Crap excuse by WaPo for ignoring voter intimidation story
The Washington Post (a newspaper that suffers from delusions of importance, as many of the big ones do) has carefully ignored what many people believe is a big story: That's the one about the so-called "Department of Justice" allegedly instructing its employees NOT to prosecute a case in which two guys were videotaped standing in front of the doors of a voting place in the 2008 election and allegedly yelling intimidating remarks at people wanting to vote.
The defendants showed their contempt by not even showing up in court to present their side of the case. Whereupon the government got a "default judgment" against them.
Sometime later the government backed off the case.
One can argue whether the backoff was politically driven, and what would have happened if the racial roles had been reversed, but those aren't the issues the WaPo chose to focus on. Instead, the paper has ignored the case entirely.
Finally, after the NYT and AP gave it a tiny amount of coverage, the Post's "ombudsman" wrote about the paper's non-coverage here. What's funny is his excuse: According to the ombudsman
The "result of limited staffing"? Commenters noted the Post had enough staff to publish 124 critical articles on a college paper written by a candidate for governor. (Guess which party?)
Again, an utter load of crap.
The silver lining to this story is that the ombudsman's excuse story generated something like 2000 comments--virtually every one calling the Post for their ridiculous excuse, and their brazen partisan reporting.
The Post has been in the tank for Democrats for all of living memory. They're just now getting called out for it in a *slightly visible* way.
Hope they go out of business sooner rather than later. Lying rat bastards, every one of 'em.
The defendants showed their contempt by not even showing up in court to present their side of the case. Whereupon the government got a "default judgment" against them.
Sometime later the government backed off the case.
One can argue whether the backoff was politically driven, and what would have happened if the racial roles had been reversed, but those aren't the issues the WaPo chose to focus on. Instead, the paper has ignored the case entirely.
Finally, after the NYT and AP gave it a tiny amount of coverage, the Post's "ombudsman" wrote about the paper's non-coverage here. What's funny is his excuse: According to the ombudsman
National Editor Kevin Merida...said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. [National Editor Merida claimed] the delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat....A "heavy volume of other news on the "Justice Department" beat? What a load of crap.
The "result of limited staffing"? Commenters noted the Post had enough staff to publish 124 critical articles on a college paper written by a candidate for governor. (Guess which party?)
Again, an utter load of crap.
The silver lining to this story is that the ombudsman's excuse story generated something like 2000 comments--virtually every one calling the Post for their ridiculous excuse, and their brazen partisan reporting.
The Post has been in the tank for Democrats for all of living memory. They're just now getting called out for it in a *slightly visible* way.
Hope they go out of business sooner rather than later. Lying rat bastards, every one of 'em.
posted by SF at
12:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home