The paper’s ombudsman should examine this latest example of Ms. Eilperin throwing facts to the winds in her eagerness to promote her (and her husband’s) far-left agenda.

I'm not one to believe that perfect objectivity is possible, even for journalistic institutions whose very legitimacy is sustained by a purported commitment to rigorous nonpartisanship. But when reporters are so thoroughly corrupted by just ridiculously outlandish conflicts of interest we can throw all benefit of the doubt out the window. Eilperin's sham objectivity is simply disgusting.

Hinderaker has yet another update, "THE POST: DEPANTSED BUT NOT DELOUSED." And embedded there is Brit Hume on Twitter:

Two @washingtonpost reporters respond to @powerlineblog's evisceration of their work. They get eviscerated again. http://t.co/6dgRw1amdP

— Brit Hume (@brithume) March 22, 2014