In the sense that it doesn't practices journalism. Instead, it has a long history, especially with its coverage of Democrats, of simply making stuff up whenever the moment strikes.

Today's a perfect example with a campaign article that's generating buzz online. The piece is headlined, “OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT.” Note how Robin Hood is in quotes.

The Post's Charles Hurt reports that during an exchange with a voter “caught on video” (note the high drama), Barack Obama, “let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.”

In fact, what Obama did was explain to a voter the theory behind his tax policy:

“My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.”

That's sort of Democratic Policy 101 and is hardly newsworthy. Hurt simply did his best to whip the exchange into something controversial. But back to the headline. Why did the Post put Robin Hood in quotes? Was somebody in the article quoted calling Obama Robin Hood? Maybe the voter Obama spoke to, or a tax expert?

No. In fact, the only time the phrase appeared in the article was when Hurt himself introduced it; when Hurt called Obama Robin Hood.

Which means, the Post quoted its own news reporter for the headlines to a news article.

Like we said, the Post doesn't really practice journalism as it's commonly defined.