Inky Shame

There is a continuing saga being played out in Harrisburg, and the Philadelphia Inquirer's website seems to have either no knowledge of the events or is selectively choosing not to print it. Here's the story, that is getting told in Pittsburgh.

According to the Post-Gazette, a judge in Harrisburg is allowing a grand jury to see evidence taken from a Democrat House research office. The office, which is supposed to be used strictly for legislative - not political - purposes, contained boxes of material, clearly meant for political activities. Among the items discovered were files tagged with names like "opposition research," "incumbent protection plan," and "memo on challenger in election."

While the Inquirer has published information about the probe recently, the thrust of their articles have focused on only 2 aspects of the investigation. First is the fact that legislative staffers, both Democrat and Republican the Inky makes sure to point out, received bonuses for campaign work. Of course Democrats want people to believe that the entire investigation is solely political and charge that Attorney General Tom Corbett (a Republican) is targeting them, not the other side of the aisle. The other angle they address is the pending legislation to ban such practices. Nothing like our state legislators acting just in the nick of time, eh?

But the Inky glazes over one important factor about the investigation and selectively chooses not to publish another. Glazing over the disparity between the amounts each party shelled out and (as of this post) omitting the clearly political nature of the evidence found in the Democrat office, indicates to me that the Inky may be allowing its political leanings to cloud its editorial judgement.