Memo to Mr. Brancaccio:

I was quite taken with your column today... how unrealistic the praise you heaped upon your staff; even though loyalty downwards is an commendable trait... and your forgetfulness combined with, well, your rather bizarre concern over "personal attacks," given that you have, repeatedly, stooped to that level you're so concerned about whenever the mood struck you... as has a certain reporter... perhaps the one in question?

I was literally astounded at this most recent overt example of a double standard:

We run into the cheap shots as well. The other day we had a reporter who did a solid, informative story.

But some local blogger took her to task and began throwing out personal accusations. The accusations were completely false. (He has since retracted them.)

It’s one thing to call us names, tell us we don’t know how to do our jobs, accuse us of favoring the left (or the right.)

But when you stoop that low, to falsely attack us on a personal level, well, it is what it is.

Reporters aren’t looking for anyone’s sympathy. Maybe just to be treated like human beings. And we all make mistakes. But let’s hope a real reporter never gets into the garbage pile of false personal attacks.

And yet you, yourself, have falsely attacked those opposed to your view, positions or agenda... or those you just happen to oppose because they're Republican... or whatever.

Just review your multiple and unforgivable public assassination attempts of Peter Van Nortwick... and the same effort you were going to make against Brent Boger, before you were thrashed around the head and shoulder region and forced to stop.

And, of course, that doesn't even begin to address the one-sided vitriol you aimed at me and those who claim to know me... or even to be a friend.

Odd, then that someone who engages in those same "false attacks" whenever the mood strikes would be so concerned when that sort of thing comes your way.  My information was checked and double checked.  To my dismay, I had asked the wrong questions... and when I asked the right ones, I discovered my error and acted to address it.

The reporter in question, following your example, no doubt, has felt no compunction against engaging in the same false, misleading and exaggerated nonsense against me.  Shortly after that effort, she knew better.  Unlike me, however, she changed nothing.

Surely a FINE example of a "reporter working hard for" me.

Additionally, like every other story you or your people write that protect, or excuse in those you favor, her work was neither "solid" nor "informative."  It was, in fact, rife with inaccuracy and fallacy... which I have pointed out and proven... again, with no change to your paper's story.

That situation is not over, by any means.  And I am assured the outcome will be rather different then your newspaper would have us believe.  Because unfortunately, your paper has a record of lacking objectivity when it comes to either an agenda... or those who strive to implement it.

If your reporters stuck to the facts... if people like you or John Laird could even begin to consider the possibility that those of us who reject your tyrannical view of what's best for us could possibly consider concerns expressed over the almost laughable misreporting of the facts, say, on the CRC for most of the past several years, could possibly have merit... and are not worthy of your scorn and contempt... then we would most likely not be on the opposite sides of so very many issues.

So, when you write:

But when you stoop that low, to falsely attack us on a personal level, well, it is what it is.

Are we to then arrive at the same conclusions when you or one of your reporters engage in that very thing?

Certainly in the name of ethics, you wouldn't presume to have us apply one standard to others "attacking on a personal level" while applying a different standard to you when you do precisely the same thing?

Thank you, Mr. Brancaccio... I've enjoyed our little chat.