After Jim Brady's weak defense of the Deborah Howell incident, I sent him the following e-mail {Note:IN the interest of full disclosure, I have corrected a couple of typos and grammar mistakes]:
"Sorry. Your meager attempt to rationalize the blatant favoritism of your paper (or at least of Deborah Howell, but you wouldn't have gone to such lengths to defend her and cut off the criticisms of her one-sidedness if you did not have the same opinion) and failure to check the facts just doesn't cut it.
One Moonie paper that shills for Republicans in Washington is enough. It is sad to see your once-great paper become a shadow of its former greatness and just another organ to carry water for Republicans. Is the money that great? Is it that important? What about democracy? What about integrity? Aren't those worthwhile values? (See remainder below)
A simple fact check would have revealed that Abramoff directed clients who had previously given to Democrats to REDUCE those contributions and begin giving to Republicans. Furthermore, those contributions were legal. Abramoff's contributions have resulted in his indictment and guilty plea. Can't you discern the difference? Of course, even a child could! The only explanation for your refusal to report the corruption of the Republicans as a stand alone story is that you feel it is necessary to tar the Democrats to take the heat off Republicans. Please, when Democrats deserve to have misdeeds reported, please DO SO! Just don't make it up to protect your Republican friends."
I was not expecting a response, but he responded with the following:
"Thanks for your e-mail... Sorry you did not enjoy or agree with the article, but appreciate you taking the time to read it. Obviously, I completely disagree with your take on this and The Post's motives in its reporting here. A newspaper in bed with Republicans would never have broken this story in the first place.
Thanks,
Jim Brady"
My impression is that he sincerely believes that he is reporting this (and presumably others) story fairly and onjectively. I find that far scarier than if he were intentionally biased.