On Monday, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, ordered the National Guard into Ferguson, Missouri and declared a state of emergency in anticipation of a grand jury's decision about whether to criminally charge police officer Darren Wilson in the August death of Michael Brown. If only Nixon had called in the Guard, as virtually every governor of all political persuations did in response to the riots of the 1960s, when it became clear shortly after Brown's death that law and order had broken down in Ferguson. But he didn't, allowing all manner of mayhem and destruction to go on for days.
Sari Horwirtz and Wesley Lowery at the Washington Post reported Friday evening that Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice are upset at Nixon's actions. But the two reporters failed to tell readers what happened in Ferguson in August when Nixon didn't act. This gives DOJ's position credibility with many readers that it emphatically does not deserve (bolds are mine):
The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has put the kibosh on a book by whistleblower John Dodson not because he would disclose any sensitive, classified information but rather "because the agency says it would hurt morale," reported Washington Post staffer Sari Horwitz in Tuesday's paper in her 16-paragraph story, "ATF rejects 'Fast and Furious' book."
While clearly such a story is worthy of front-page coverage, editors shuffled it off to page A8. Among the stories on A1 today, the story least-worthy of front-page real estate was William Wan's "Apple for the teacher? In China, many think bigger." Wan's story focused on how bribery was crucial to procure slots at the better public schools in Communist China. An interesting story, but of less import to Americans than a federal agency quashing a book by a whistleblower.
In a 23-paragraph story -- headlined "States move to restrict gun magazines" in the print edition -- stacked heavily in favor of gun control advocates, the Washington Post's Sari Horwitz insulted her readers intelligence with sloppy reporting and baseless claims.
"Experts say limiting size of devices could reduce deaths in mass shootings," insisted the subheadline. But it turns out Horwitz only quoted one such "expert," David Chipman, who happened to be a "senior policy adviser for Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Two paragraphs later, Horwitz noted that "gun rights advocates" like Lawrence Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation dismiss that notion as "speculative at best." So what makes Chipman an expert while the senior vice president of a shooting sports trade group is not, other, that is, than the liberal journalist's biases on gun control?