Peter Finn

Um, Fort Hood? WashPost Headline Cites Boston as First Terror 'Success' In a Decade
By Tim Graham | April 16, 2013 | 12:20 PM EDT

One of the Washington Post's front-page stories on the Boston bombing had this headline when the story turned to page A7: "After a decade of plots foiled or botched, one success." That's a strange headline that seems to forget the "successful" terror attack at Fort Hood. Six paragraphs below that headline, reporters Scott Wilson and Peter Finn recall 13 dead and 30 wounded by Major Nidal Hasan.

After noting the failures of Omar Abdulmutallab (the unsuccessful "underwear bomber") and Faisal Shahzad (whose Times Square van bomb didn't detonate),  Wilson and Finn unspooled six paragraphs of publicity for the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to underline America's "far right" domestic threat:

WashPost Waits Until 12th Paragraph of Story to Note Newtown Father Backs NRA Plan for School Safety
By Ken Shepherd | April 3, 2013 | 5:25 PM EDT

In his 19-paragraph page A4 story headlined "NRA-backed study urges armed staff at schools," staff writer Peter Finn waited until the 12th paragraph to mention that a father of a slain student at Sandy Hook was at the NRA's April 2 news conference in which former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.) unveiled a "National School Shield Program" that detailed how school districts might arm security guards and/or teachers to thwart potential attacks by shooters.

Of course Finn made sure to quote the scathing attack of a liberal critic a few paragraphs earlier. "Today's report is nothing more than a continuation of the NRA's attempts to prey on America's fears, saturate our schools with more guns and turn them into armed fortresses," Finn quoted Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund, who added that the NRA's plan "must be soundly rejected."

Obama May Issue 'Signing Statement' On Bill Forbidding Gitmo Detainees to Be Brought Stateside; WaPo Places Story on Page A8
By Ken Shepherd | January 4, 2011 | 4:12 PM EST

The "White House is constantly grabbing for more power, seeking to drive the people's branch of government to the sidelines," Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) thundered in June 2007 following a report on President Bush's use of "signing statements."

"The administration is thumbing its nose at the law," Rep. John Conyers agreed, as noted at the time by the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman.

Signing statements made their way into the presidential campaign, with then-candidate Obama telling voters that "We’re not going to use signing statements to do an end run around Congress."

Now three years later, congressional Republicans are concerned President Obama may do just that as regards a law Obama will sign which prohibits transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay stateside for trial.

The Washington Post has the story, but placed it at the bottom of page A8. What's more, writers Peter Finn and Anne Kornblut failed to mention that then-Senator Obama was critical of President George W. Bush for his alleged misuse of signing statements (emphasis mine):