Serious question: is the Columbian "unbiased?"

As we complete the 26th consecutive day without any action or reporting on the Jim Jacks scandal by the local newspaper, I thought I'd examine their claim that they are "unbiased."

The Jacks question immediately comes to mind, but it's certainly not the only one.

As one of those on the receiving end of a Brancaccio jihad, I know that when he's motivated to engage in slash and burn assault, he can do so because no one holds him accountable for his efforts to harm others... others including myself, Brent Boger, Peter Van Nortwick and until very recently, David Madore.

The attacks were vicious and mean spirited, designed to injure in that the issues Brancaccio raised were essentially limited to both those wise enough to oppose his horrific agenda of enslaving the local populace to pay for his vision... without allowing us to vote... uncalled for and the height of ego-centric arrogance as well as being limited to those of the conservative bent.

Brancaccio, for his part, refuses to acknowledge that this smacks of partisanship in favor of the fringe left... an easily proven fact by asking the simple question:

Which democrat received similar treatment by Brancaccio or those working for him during that or any other time period?

Did, for example, Brancaccio tear a strip off of Leavitt for the campaign of lies he engaged in to get elected?

Nope.  Leavitt's complete lack of integrity and his ability to manipulate the more politically ignorant flew completely under Brancaccio's radar.  Why?

Well, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Leavitt publicly became that which I always knew him to be, would it?  It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Leavitt would now, publicly, carry Brancaccio's water like Gunga Din, would it?

I mean, compared to issues of supporting the replacement of the bridge and the loot rail issue driving it, issues like truth and integrity in our elected officials have no place for discussion... if that person carries a "d" after their name like Leavitt.

And where's Brancaccio's outrage over Steve Stuart's lies during his campaign concerning a November vote on light rail, not unlike Marc Boldt's lies to me concerning an advisory vote on the bridge/loot rail project this past November?

No where.

But he's got time to bust a cap in  my ass... when, in case he hasn't noticed... I'm not elected to anything.

Is that why he emailed me during his inquisition, hoping to get a reaction out of me, goading me and hurting people close to me?  Did it serve the community in any way to present a one-sided portrait of me that served his purposes?

Brancaccio and his lackey, Laird, continue to insist that they are non-partial.

That begs the question: who with a "d" after their name has received the kind of treatment that those listed in this post have received?

Where's Brancaccio's column focusing on Leavitt's employment with a CRC contractor, or Stuart's wife getting a gig with the pro-bridger/looter organization?

Justice Clarence Thomas is getting hammered because his wife was a lobbyist working for a group opposed to Obama care's socialist medicine scheme.  In fact, many of the weirder leftist democrats are demanding that Thomas recuse himself because of what his wife had done and is doing

What's Brancaccio's take?  Don't know, because the deafening cricket chirps have drowned out his non-response.  But what are chances that Lou would EVER hold Stuart accountable?

But there's no outrage, faux or otherwise, concerning that or any other corruption that supports his positions.  So his selective efforts tend to speak for themselves.

To insist, for example, that one lacks a partisan bias when one endorses only democrats and democrats alone for an entire election cycle for any open seat from the President on down to local representative would, on the face of it, typically cast one's "non-partisan" street cred into question.

I believe that, like me, the local paper is biased.  One of the major differences between me and Lou Brancaccio, however, is that I'm honest enough to admit it.

Meanwhile, the Columbian continues on its charade of news and nothing but news, claiming those efforts to be unsullied by bias or opinion.

That's absurdly untrue, however... in so many ways.

For one obvious example, this blog rips strips off of both parties and their members on a regular basis.  I've gone so far as to develop blogs that address the many foibles of both Jon Russell and Jamie Herrera.  I've also set up a restricted Brancaccio blog and one about Tim Leavitt.

My concern is corruption and corruptive influences.  The biggest and most corruptive influence in our community is the daily newspaper that dominates it.

I have repeatedly pointed out the numerous times where they've been wrong, where's they've twisted the facts, where they've protected the friends (like they're protecting Jacks) and excoriated their enemies (well, like me.)

And that is not what I believe a newspaper is supposed to do.  Deliberately misleading stories or blog entries are not the work of a responsible organization.  And it's certainly not the work of an unbiased news source/organization.

Is the paper "unbiased?"  I believe the facts speak for themselves... and that the facts convict them in the harsh light of day.
.