The strangest aspect of all of this was the Columbian's complete failure to investigate what actually happened, when and to whom.
Apparently, being observed in the act by democrat State Representative Eric Pettigrew was the final straw, according to my sources, in the well known act of then Rep. Jacks.
The Columbian's despicable efforts to cover for Jacks, a CRC water-carrier of the old school (Gunga Din could have taken lessons) gave local journalism another in the series of black eyes so richly deserved by the local rag.
Jacks, a stone alcoholic, had been mistreating female staff for almost the entirety of his tenure. The democrats in charge were well aware of these issues, and did nothing to rein him in.
Lefty Lou Brancaccio's softball interview of Jacks was the stuff of legend. That it was a cover-up, start to finish, where none of the details were investigated was obvious.
During the immediate fall out over Jacks being forced to resign, the democratian was the epitome of care and concern over their boy getting kicked out of the Legislature:
In fact, later on, Matt even urged us to pray for Jim and his family:
Yeah.... they'll miss him... like a Herpes outbreak.Matt Wastradowski (Columbian Staff) — March 25, 2011 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink suggest removal ) Ignore User )Councilman Burkman said it best -- give Jim & his family a break. He has served us well as one of our Representatives. The 49th will miss him. Say a prayer for Jim & his family. That's the best thing any of us can do right now.
A double standard to be sure, frequently ignored after that both by other commenters on other stories, and by the rag itself in, for example, their coverage of Lisa Walters.
Regardless of the issues surrounding Walter's resignation (a resignation personally disappointing to me, given the fringe-leftist whack job that will likely be replacing her) the democratian had no difficulty running a stick around through her entrails, delighting the crowd in providing the most intimate information about her life.
Is that their duty? Did we have to know these things? Was any of it relevant to the resignation?
Odd, isn't it: when they had a duty to dig into the multiple allegations against Jacks, they refused to do their jobs.
When no such duty concerning Walter's divorce situation existed, they appear to have taken great pleasure in exposing these painful, but completely irrelevant bits of information.
So, when it comes to Jacks, the rag required that his privacy be "respected."
When it came to Walters, they went way over the line into the salacious for no good reason.
And I've got to wonder: why was one given a complete pass when he was likely guilty of criminal activity, while the other was pilloried by the same newspaper.