I am extremely troubled by your discussion of the Allen situation and The Washington Post reporting. Let me give you a few examples as to why:
1. Every person you quote is complaining that this has been overcovered. I am certain that you have received letters/e-mail complaining the reverse (since I am one of them) and wonder why you chose not to cite any of those.
2. The Washington Post has yet to have a serious discussion of George Allen's association with the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), which is a White Supremacist Organization. The Nation published an article on this a month ago (in their 9/11 issue, but online well before that) yet the Post has basically not had a word on this. There are many other issues, with this perhaps most serious, related to George Allen's "character" that have not been covered in the Post.
3. Re George F. Allen's use of the "N-word", your column suggests that the only evidence of this is from two anonymous sources. How many people have gone on the record so far? The count is over five that I know of -- and I doubt I know of all of them.
4. The Washington Post's reporting has, in the main, given Allen and the Allen staff a walk on the extent to which their words have moved from spinning to lies. For example, part of the point re Allen's ancestry is that he and his staff lied. Perhaps you should think about "what did he know and when did he know it". If Etty Allen had told George of his ancestry in August, how could he answer a question in the September debate and his staff release a press release the next day that, in essence, denied that George Allen had Jewish ancestry. Was this not a lie?
5. I am discomfitted about the suggestion that Salon should have been cited as "liberal". Question: Was their reporting not factual? Did their reporting stand up to journalistic standards? There is a difference between a column and an article. That was an article. If Salon is described as "liberal" in future Post reporting, will the Wall Street Journal (and others) be called "conservative"?
5. Post reporting has shown itself quite questionable in terms of its "fairness" in terms of covering the Senatorial race. For example, on the story on the first Webb-Allen debate, there were two "political observers" quoted: Congressman Tom Davis and Tom Davis, Jr, -- two Republican elected officials.
Your column suggests that The Washington Post is getting complaints from only one side -- that is not the case. Those in the reality-based world are concerned that The Washington Post is more concerned with not angering the Republican elite than in acting as serious journalists. I know that you have received complaints that too much has been left unsaid about George F. Allen's racist history and present. Yet, you failure to cite a single one of them suggests the very bias that we are already concerned about.
Sincerely,
XXXX