Replies

My response to the WP ombudsman’s freak piece:

In spite of what appears to be an even-handed, calm review of the Black Panther issue, here, it appears even more to be a wait-and-see effort that hopes to find some “right-wing” evidence sufficient to water down or neutralize the fundamental activity of the Black Panthers and thus make the absence of reporting somehow valid.

It doesn’t matter who is pushing this story. What matters is what we can see and hear on the video at the polling place. That alone is worthy of reporting. If the DOJ has also encouraged repression of black intimidation, that is yet another story that should be investigated.

The sad thing is that the Post and other outlets are overly choosy about what they define as “partisan.” Those pursuing a left-wing agenda seem never to be partisan for some strange reason.

The term is reserved for anything other than the Post’s or the administration’s agenda. The same is true for the terms “controversial.” Are there no controversial Democrats — like Gore and a host of others? And how often, if ever, is some Democrat described as “left-wing”?

The Post’s starting point is far different from mainstream America’s. Perhaps that is why the Post can no longer afford sufficient staffing. It claims it can’t pursue legitimate stories because of “limited staffing.” Plenty of “staffing” for stories besmirching or challenging the right, but too few reporters for stories that might be less than complimentary about the left?

There is always plenty of staffing for nonsensical claims, such as in Florida in 2000 (”I saw a big dog a block away from the poll,” and “There was a police car cruising down the street when I went to vote”)which, by the way, resulted in the Civil Rights Commission holding hearings in FL that resulted in —nothing.

Plenty of print space for fraudulent claims that even on the surface are laughable, but ACTUAL evidence of intimidation on tape? No, no. Can’t waste resources on that.