Some brave anonymous soul mailed me a copy of a column that an attached sticky note called “a good article for your biased liberal newspaper.” A note on the column itself claims that it appeared in the Washington Post, which makes its appearance “a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself.” I am so biased that I was immediately skeptical, not because I don’t think the Post is willing to criticize Obama but because the tone of the article, by one Matt Patterson, was so shrill.
Attributing Obama’s election to “a baffling breed of mass hysteria” doesn’t sound like the Post’s brand of rhetoric.Nor does the reference to Jeremiah Wright as a “white-hating, America-loathing preacher” sound like the Post’s style. I don’t think the Post would refer to liberalism as “liberal Dom,” and I don’t think it would let stand unchallenged the assertion that “Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin.” He was, in fact, legally elected.
That was just in the first half of the column. I didn’t read the second half, but I did take a minute to verify that the article had not, in fact, appeared in the Post.
So maybe I am a biased liberal, Mr. Anonymous, but at least I occasionally check a fact or two. And I have never claimed that my work appears in places it doesn’t appear.