Or time to watch the Washington Post lose it as they learn their club has new members they wanted kept out.

There’s some classic types of political stories. There’s the look at the horrific outrage the other guys are committing, there’s the well thought out explanation of policy (they actually do exist), the insightful analysis of events( also actually exists), then there is the point and laugh and boy does this one fall into the point and laugh category.

The Washington Post is upset that partisan press coverage may be gaining a foothold in the White House Press corps. They are worried this might have a negative effect on the republic and more importantly might mean they actually have to occasionally work for a story instead of just snagging loose shrimp from buffets, doing spelling corrections on Democratic Party press releases.

In an age of partisan media, the lines between “partisan” and “media” can sometimes blur.

Case in point: The pool reporter covering Vice President Pence on Thursday — that is, the reporter who supplied details about Pence’s daily activities as proxy for the rest of the press corps — was an employee of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank.

In other words, the news that reporters received about the vice president came from a journalist employed by an organization with a vested interest in the direction of White House and federal policy.

The development is unusual; the reporter, Fred Lucas, is the first member of his organization to take on pool reporting duties, which are typically handled on a rotating basis by mainstream news organizations. Lucas also covered Pence as the pooler two weeks ago.

Lucas writes for the Daily Signal, a news and commentary site started nearly three years ago by Heritage, one of Washington’s leading policy shops. The Signal covers issues that are a focus of Heritage’s conservative agenda, such as an Obamacare repeal, tax policy and illegal immigration.

—-The Washington Post

Quelle horreur! The news is being shaded and slanted by people that don’t work for the WaPo or at least the New York Times. Remember this is the WaPo that told Trump supporters he was going to lose the election

Since the final presidential debate last week, many news outlets have been delivering an unvarnished message to Donald Trump supporters: Your candidate is virtually certain to lose the election Nov. 8.

Clinton probably finished off Trump last night,” FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver wrote the day after the debate. “Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be president,” Guardian columnist and former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson added.

—Washington Post

This is the same Washington Post that bemoaned how Hillary Clinton was crippled by excess loyalty to the people around her, and how Benghazi was a non issue

Ms. Clinton can be faulted, perhaps, for excessive loyalty; though the hyper-investigated Benghazi affair proved to be no scandal at all, Ms. Clinton should have argued more persistently to help stabilize Libya after its dictator fell. But her foreign-policy inclinations were sounder than her president’s.

The idea that somehow Clinton loyalty had managed to hypertrophy had me checking if had grown a goatee, or was in a mirror universe when I read it. Benghazi of course was made a non scandal by the tireless efforts of the MSM to confuse the issues and render it such. For people who understand what went on, and just how much loyalty Ms. Clinton had that she couldn’t take calls from people about to die, it’s something else entirely.

Ehhh, maybe the above aren’t so partisan as they were  just errors in reporting ? Well you could give them the benefit of the doubt if it hadn’t turned out their reporters were in the pocket of the Clinton campaign according to Wikileaks.