Well, no word yet from the Washington Post's E.R. Shipp, who defamed me in a column last Sunday.

Maybe it's because I offended her by assuming E.R. Shipp is a man in my column yesterday.

So sorry, E.R. But given that the politically correct Washington Post refers to you as the "ombudsMAN," I thought for sure you were of the male sexual orientation. I hope this oversight doesn't come between a face-to-face debate over the journalistic standards and practices of the Big Media. I'm sure, given your lofty title and position at the Washington Post, you would have no problem commanding radio and television appearances for this important public policy dialogue between you and me.

I would also like to use this opportunity to solicit a public apology from you for linking me -- someone you obviously know nothing about -- to Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. If such a public retraction is not forthcoming on a goodwill basis, I can assure you that you and your newspaper will be hearing from my attorney shortly.

Shipp's piece is interesting in its absurdity in so many ways, it warrants more comment. It's illustrative of so much of what's wrong with the establishment press today.

I note that Shipp underlines the fact that "Arkansas authorities have not characterized the Dirkhising death as a hate crime." I have noted frequently in this column that one of the primary problems with the establishment press today is that it works hand in hand with government authorities -- often bowing to the agenda of officials, rather than questioning everything they do. Questioning authority is the primary role of a free press in a free society. People like Shipp have forgotten that fact -- if they ever understood it at all.

But what really gripes me is the way Ms. Shipp rationalizes the sensationalizing of one sensational murder and the ignoring of another. No one, to my knowledge, and certainly not I, had criticized the Washington Post by name for its lack of coverage of the Jesse Dirkhising murder. Nevertheless, Shipp felt it necessary to defend "non-coverage" of the story and attack the person most responsible for bringing the story to the nation's attention -- even to her attention.

She does this by impugning my motives and attempting to discredit me with a non-existent but implied association to Duke. Since when does a desire for balanced news coverage equate with being hostile to homosexuals?

Shipp asserts that the Matthew Shepard story was worthy of extensive coverage because it "had spread around the world." How did that happen without the extensive coverage? Are newsmen psychic today? Can they predict with 100 percent accuracy which stories are going to strike the public's fancy? The story did not spread on its own. The Post coverage was a big part of how it spread.

The lesson of this Post diatribe is this: Dare to point out the way the establishment press employs double standards by ignoring the Dirkhising murder and other disturbing stories that don't fit neatly into the "hate crime" mindset, and you risk being characterized as a racist homophobe -- a David Duke associate.

Essentially, Shipp asserts that the murder of homosexuals "raises a larger social issue" while murder of children by homosexuals is "routine." Whatever happened to the good, old days of journalism when the press reported the facts and let you decide what to make of them? In the Post's world of unreality, homosexuals simply do not kill children. Let's face it. If the major media ignore a story of this magnitude, it simply didn't happen for most Americans.

In the Post's eyes, homosexuals are always victims or heroes. There is no other way to portray them without being "insensitive" and homophobic. But what does such a standard have to do with reporting truth?

There's a huge push within the establishment press today for "diversity." Only if your editorial staff contains an appropriate number of blacks, homosexuals, women, etc., can your news organization properly cover the world, imply advocates of such standards. But such a standard pre-supposes that blacks, homosexuals and women all think alike -- or at least differently than white men. Nonsense. The only kind of diversity that is meaningful to balanced and thoughtful news coverage is diversity of philosophy, diversity of opinion, diversity in thought.

That kind of diversity is obviously not present in the news department of the Washington Post. And, it seems, E.R. Shipp and company are hypersensitive and more than a little defensive about that shortcoming.