Maybe the L.A. Times agrees with another Washington Post staff writer, Dafna Linzer, who justified the Post‘s decision to omit mention of McCarthy’s donations with this:
But we are living in partisan times and people want a partisan, political motive and explanation for everything. I don’t think that’s reasonable.
(Via Stephen Spruell.)
Exactly. Newspapers like Linzer’s Washington Post, or my hometown L.A. Times, simply don’t need to report campaign donations from controversial figures making politically charged allegations. For example, when the Swift Vets made their allegations, I don’t remember the L.A. Times running a story about John O’Neill’s political contributions. Do you?
Oh, right. That story.
P.S. Allah tries to make sense of the confusion regarding whether Mary McCarthy was the source for the “secret prisons” leaks.
UPDATE: The Commissar has a graphical “web of connections” between Democrats and McCarthy. It reminds me of another “web of connections” I once saw, with two differences: 1) the other “web of connections” purported to show Swift Vet ties to Republicans, and 2) it didn’t appear on some conservative blog, but in the New York Times.
Nope, no double standard here!