Tweet
OK, so you wouldn't think a media outlet would have to say this. Fairness is the guiding force of journalists, right? They got called on the carpet by readers for failing to cover the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, where AG Eric Holder appears to be protecting this group's activites. Here's an excerpt of the statement from their Ombudsman:
The Obama Adminstration has been stonewalling everyone on this case, praying that we forget about it and the New Black Panthers can continue their work on Obama's behalf. Even worse, a large chunk of the press has done the Administration's bidding, like a good lapdog would.
At least one of them has had their 'come to Jesus moment' on this issue so maybe there will be some carryover to the other stories they have been covering up.
The Post didn't cover it. Indeed, until Thursday's story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.
That's prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, "Lord, there'd have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months."
Their excuse of limited staffing is pure BS. Or maybe there is some truth because their readers know the Post is only interested in publishing the stories which are approved by Obama's censors.
To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission's board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's coverage because "her revelations leave Left steaming."
The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.
But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.
National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.
Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore.
That's prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, "Lord, there'd have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months."
Their excuse of limited staffing is pure BS. Or maybe there is some truth because their readers know the Post is only interested in publishing the stories which are approved by Obama's censors.
To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission's board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's coverage because "her revelations leave Left steaming."
The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.
But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.
National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.
Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore.
The Obama Adminstration has been stonewalling everyone on this case, praying that we forget about it and the New Black Panthers can continue their work on Obama's behalf. Even worse, a large chunk of the press has done the Administration's bidding, like a good lapdog would.
At least one of them has had their 'come to Jesus moment' on this issue so maybe there will be some carryover to the other stories they have been covering up.