When it comes to news reporting, the readers of WorldNetDaily have “a
friend in the business.” That buddy is none other than our editor,
Regarding his column
on Tuesday, when Joe detailed the blatant hypocrisy of the establishment
paper, the Washington Post, in covering the brutal, homosexual-induced
murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising, readers of both WND and the Post
should have been able to tell — once and for all — who is more
concerned with an honest and fair portrayal of the events that take
place in our country and the world.
Which is to say, it sure isn’t the Post.
That E.R. Shipp, the paper’s ombudsman and a person who is supposed
to guide the ethics and professionalism of other staff writers, would
even attempt to justify the paper’s refusal to acknowledge the
similarities in the cases of an openly gay Wyoming college student,
Matthew Shepard, and Dirkhising — killed by two openly gay men who
repeatedly raped him to death — is worse than abominable. In a
journalistic sense anyway, it is a crime — a crime committed against
the Post’s readers. Shipp ought to be ashamed, her pathetic excuses to
virtually ignore the Dirkhising case notwithstanding. And that’s just
what they are — excuses.
That’s not to say that Shipp wouldn’t have, at one time, known what
sweet irony she is embracing. Perhaps, we might think, if she had
had a son brutally raped to death by two homosexuals, she’d see exactly
the same kind of “hate crime” she saw in the Shepard murder. But we
shouldn’t wish that sort of thing on Shipp or any person, let
alone other teenagers. That kind of brutality — hate crime or
not — is at least hate-filled and ought to be treated as such to
the extreme letter of the law.
Besides, the Post’s responsibility to cover the Dirkhising murder
doesn’t begin simply because Shipp or a portion of the Post’s staff
writers are parents. It began long ago, when the founders of the Post
— as Joe Farah has done with WND — pledged to provide a fair and
unbiased view of the news. Clearly this example demonstrates how badly
the Post — and most all other major establishment press agencies —
“blew it” when it came to giving the Dirkhising boy equal time. This
abdication of their responsibility has now only been made worse by the
stupidity of Shipp’s rebuttal; her attempt to assassinate the character
of Farah speaks volumes about the credibility of the paper she is
supposed to be “guiding.”
In her diatribe against Joe, where she chose to link my editor with
white supremacist David Duke, Shipp did less to prove her point than she
did to admit her paper’s own misguided judgement in refusing to
cultivate the Dirkhising story. Shipp chose to attack Farah’s character
rather than refute him on the facts. Therein lies the tip-off; if she
had to resort to personal assaults, Shipp obviously did not have the
facts — or her conscience — on her side.
The Shepard/Dirkhising cases were linked in a number of ways. First,
homosexuality was involved; second, murder was involved. Third, both
victims were “targeted,” so to speak, because of the issue of
homosexuality. But in the Dirkhising case, we have the most innocent of
innocents — a 13-year-old boy, a mere child — who was brutally
raped to death by two openly homosexual men.
If the establishment press had given a damn about “fairness,”
Americans could have learned that not only are gays targeted for
retribution but also that gays target others — a charge that is
rooted in fact.
More importantly, the establishment press weenies at the Post and
elsewhere could have saved all of us this debate in the first place if
they had just stuck to their founding promises to deliver fair and
unbiased news coverage. Had they done that, Americans would not now be
embroiled in a pointless debate trying to decide which is worse — gays
being killed or gays killing. Instead most Americans would have long ago
concluded that all killing is bad, regardless of the
circumstances and regardless of the sexual orientation of the murderers
But because Shipp’s cocktail party friends in the White House and in
Congress have decided that killing a gay is worse than a gay killing
somebody else, the Post chose to ignore little Jesse Dirkhising — and
then made excuses for that lack of unbiased and fair coverage.
What a bunch of weak, whining cowards these people are. And they’re
disingenuous as hell.
In her editorial “explaining” the Post’s discrepancy of coverage
between the Shepard/Dirkhising cases, Shipp said, “By the time Matthew
Shepard died on Oct. 12, 1998 — nearly a week after he was savagely
beaten and left ‘tied to a fence like a dead coyote,’ as the Post
reported on Oct. 10, 1998 — his story had spread around the world, and
he had become a symbol for those who urged Congress to adopt a stronger
federal hate crimes law. From Capitol Hill to Hollywood to college
campuses across the nation, the assault on an openly gay man was
denounced at rallies and candlelight vigils.”
Just what exactly does that prove? Nothing — because it begs
the question: Would Americans have even known about Matthew Shepard if
the Post, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Associated Press, NBC,
ABC, CBS, Fox News, and all the usual establishment types had devoted
the same kind of coverage to it they gave little Jesse Dirkhising? Of
course not; once the establishment press got wind of this “perfect”
example of the kind of political correctness they endorse, they jumped
on it with the same vengeance President Clinton uses to jump on an eager
And that’s why they neglected to give coverage to the
Dirkhising murder — in their socialist minds, giving Americans the
opportunity to rail against what they consider to be a “protected” class
of people is unthinkable.
And this is what Shipp says constitutes a “fair and balanced”
Americans, by and large, can recognize injustice, hatred and
brutality when they see it; they don’t need anointed ombudsmen to tell
them when to get angry or what to be angry about. The problem is
coverage; if Americans don’t hear about it, they don’t react to
it. It’s as simple as that.
Calling a spade a spade is rarely the most popular thing to do. But
in the news business, you can’t afford to be “compassionate.” You have
to be fair and balanced; anything less is an editorial. Anything
more is extremism. Ms. Shipp knows this.
Shipp and Co. did nothing for Dirkhising except do their best to
ensure that most Americans considered his and Shepard’s cases as somehow
“not the same thing.” They were — they were both evil, wrong, and
involved two aspects of the same condition, homosexuality. Reporting
both cases with equal vigor would have not only been sound news
judgment, but a fair and proper representation of the facts.
Shipp is obviously not interested in such balance.
To do what she has done to this story, as well as what she tried to
do to Joe Farah, makes her look like a whiny, pathetic little person
with the guts of an amoeba and the integrity of a tobacco lawyer.
However, in the meantime, WorldNetDaily readers should always
remember who their “friends in the business” really are. It’s
us, and we’re glad to have you.